Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
President Bush Will To Announce Plan To Send At Least 21,000 More U.S. Troops To Iraq; Some In Congress Working To Keep Two Border Patrol Agents Out Of Jail; House of Representatives Votes To Raise Federal Minimum Wage; Dana Rohrabacher Interview; Election Victories in Latin America Sweep Three Hard-Line Socialists Into Office
Aired January 10, 2007 - 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: Three hours from now President Bush will deliver one of the most important speeches of his presidency. President Bush will announce what is being called by the White House a new strategy in Iraq to break the cycle of violence.
We'll have excerpts of the president's speech. We'll have analysis.
And two former U.S. Border Patrol agents scheduled to go to prison next week for doing their job shooting a Mexican drug smuggler given immunity by the U.S. Justice Department. Some in Congress are furious. One of those lawmakers, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, is among our guests here tonight.
All of that, all of the day's news and more, straight ahead here tonight.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, news, debate and opinion for Wednesday, January 10th.
Live in New York, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening, everybody.
President Bush tonight will announce that he is sending at least 21,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq. The White House says the president will also acknowledge past mistakes in strategy and conduct of the war in Iraq. The president believes his new strategy will help the United States succeed in a war that has now lasted longer than World War II and produced failure upon failure.
Congressional Democrats strongly oppose what they say is an escalation of the war in Iraq. But those Democrats are far from united on how they will respond to the president's intent to raise the number of troops.
Suzanne Malveaux at the White House tonight, reporting on the president's speech.
Dana Bash reports from Capitol Hill on the Democratic strategy, or lack of it in the conduct of the war in Iraq.
Jamie McIntyre tonight reports from the Pentagon on whether the president's plan will succeed or fail.
We turn first to Suzanne Malveaux -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, clearly the president's credibility is on the line. It was just two months ago he said we were winning this Iraq war and, of course, that is not the case now.
There have been a lot of P.R. campaigns. There have been a series of speeches and new policies. The big question tonight, is this going to really be a viable strategy or is just going to be another pep rally?
Senior administration officials, of course, telling us that he is going to roll out a plan. He's going to acknowledge failure. This is from one of the excerpts of the speech.
He says, "Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons. There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. There were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes."
So there's a sense that they have more confidence in this military plan. Of course, that that would include 21 more -- 21,000 more American troops headed to the region, as well as Iraqi forces which would take the lead when it comes to Baghdad's security.
Another important point here. He says in another excerpt, "I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people."
And Lou, that really is the big question. What does that mean? What is the timetable?
We understand the president, of course, is going to say he would hope that the Iraqi troops are able to secure their country by November. But in terms of whether or not there's a plan B, this administration cannot answer that question -- Lou.
DOBBS: Can this administration, Suzanne, answer the question whether the Joint Chiefs of Staff approve of the president's recommendations to come tonight on a change of strategy and reinforcements to the U.S. military in Iraq?
MALVEAUX: A senior administration official who briefed us earlier today said they had the support of the office in the Joints Chiefs. But I have to tell you, Lou, people who I have spoken to privately say that that is not the case.
There's a lot of frustration in the Pentagon, as well as in that office, that some really believe, have serious doubts about this strategy. A, whether it makes sense. And B, whether or not it's going to be adequate.
DOBBS: Suzanne, thank you very much.
Suzanne Malveaux reporting from the White House.
President Bush's new plan faces many formidable military and political obstacles in Iraq. There are also concerns tonight that the president is not sending an adequate number of reinforcements to defeat the insurgency outright. Some military analysts say that an extra 50,000 troops would be required in Iraq to achieve substantial victory.
Jamie McIntyre reports now from the Pentagon.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Pentagon officials say the infusion of five Army brigades into Baghdad will be accomplished by what's called a modest acceleration of already-scheduled deployments and will not, at least initially, require sending any troops back to Iraq who were there last year.
First in, say Pentagon sources, will be a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division from Ft. Bragg, already on standby in Kuwait. Next will be the 4th Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division based in Fort Riley, Kansas. Additional brigades will follow from Ft. Lewis, Washington, and Ft. Stewart and Ft. Benning, Georgia.
While the plan will avoid breaking the Army's promise to soldiers to give them at least a year off from the battlefield, it will extend by four months the tour of one National Guard brigade from Minnesota already in Iraq.
President Bush is ordering the troop increase over the reservations of some senior commanders, including some members of the Joints Chiefs of Staff who warn, unless the Iraqis suddenly do more, the plan could just make things worse.
COL. DOUG MACGREGOR, U.S. ARMY (RET.): The notion that we're going to distribute small numbers of light infantrymen into neighborhoods, winning over the goodwill of the population, is delusional. What we really risk is the loss of substantial American life with that particular tactic.
MCINTYRE: But the Pentagon argues the additional U.S. forces will use completely different tactics to prop up the Iraqi troops and ensure they hold Baghdad neighborhoods after they are cleared.
FREDERICK KAGAN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INST.: I think it can work. I really think that if we undertake this with the level of forces that we're proposing, this is a feasible undertaking. I really think we've talked ourselves into believing that this problem is insoluble.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: In the short term, the Pentagon says it can provide the reinforcements without putting too much more strain on the U.S. military. But if the need for additional troops extends past August, which it may likely, then Pentagon sources say that the Army is going to have to look at eliminating the policy of limiting Guard and Reserve deployments to Iraq to just 24 months and start sending back some of those Guard members and reservists who have already served two years in the war zone -- Lou.
DOBBS: Jamie, the same question, which you in part have answered in your report that I asked Suzanne Malveaux. Where do the chiefs of staff, the joint chairman, stand on this proposal by the president?
MCINTYRE: Well, as near as I can tell from the private conversations that I've had, they've signed off on the plan. They're willing to give it a shot. But this was not their idea and not their preferred option. But they're willing to sort of support it on the idea that the increase of troops is not just for the sake of increasing troops for some political reason, but that it's tied to a real strategy on the ground.
And they've tried very hard to come up with that strategy to really change the dynamic. The big question is, will it work? And frankly, a lot of people are pretty pessimistic, but they're willing to give it a shot.
DOBBS: Thank you very much.
Jamie McIntyre from the Pentagon.
Insurgents in Iraq have killed three more of our troops. Two were killed in Al Anbar province, west of Baghdad. Another was killed north of the Iraqi capital city.
Thirteen of ours troops have been killed so far this month in Iraq. 3,018 of our troops killed since the beginning of the war. 22,834 of our troops wounded, 10, 191 of them so seriously they could not return to duty within three days.
Congressional Democrats say public concern over the rising number of American deaths in Iraq has given them a mandate to resist the president's proposals tonight. Democratic leaders in the Senate and the House are planning votes on the president's proposals, but Republican leaders say the American public wants and expects victory in Iraq.
Dana Bush reports from Capitol Hill -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, the president has been meeting with lawmakers from both parties all week. It was just today, however, that he called the bipartisan congressional leadership down to the White House to brief them on his Iraq plan.
Democrats emerged from the White House complaining about the fact that they were not consulted ahead of time, as they said they were promised. Harry Reid, even -- the Senate majority leader -- even said that the president was practicing his speech just before they got there. But they also made clear standing right on the president's driveway that his plan to send more troops into Iraq is the wrong one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: Members of Congress, Democrats, for certain, questioned in some detail what the additional troops would do. And again, speaking for me, I am at a loss as to what's going to happen with these additional troops.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BASH: Democrats are now united on their opposition to the president's plan to increase troop levels in Iraq, but not on what to do about it. They're struggling behind the scenes on whether or not they should try to block funding for those additional troops, whether they should support a resolution reauthorizing the war, so to speak. But what they do agree on now is they're going to have test votes in the House and the Senate, put the president's resolution on the floor of both bodies, and essentially gauge the support for the president's plan that way.
What they need in order to show what they say is true -- that there isn't a lot of isn't a lot of support in Congress and among the American people for his plan -- they are going to need Republicans to defect, Lou. The leadership today said that they do support president, but we do have new signs of Republican defections.
For example, Senator Sam Brownback, a presidential hopeful, just a short while ago issued a statement saying that he opposes the president's plan to send more troops. In addition, we had on the Senate floor a formal statement of opposition from Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota.
So, those are two interesting signs of how much the politics have changed here on Capitol Hill, how much more the president is isolated when it comes to his war policy -- Lou.
DOBBS: Dana, thank you.
Dana Bash from Capitol Hill.
Many lawmakers now doubt that Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki has the political will to launch a military offensive against radical Islamist terrorists. Al-Maliki today warned those terrorists they must lay down their arms or face an all-out assault. But al-Maliki has failed to support previous U.S. efforts to confront radical Islamists in Iraq, particularly the Shia.
Ryan Chilcote reports from Baghdad.
Ryan, does anyone believe there that Prime Minister al-Maliki will actually crack down on the Shia radical Islamist terrorists?
RYAN CHILCOTE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I think you've hit the nail on the head. There is a lot of trust that the prime minister, who is a Shiite, is ready to go after the Sunni-Arab insurgents. There is not as much trust that the prime minister is ready to go after the Shiite insurgents, or the Shiite militias, as they're called here.
This prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has been in power since the spring of 2006, and he has yet to go after those Shiite militias, yet. In fact, as you pointed out, back in October, he actually pulled U.S. troops back from an area of the city called Sadr City, where the largest Shiite militia operates. It's called the Mehdi army.
Politically, keep in mind, this is very precarious, going after the Shiite militias, for this prime minister. His government is actually still allied at this point with the leader of that largest Shiite militia, the Mehdi army. So, he would have to change his political -- the composition of his government if he really wants to do that.
Now, he -- the Bush administration maintains that they have a pledge from the Iraqi prime minister that he is willing to go after the Shiite militias. But publicly, he has not said that he is ready to go after the Mehdi army -- Lou.
DOBBS: The Mehdi army, which is led, of course, by Muqtada al- Sadr, who is also the sponsor and upon whom al-Maliki can base his good fortune, if you can call it that, to be the prime minister. There has been no indication whatsoever that he would back off from al-Sadr or that he would go after his militia.
How quickly could that operation be put into effect to disarm the militia in Sadr City?
CHILCOTE: Well, it would take a lot of planning and a lot of troops. And I think that Sadr City would not be the first place that the U.S. troops and the Iraqi troops would go.
You know, they have this Baghdad security plan which calls for them to go into all of the neighborhoods in the Iraq capital and disarm everyone, including the Mehdi army. But I would think that the -- you know, the Iraqi commanders that I have been talking to, they suggest that that wouldn't be the first place they'd want to go.
They'd want to amass their troops, the Iraqi troops. They need to bring three more brigades of Iraqi troops in, and they'd probably like to see some more of those U.S. troops on hand before they go after the Mehdi army, because they're going to need a lot of troops to do it. It's probably going to be a very big fight.
DOBBS: A very big fight. Is it one that the Iraqis have the stomach for?
CHILCOTE: It is questioned whether the Iraqi government has the stomach for it. I think a lot of the Iraqi people have the stomach for it. I think that the Iraqi army has the stomach for it.
I was just talking to the deputy chief of staff of the Iraqi army. He thinks that if they go in there with the U.S. troops, that the Mehdi army will run. Obviously, there a lot people who don't think that. But it is -- it is possible that we could see this. But even before we see a crackdown, we're going to have to see some steps by the Iraqi government that suggests that this is even something that they're ready to do.
For example, there are six members of the government right now from Sadr's bloc, who leads the Mehdi army. You would think that the Iraqi government would want to get rid of those ministers before they go after the Mehdi army -- Lou.
DOBBS: OK. Ryan Chilcote from Baghdad.
Thank you.
Still ahead here tonight, a last-minute effort to prevent two former U.S. Border Patrol agents from going to prison in a case that has sparked national outrage.
We'll have that report.
And a legal victory for local law enforcement agencies trying to tackle our illegal immigration crisis, one that the federal government refuses to do.
We'll have that story.
And some of the country's most dangerous enemies joining forces to challenge U.S. interests around the world. And particularly in this hemisphere.
We'll have that special report and a great deal more still ahead.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: New developments tonight in a case we've been reporting on extensively on this broadcast. Two former U.S. Border Patrol agents were convicted of shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who was given immunity by the U.S. Justice Department to testify against the two agents. Some members of Congress are working to keep those agents out of jail. And for once, the Bush administration appears to be near cooperation.
Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Texas congressman Ted Poe led a group of lawmakers demanding the Justice Department not oppose a request that former Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos remain out of prison while their convictions for shooting an illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler are appealed. As we've reported, Ramos and Compean received 11 and 12-year sentences, while the Bush administration gave the wounded, allegedly unarmed drug smuggler, immunity from prosecution. REP. TED POE (R), TEXAS: And our federal government had the choice to make of being on the side a drug dealer who was bringing in a million dollars worth of drugs, or the side of two border agents that apparently were just enforcing the rule of law.
WIAN: Among issues expected to be raised during the agents' appeal, the grant of immunity and other benefits given to Oscar Aldrete-Davila, who was caught again smuggling an even bigger load of dope into the United States. And allegations of jury misconduct.
Texas federal judge Kathleen Cardone (ph) is expected to rule later this week on the agents' request to remain free until the appeal is heard.
REP. ED ROYCE (R), CALIFORNIA: It would be a grave miscarriage of justice if they were to be sent to prison for simply doing their job. Out of concern for their safety, they should not go to prison and should remain free on bond, pending their appeal.
WIAN: They're scheduled to surrender next Wednesday.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: In this case, we'll have two of our best Border Patrol agents put in confinement with the very people that they brought to justice. That's like sending our soldiers or our Marines who have been -- who have been prosecuted into a confinement with al Qaeda.
WIAN: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT has learned the Justice Department will not oppose the bail request. Still, lawmakers are outraged President Bush refuses to intervene.
REP. WALTER JONES (R), NORTH CAROLINA: I am very, very disappointed in the indifference by this White House as it relates to these two men and their families.
WIAN: Under their current bail agreement, Ramos and Compean are not allowed to appear together. Compean spoke for both.
JOSE COMPEAN, FMR. BORDER PATROL AGENT: Speaking for my fellow agents continuing to hold the line, I want to thank you, the American people, for all of your support.
WIAN: More than 220,000 Americans have signed petitions demanding the former agents be pardoned.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: Supporters say they believe that public pressure may be instrumental in keeping the agents out of prison. At least for now -- Lou.
DOBBS: Casey, thank you very much.
Casey Wian.
A criminal illegal alien who fled to Mexico after the murder of a sheriff's deputy nearly five years ago is back again in this country tonight. The suspect, Armando Garcia, was finally turned over by Mexican authorities after fighting extradition for nearly a year.
The government of Mexico initially refused to hand Garcia over because he could face the death penalty for his actions. As part of the extradition agreement with the Los Angeles County district attorney, not to seek the death penalty. Instead, life without parole.
Garcia is accused of murdering 33-year-old Los Angeles County deputy David March (ph) following a routine traffic stop in 2002. As we have reported here, this case is a shocking example of how criminal illegal aliens are easily escaping justice by running back to Mexico.
In the past year, more than 50 criminal illegal aliens were extradited from Mexico. Half of them were wanted here for murder.
Local police, forced a deal with criminal illegal aliens, were hand victory by a federal court. The court dismissed a lawsuit aimed at preventing local police from arresting illegal aliens. The court did not rule on the principal issues of the case but did rule that the parties bringing the lawsuit had no legal standing whatsoever to do so.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At the heart of the dispute is, should immigration fugitives be allowed a free pass from arrest by state and local police?
Currently, there are 113,000 such fugitives listed in the National Crime and Information Center database, according to law enforcement sources. These are illegal aliens who were arrested, had a hearing before an immigration court judge, ordered deported, and who then fled in defiance of that order.
The National Council of La Raza and other illegal alien advocates filed a complaint, arguing that such arrests are unconstitutional and prohibited by Congress.
BAHER AZMY, SETON HALL UNIV. LAW SCHOOL: The statute, this national criminal information center statute, does not authorize the federal government to put in civil or immigration records. It only authorizes them to put in criminal records so that the federal government is exceeding their authority.
TUCKER: The case was dismissed by district judge Leo Glasser (ph), who found that the plaintiffs had no standing. Meaning, they could not show how they were harmed by the current practice.
La Raza and its fellow plaintiffs argue that they're seriously concerned that constitutional law is at risk. Advocates for immigration law enforcement see another motive. MARK KRIKORIAN, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Really, the objective there is to obstruct enforcing the immigration law as much as possible, because La Raza and the rest of the plaintiffs just don't like the idea that illegal aliens can't get and stay in the United States. I mean, it's as simple as that.
TUCKER: There is currently no prohibition by Congress on state and local authorities from enforcing immigration law. In fact, Congress has established a program to facilitate such cooperation and outlawed cities from declaring themselves exempt from immigration law known as sanctuary policies.
Officials at Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined comment on the ruling, citing the possibility of an appeal by the plaintiffs.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Now, lawyers for the plaintiffs that we spoke to today say they have 60 days to make up their mind about any appeal.
And, Lou, they say they will weigh their decision carefully.
DOBBS: Weigh their decision carefully?
TUCKER: Yes.
DOBBS: And I wonder what the values are by which they will make that determination. The idea that the 1996 federal law prohibits states, any entity in this country from being a sanctuary, the Justice Department is not enforcing that law either. And that is a question that Alberto Gonzales should be answering to the American people right now.
TUCKER: And the critics will be quick to point out, Lou, they outlawed it, but they put no provisions for punitive sanctions into it. So, it's basically a law that says you can't rob a bank, but go ahead because we can't put you in jail for it.
DOBBS: A remarkable country that we are building here, thanks to a group of -- an ever-growing group of special interests who are making their will known well ahead of that of the American people.
Bill Tucker, thank you. At least one victory. We'll take that every time.
That brings us to our poll question tonight.
Do you believe, as La Raza states, that the arrest of an illegal alien fugitive by state or local police is unconstitutional? Yes or no?
Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results for you here later.
Up next, one congressman's efforts to keep two U.S. Border Patrol agents from going to prison is having some success. I'll be talking with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher about his fight for their rights.
And for the first time in 10 years, the House of Representatives has voted to boost the federal minimum wage. Now, Congress has eight times previously raised its own while denying that to low-wage workers in this country. This measure passed in the House the second day in session.
We'll have that report.
And Latin American socialist leaders, leftists, form a dangerous alliance. And the United States isn't responding. Iran's president is though. He's going to visit the hemisphere.
Stay with us. We'll have that story, a great deal more, straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: For the first time in 10 years, the House of Representatives has voted to raise the pay of someone other than themselves. They voted to raise the federal minimum wage. As one congressman put it, the lowest-paid Americans have been receiving a federal poverty wage, not a federal minimum wage.
Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The federal minimum wage has not been raised in 10 years. Take into account rising gas, housing and food prices, and the effective minimum wage has not been this low since 1955. Eisenhower was in the White House and Elvis was singing "Heartbreak Hotel."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But these days, it's poor folks, poor working folks who have the heartbreaks when the minimum wage is not even close to being a living wage.
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: The bill is passed.
SYLVESTER: By a vote of 315-116, largely along party lines, the House of Representatives approved a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour, phased in over the next two years.
REP. GEORGE MILLER (D), CALIFORNIA: The lowest-paid workers in America have been frozen out of the economy of this country. They have ended up every year, after going to work every day, every, every month, they ended up poor.
SYLVESTER: The Senate will now take up similar legislation. Business groups are against raising the wages earned by those at the bottom of the economic scale, arguing it would be detrimental to small companies. The owner of 21 Wendy's franchises testified at a Senate hearing. BRUCE OBENOUR, AKWEN, LTD., DUBLIN, OHIO: On January 1st, the minimum wage in the state of Ohio increased to $6.85. That may not sound like much, but the cost of 41 cents more an hour equates to $370,000 annually to my business.
SYLVESTER: While Democrats want a clean minimum wage bill, Republicans back attaching business tax breaks. Without them, they say workers will lose their jobs.
REP. JEB HENSARLING (R), TEXAS: Some will have a mandated pay raise in America. Those will be the lucky ones. Many more will have their hours cut, Mr. Speaker. Many will have their benefits cut.
SYLVESTER: But critics say corporate America and business owners have had it good for the last decade, receiving numerous tax breaks while low-paid workers were ignored by Congress.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: And as for this argument that small businesses are hurt by an increase in the minimum wage, a study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found states that raised its minimum wage above the federal level actually saw an increase in the number of small businesses, not a decrease -- Lou.
DOBBS: And, of course, that is a reality that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbying groups just simply want to ignore, but it is an awfully good sign that this Congress, in its second major piece of legislation, has chosen to ignore the absurd, moronic posturings of business lobbies, in my opinion.
SYLVESTER: We'll have to see now what Senate does, Lou.
DOBBS: Well, they got a clean bill through the House, and if the Senate doesn't do as well, there will be some requirement to ask what has happened to the conscience of those lawmakers in the Senate. Thank you very much, Lisa Sylvester, reporting from Washington.
Time now for some of your thoughts.
Thomas in California: "This forthcoming Social Security totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico stopped me right in my tracks. This agreement is completely egregious toward legal United States citizens. Only big business and the illegal aliens from Mexico benefit, while the hard-working middle class, legal citizens of the United States, once again get slapped in the face."
Thomas in Florida: "Should our National Guard personnel run when confronted by armed Mexicans? Hell yes. Look what happened to the two Border Patrol agents that are now wards of the state for doing their jobs. Are we screwed up or what?"
And Larry in South Carolina: "Lou, the National Guard troops must retreat, otherwise they will wind up in jail with the two Border Patrol agents." Send us your thoughts to LouDobbs.com. More of your thoughts coming up here later. And each of you whose e-mail is read here receives a copy of my book, "The War on the Middle Class."
Up next, in just one week, Agents Compean and Ramos expected to report to authorities. Will they go to prison? One of the Congressman fighting for their freedom will be here to discuss the chances of correcting what is being called an outrageous miscarriage of justice.
And a dangerous alliance between left-wing leaders in Latin American and the president of Iran. We'll have a special report on the threat this alliance may pose to U.S. interests, especially in our hemisphere.
And New Jersey's Governor Corzine is consider plans to sell off the taxpayer-owned New Jersey Turnpike, perhaps the Garden State Parkway -- you got it -- to private, possibly foreign interests. You've got to love America. We'll be right back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: As we've reported earlier in this broadcast, congressional efforts today to help convicted Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos clear their names and keep from going to prison.
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher among the leaders of the effort to keep these men free. He's been at the forefront the movement and joins us tonight.
Good to you have with us tonight, Congressman.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, thank you for bringing this to the attention of the American people.
DOBBS: Congressman, you've presented, along with other members of Congress, a letter to Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. attorney general. Any hope, realistic hope, that he's going to respond in any positive way?
ROHRABACHER: Well, a week from today, if he does not and this administration does not act, we will have two heroic individuals who for five and 10 years have put their lives on the line for us, willing to take a bullet to protect our families and our community, they're going to send them off to prison for what they did trying to stop a drug dealer from coming in from Mexico.
And I will tell you, we have sent letters to Gonzales, to the attorney general. He doesn't even give us the courtesy as elected officials of returning our phone calls directly. Has some underlings do it.
DOBBS: The idea that Republicans, both in the administration and the Congress -- and you're one of -- and all of -- nearly every one of the Congressmen I'm familiar with was Republican in that letter to the president. Not getting a response at all, the arrogance of that is breathtaking to me. How do you respond to it?
ROHRABACHER: Well, listen, I've supported the president in Iraq for example and have been very vocal in trying to make this a successful administration. I am, after all, a Republican. But first and foremost, I am an American, and we expected that the president was going to be on the side of the good guys, the Americans.
And here he is, you know, bringing down two men who are our greatest defenders after he's willing to send people clear across the world to defend us against our enemies. But he's leaving the southern border open and he's undermining the morale of our defenders.
DOBBS: How can Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. attorney general, how can this president, this administration, possibly refuse to enforce that border? We're in a time of a war on radical Islamic terror, at a time when it's the principle source of methamphetamines, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin into this country. Is this not the most cynical position that any administration could possibly take?
ROHRABACHER: Well, it is bizarre. There's a bizarre policy in place here. The president's not wanted to admit to us like in the totalization agreement where they've included illegal immigrants to get Social Security benefits. He hasn't wanted to admit to us exactly what his policy is towards Mexico.
And who has to pay for it? Who ends up getting hurt? Our Border Patrol agents, the guys who are trying to protect us. Of course, the other people getting hurt are the people who are being raped and murdered by illegal immigrants who come into our society, the criminals who now know the southern border is opened.
DOBBS: Well, not only opened, that when confronted by the Border Patrol or our National Guard will actually retreat in the face of armed illegal aliens crossing into this country.
ROHRABACHER: Lou, but the people -- the only way this is going to be solved -- we can't just rely on the president. He's obviously a hard-headed man.
DOBBS: No, we can't rely on the president, at all.
ROHRABACHER: But we have to rely on each other, and Americans have to step forward. It's only the outrage that -- the righteous outrage of the American people. They need to call the White House. They need to say that if Ramos and Compean are not given a pardon, if they go to jail, the president has declared himself on the side of enemy.
DOBBS: I think that's where we're going to have to leave it. Congressman, we thank you. We thank you for everything you're trying to do to introduce justice to the Justice Department and to this administration. We thank you, sir.
ROHRABACHER: Thank you.
DOBBS: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Up next, more leftist leaders taking power in Latin American. They're forming an alliance against U.S. interests in this hemisphere as well, with the president of Iran. We'll have that special report.
And New Jersey's governor, Jon Corzine, considering plans to sell off the taxpayer-owned New Jersey Turnpike and possibly the Jersey Parkway -- the Garden State Parkway, to private, foreign interests? Novel idea. And, unfortunately, it's one that's catching hold across the country. We'll have the details on this outrageous new approach to fiscal management.
Also tonight, our political panel joins us with their calculations on the president's proposed troop surge. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: A socialist trend is growing across much of Latin America. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who calls President Bush the devil, sworn in for a third time. Across the region, government's turning to the left. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Latin America, election victories sweeping three hard-line socialists into office. All deep foes of the United States. Today taking the oath of office, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Chavez then travelling to Nicaragua, President Daniel Ortega swearing in in Nicaragua. And Monday, Ecuador's new socialist president Raphael Correa takes office.
They are already reaching out to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Last year, Venezuela's Chavez defended Iran's right to nuclear ambitions.
CHRISTOPHER GARMAN, EURASIA GROUP: Chavez has been at the forefront of such overtures and trying to develop greater economic ties and so I think this is a visit to strengthen those types of relationships.
PILGRIM: Today, during his swearing-in, Venezuelan's Chavez was not shy about calling on other icons, both political and religious, to his socialist cause, no matter how preposterous the connection.
With his hand raised, he paraphrased communist Fidel Castro's slogan, "homeland socialism or death," adding, "I swear by Christ, the greatest socialist in history."
In 2006, nine Latin American countries had a change of government. In seven, left-leading candidates were elected, but President Ahmadinejad of Iran is visiting the most virulent socialist leaders in four countries: Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia.
IAN VASQUEZ, CATO INSTITUTE: Many people may be entranced by populist claims and populist movements right now, but in the coming years, we're going to see a divergence of economic performance between those countries that are opening up and maintaining democracy and those that are going in the other direction.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The White House commented on the socialist trend thing. These type of actions do not produce economic benefits. But then added, if U.S. companies are affected, we expect them to be fairly and promptly compensated -- Lou?
DOBBS: So they're looking at the entire issue in terms of commerce.
PILGRIM: They are.
DOBBS: Rather than geopolitically.
PILGRIM: It seems like that is.
DOBBS: And this is what they call a foreign policy? Kitty Pilgrim, thank you very much.
A reminder to vote in our poll tonight. Do you believe, as La Raza has stated, that the arrest of an illegal alien fugitive by state or local police is unconstitutional? Yes or no. Cast your votes at LouDobbs.com. The results coming up in a few minutes.
New Jersey's Governor Jon Corzine tonight skirting the issue of whether he would sell the New Jersey Turnpike to private, possibly foreign interests. Last night on this program, we reported on federal encouragement of states to sell off taxpayer-fund state roads to raise money.
Corzine, in his annual message, didn't mention the turnpike specifically, but instead talked of selling some taxpayer-owned assets. New Jersey could earn some $20 billion, it is estimated by some, from the sale of the 148-mile long toll road.
Still ahead, our political roundtable will be here. We'll be talking about Jon Corzine and other people for big ideas for things owned not by them. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The revolving door in Washington just keeps on spinning. Former Montana Senator Conrad Burns, who had ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, lost his old job as senator, has a new one. Burns becomes what else? A lobbyist.
He'll be working for his former chief of staff. Yes, he is a lobbyist as well. Burns won't be able to begin work, however, just yet. Senate rules prohibit former members from lobbying their former colleagues for a whole year. But I'm sure they'll find something for him to do in the interim.
Meanwhile, there is more fallout tonight from the Abramoff scandal. The "Washington Post" is reporting the interior department's former No. 2 official Steven Griles is now a target of a government corruption probe. Abramoff is serving six years in prison. He is awaiting sentencing on charges that include tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials.
And now we turn to politics. And for that we turn to Ed Rollins, former Reagan White House political director, Republican strategist. Hank Sheinkopf, Democratic strategist. Mark Halperin, political director ABC News, also the author of the book that has America trembling with fear, "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008" Good to you have all with us.
Let's start with the president's speech tonight. Ed, what's he gonna say?
ED ROLLINS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well I think everything he's going to say has already been said in the newspaper the last three or four days. He's going to put 20,000-25,000 more troops there.
What's still not clear is what is the strategy and what is the long-term commitment? And this isn't going to convince anybody of anything. I think it's just a perfunctory process. But I think the counter to it is the Democrats are throwing their bipartisanship aside and they're going to basically right off the bat, vote some sort of an idiotic resolution that is going to say that they're not supportive of anything he does.
DOBBS: That resolution, would it be idiotic?
HANK SHEINKOPF, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think the larger resolution was enacted by the people of this country, less than -- a little bit more than two months ago where they said this has got to stop. And that was the resolution that matters. There's nothing idiotic about enacting the people's will or at least telling the president, by the way, do what the people want.
MARK HALPERIN, ABC NEWS: I don't think the speech, as Ed suggested, is going to matter that much. We know what he's going to say. It doesn't have public support, it doesn't have congressional support, even amongst Republicans.
We know what the Democrat reaction is. I think the action now is the president's response to the Democratic response. Does he ignore them? Does he precipitate a constitutional crisis? I think that's what we're going to have to see in the next two or three days.
DOBBS: Harry Reid, the majority leader, Speaker Pelosi, both are sending very strong signals to this White House. Will that be -- is there any chance in the world that President Bush will pay attention?
ROLLINS: No, he's not paying going to attention and that's obvious. The critical thing here is are the Democrats going to do something to jeopardize our troops? And I think a resolution means nothing, but if they basically start playing with the funding or start playing with the numbers of troops that can go there, that's a pretty courageous step. And I don't think they have the guts to do that, or at least I hope now.
DOBBS: Ed Rollins is challenging Pelosi and Reid.
ROLLINS: No, I just think it's not a good thing to our troops that are there basically, still trying to carry out -- and the American public didn't vote clearly on this, they wanted a change. But they weren't saying, "Pull our troops out today."
SHEINKOPF: What was the issue of the moment? The issue of the moment was war...
ROLLINS: There were a number of issues. And I think the critical thing here is we have troops there and we still have to -- we have to make sure that our troops are being protected.
DOBBS: Well, it is, to me, unfortunate that at this particular point we still do not have a debate in this Congress or with this president, a national dialogue about -- with any certainty, with any -- and certainty is too strong a word -- but with a clear light toward what the results would be of the policy choices before us.
HALPERIN: I think we're going to have it. I think the hearings that are starting tomorrow with leading Democratic -- Bush administration officials, with leading senators on the committees, the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, I think theses are going to be serious hearings with serious debate.
I think the country is going to get a chance to decide with public opinion polls and with letters what they want to do. And, again, I think the president is going to have to decide if he wants to simply enact his policy in counteraction of the midterm results and in counteraction of public opinion.
DOBBS: Are the Democrats, as some suggest here, are they caught, in your opinion, Hank, between now and 2008 and have to do something that will stand up for whomever their candidate is come that very important year?
SHEINKOPF: They're not just -- Lou, they're not just standing up for whoever the candidate may be, they're standing up for their own majorities in both chambers, slim in the Senate, larger in the House. They've got to go back to being Democrats. The people say, "We don't like the war."
The people have real economic concerns underneath. That's part of what the change that Ed was talking about. They want it, they've got to be more populist in their economic positioning and they've got to be out of Iraq in their foreign policy position. They've got to have to some rationality brought to this government action.
DOBBS: Do you agree?
ROLLINS: I agree that's what they're going to try and do. I think at the end of the day -- and I'm not opposed to them having the hearings and I'm not opposed to the president in this new leadership DOD, laying out what it is that they're going to do. I think the president is going to stay there for the next two years. I think he's going to keep troops there for the next two years no matter what Congress does, no matter what the public opinion does.
And I think it's very, very important to those that are there that that is a clear-cut strategy with some possibility of a win, which I don't see that the point in time any possibility of.
DOBBS: What are the principle risks, in your judgment, Mark -- and I'm talking about the political risks -- to this president simply ignoring the expression by the House of Representatives, which is the people's house, and the House of Lords, the Senate, to a lesser degree and the Democratic risk, their principle risk here?
HALPERIN: Well, I think the risk for the president is that he'll get nothing done for the last two years. He's fighting a war that most people think he can't win, which he's determined to win. And he has no bipartisan relationship. It's worse today than it was after the midterm elections. He's -- today, he got slapped in the face by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid after he came out of the White House. I think he may have no more accomplishments as president if he doesn't somehow find a way to handle this.
I think the risk for the Democrats is that they are being too timid. I think they have -- they are scared by the past recent history in which national security has bit them, where George Bush and Karl Rove have been able to attack them. I think they're being more timid than they could be, given public opinion.
DOBBS: The Democrats -- the House today passed the minimum wage. Hallelujah!
Now they have to move it before the Senate. Do you think they will succeed there? And, if so, do you think this president will sign the legislation?
SHEINKOPF: The best thing that could happen to the Democrats with respect to 2008 and the Senate, the move would be to hope that the president does not sign it. They'll get it to the Senate because no one wants to face reelection on election night by saying they did not want to give those who needed an increase in wages the opportunity to have such.
ROLLINS: It would be foolish for him not to sign at this point in time. And I think he's given every indication that he would sign it.
HALPERIN: Even if it doesn't get business tax breaks on there he'll sign it.
DOBBS: All right, gentlemen, we thank you very much.
Mark, Ed, Hank, thank you very much.
Up at the top of the hour, the "SITUATION ROOM". Wolf Blitzer and Paula Zahn joining up tonight to coverage the president -- to cover this president's speech -- Wolf, Paula.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Lou. Coming up, special coverage of the president's announcement of the troop increase for Iraq. We're live at the White House and we're live with the U.S. forces in Iraq.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: So the question tonight is: can the president convince a Congress, an American public, increasingly opposed to this war that this is the answer and that it is his last chance to turn things around? We're going to talk about that with his former chief of staff Andy Card as well as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
BLITZER: And the debate, Paula, over more troops, very, very personal for families who have lost loved ones in Iraq. We're going to show you one family's struggle.
All of that, Lou, coming up right here in the "SITUATION ROOM"
DOBBS: Thank you, both.
Looking forward to it.
Still ahead here, the results of our poll, more of your thoughts.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Results of our poll tonight overwhelming: 98 percent of you say you don't believe the arrest of an illegal alien fugitive by state or local police is constitutional. We'll send that along to the high court.
Time now for more of your thoughts.
Marty in Florida: "Let me get this straight, Border Patrol agents who do their job get sent to prison and the military must turn and run away if confronted by armed illegal aliens. Lou, I feel safer already. Don't you?"
I think I feel about as safe as you do.
Kathleen in Maine: "Don't be surprised if you wake up some morning and find you are no longer a U.S. citizen because the United States was sold as you slept. Roads today, the country tomorrow."
Robert in Texas: "Lou, isn't a good thing that foreigners might buy our highways? After all, they own our White House and Congress."
And Bill in Ohio: "Please remind your audience to get their taxes in early this year. There are anywhere from eleven to twenty million illegal aliens depending on them. We wouldn't want to let them down."
And Kent in Virginia: "And we are to believe George Bush suddenly knows what he's talking about because?"
Our coverage of the president's speech begins right after this broadcast. We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at LouDobbs.com.
And finally tonight, we want to extend our warmest congratulations to our colleague and producer Adrianne Klein-Ratto (ph) and her husband, Alessandro (ph), for the birth of their brand new baby girl, Giulya Grace Ratto, born on Sunday morning right here in New York City, weighing in at a healthy six pounds, fourteen ounces. Giulya Adrianne, Alessandro all doing great. We couldn't be happier for all of you. Congratulations.
Thanks for being with us tonight. For all of us, thanks for watching. Good night from New York.
The SITUATION ROOM begins now with Wolf Blitzer and Paula Zahn -- Wolf, Paula.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
