Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Some Of Bush's Staunchest Allies Say They Are Not Ready To Support Sending More Troops To Iraq; Opinion Poll Shows President Bush Failed To Convince American People To Support Troop Increase In Iraq; Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean Awaiting Word On Request To Remain Free On Bond; Exemption To Minimum Wage Law Focus Of Republicans
Aired January 12, 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: Tonight, top Republicans rallying to the president's defense over his new plan for Iraq. Can President Bush quell the rebellion in his own party and the opposition -- the loyal opposition?
We'll have reports from Capitol Hill and the White House.
Two former U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who was subsequently given immunity by the U.S. Justice Department will soon find out whether there is justice in this country.
We'll have that special report.
All of that, all of the day's news, a great deal more, straight ahead here tonight.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, news, debate and opinion for Friday, January 12th.
Live in new York, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening, everybody.
President Bush tonight is trying to quash a revolt in his own party about the conduct of the war in Iraq. President Bush has invited top Republican leaders to Camp David for talks. The meeting follows an open rebellion by several leading Republicans over the past few days.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates today tried to convince Congress the president's plan will work. The defense secretary said military success in Baghdad could actually lead to quicker U.S. troop withdrawals.
Dana Bash reports from Capitol Hill on the sharp divisions within Congress over the president's management of this war.
Jamie McIntyre tonight reports from the Pentagon on new details of the president's strategy.
And Bill Schneider reports from Washington on new polls that show a big majority of Americans opposed to any troop increase in Iraq. We turn first to Dana Bash -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, the president's revised Iraq plan didn't get the hostile reception today that it did yesterday, but Mr. Bush still has significant problems here, because some of his staunchest allies still say they are not ready to support his plan to send more troops to Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BASH (voice-over): On day two of Senate hearings on the president's revised Iraq plan, his national security team finally found some defenders.
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R), GEORGIA: Mr. Secretary, I want to start out by commending you for your decision relative to the troop increase.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (I), CONNECTICUT: The president presented a plan the other night. I support it because I believe it can maximize our chances of success in Iraq.
BASH: Unlike a day earlier, when the secretary of state took a bipartisan pounding, the new defense secretary got a decidedly different reception from the Armed Services Committee. Angry questions from Republican skeptics gave way to some leading questions from Republican supporters.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Are we sending additional troops for a lost cause?
ROBERT GATES, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Absolutely not, sir.
BASH: Politically, no one has as much riding on the president's plan succeeding as White House hopeful John McCain, who's long called for more troops in Iraq.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we can give the Iraqis and their partners the best possible chance to succeed.
BASH: McCain baited Pentagon witnesses about the Democrats' plan to start withdrawing troops from Iraq.
GATES: If we withdraw and the situation descends into chaos, which certainly is a...
MCCAIN: How likely is that?
GATES: ... which I think most people believe is a very real possibility, given the situation...
MCCAIN: And what do you believe?
GATES: ... over the past year.
MCCAIN: What do you believe?
BASH: There were skeptics.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: Why would this surge, which is actually slightly smaller than previous surges that we have tried, be successful when those surges were not?
BASH: And tough questions from senators who say it's a mistake to send additional U.S. troops to Iraq when Iraqis need to show they can help themselves.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they don't keep their commitment?
GATES: I think we have to reevaluate our strategy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But just saying we're going to reevaluate our strategy is the definition of an open-ended commitment.
GATES: Well...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just, again, I mean we reevaluate strategy all the time.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: And Democrat Ted Kennedy used this hearing to make his case that the Iraq mission has changed so much that it's time for the president to come to Congress and get a new authorization before any additional troops or money is spent in Iraq.
The defense secretary said that he would pass the message along to the president, but he also said, I think he feels he has the authority he needs to proceed -- Lou.
DOBBS: Dana, thank you very much.
Dana Bash from Capitol Hill.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates today said the first phase of the new U.S. and Iraqi offensive in Baghdad will begin next month. The defense secretary said the United States will know very quickly whether the Iraqi government has failed to meet its commitments or succeeded. But Gates insisted the United States must not withdraw its troops from Iraq should this latest new strategy fail.
Jamie McIntyre reports now from the Pentagon -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, there's so much pessimism about whether this new strategy will work, that one of the main questions on Capitol Hill and in Washington is, what is plan B? And Defense Secretary Robert Gates today could not tell Congress what plan B is, but he could say what it's not. It's not the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, as recommended by some Democrats and the Iraq Study Group.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: If we talk about the consequences of American failure and defeat in Iraq, then saying if you don't do this, we'll leave and we'll leave now, does not strike me as being in the national interests of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: Meanwhile, plan A, if you can call it that, doesn't really get into full gear until next month, when we'll see if the first Iraqi troops arrive in Baghdad as promised.
Secretary Gates said he's going to be taking a look at some key indicators to judge very early on if the Iraqis are living up to their commitments. He named three benchmarks that they have to meet.
First of all, do the Iraqi troops show up? Last time six brigades were promised, only two showed up. This time the Iraqis are supposed to supply three brigades.
Also, is there no political interference? People arrested, able to get out simply by making a phone call? That's got to stop.
And also, do the troops, both U.S. and Iraqi, have access to all of Baghdad?
The U.S. plan is to flow one brigade of troops into Iraq a month for the next five months. And they say if there's success, if it works out as well as they hope, or perhaps better than they hope, they might not even have to send all those troops in. And if it works, they could withdraw some troops by the end of the year. But again, at this point, that looks like a very optimistic scenario -- Lou.
DOBBS: It was, I must say, at least within all of the cacophony of discussion about surge and phased redeployment, it was remarkable to hear the defense secretary talk about the national interests, two words that have not escaped the lips of either the Republicans or Democrats debating this issue on Capitol Hill to this point.
MCINTYRE: Well, basically what he's saying there is that he believes the stakes in Iraq are so high that the U.S. can't afford to give up even if this latest strategy doesn't work.
DOBBS: Yes. It's -- it's the national interests that should be debated here, it seems to me, before we worry about the language of the week, the new lexicon that's invented to spin and to obfuscate more often than to communicate, in my opinion.
Jamie, thank you very much.
Jamie McIntyre from the Pentagon.
Insurgents in Iraq have killed another of our troops. The soldier was killed by enemy's small arms fire in the town of Baquba, northeast of Baghdad. Thirteen of our troops killed so far this month in Iraq, 3,017 since the beginning of the war, 22,834 of our troops wounded. A new opinion poll shows President Bush has failed to convince the American people so far to support a troop increase in Iraq. The CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll shows voters opposing the president's new strategy by a margin of nearly two to one.
Bill Schneider reports from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): President Bush went on the road this week to promote what he calls his new way forward in Iraq.
GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq.
SCHNEIDER: Did the president succeed in changing people's minds?
Apparently not. According to a CNN poll by the Opinion Research Corporation, last month the president's job approval rating was 36 percent. After the speech, 35 percent. No real change.
Before the speech, two-thirds of Americans opposed the war in Iraq. After the speech, two-thirds of Americans oppose the war in Iraq.
Before the speech, 27 percent of Americans believed a U.S. victory in Iraq was likely. After the speech, 27 percent believe a U.S. victory is likely.
It's like nothing happened. Something did happen, of course.
BUSH: So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.
SCHNEIDER: And the public still doesn't like it. Of the 66 percent who oppose sending more troops, Democrats are virtually united in their opposition.
And the president's base? Two-thirds of Republicans still support President Bush on Iraq.
Why did Mr. Bush fail to change many minds? Because most people's minds are already made up about Iraq. And the president's new strategy didn't sound all that new. And, because its success depends less on what we do then on what they do.
BUSH: The government of Iraq must exhibit the will necessary to succeed.
SCHNEIDER: Most Americans don't have much confidence in the Iraqi government.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: Maybe the speech didn't work because only 43 percent of Americans watched it. But even among those who did watch it, about a quarter said it made them more likely to support the president's policies. A quarter said less likely. And nearly half said the speech made no difference at all.
The president did not come out ahead on this sales job -- Lou.
DOBBS: Sales job. This speech -- Bill Schneider, that town in which you are speaking from tonight, as I mentioned with Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon, to watch the United States Congress and this president talking in such granular terms about what is a critically important issue -- that is the national interests -- for this president not to speak about the sacrifice and the expenditure that has occurred in Iraq and not put it into terms of the national interests, and why that national interest is better served by any number of strategies and choices, is peculiar, at best. And for the Congress to talk about it in political terms, rather than in the terms of the national interests, so that there can be a meaningful national dialogue on this very important issue with our troops in harm's way, is almost unthinkable.
SCHNEIDER: It is, and that's why Americans are very reluctant to give their support. They see this as a very remote civil war.
At first they supported it because it seemed as if this -- that American security was at stake. But now they are very dubious about that. They see this as a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.
They see this as having a political objective, a settlement of a civil war. And they wonder, exactly what is the United States' national interests in that conflict?
DOBBS: And the question remains, why, then, is not the United States Congress and this president discussing the issue in those terms?
And I know it's not a question you can answer here tonight, but it's one that one hopes that both parties, the Congress and the president, will respond to in the coming days and weeks.
Thank you very much.
Bill Schneider.
President Bush this weekend expected to discuss his new strategy for Iraq with congressional Republican leaders. President Bush invited top Republicans to join him at Camp David. They are likely to talk about the rebellion by some of their party mates over the president's plans.
Suzanne Malveaux has the story for us from the White House tonight -- Suzanne.
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, you're absolutely right, this really is an all-out charm offensive by the White House. President Bush at Camp David, inviting the congressional leadership Republicans and their wives for what they are calling a social occasion. But let's not kid ourselves, of course, they are trying to win support for this Iraq plan.
We are also going to see the president and the vice president the next couple of days doing network television interviews. We expect the president next week to travel as well to try to deliver this directly to the American people.
And Lou, I've spoken to senior White House aides, and they all say that, look, the president is under no delusion here, that he has got a big job ahead when it comes to selling this, that this is going to be a very hard sell. But what they are trying to do is simply buy time. They figure that in a couple of months they'll have some benchmarks, milestones to actually evaluate whether or not the Iraqis are coming through -- Lou.
DOBBS: Wouldn't it be nice to hear something about success and victory rather than benchmarks as we go forward here?
Thank you very much.
Suzanne Malveaux from the White House.
A reminder that al Qaeda is not the only terrorist threat facing this country. Suspected left-wing terrorists today fired a rocket- propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece. No one wounded in the attack. The only visible sign of damage, in fact, to the building was a broken window.
U.S. officials there said the attack appeared to be the work of what they called locally-grown leftists.
Still ahead, new developments tonight in the case of two former Border Patrol agents about to go to prison. A case that has been called an outrageous miscarriage of justice.
We'll have that report.
And lies and disinformation as the pro-illegal alien lobby steps up its campaign against a new fence along our southern border with Mexico.
We'll have that story.
And new evidence that e-voting machines still pose a serious threat to our democracy. A risk that many local election officials have ignored.
We'll have that special report, a great deal more, straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are still awaiting word tonight on their request to remain free on bond, appealing 11 and 12-year sentences for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler at the border. The drug smuggler was given immunity by the Justice Department to testify against those agents. Casey Wian now has the latest on thing agents who are scheduled to begin serving their sentences next Wednesday -- Casey.
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, family members, attorneys and the agents themselves all expected a ruling today. Federal judge Kathleen Cardone (ph) is considering whether to allow the former Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos to remain free on bond while their convictions on assault with a deadly weapon, civil rights violations and other charges are appealed.
As we reported and as you mentioned, the Mexican drug smuggler who was wounded in the incident was given immunity from prosecution by the federal government, sparking outrage from border security activists.
Now, the judge has already determined that the agents are not a danger to the community, and not a flight risk. That's why she allowed them to remain free since their conviction in October. But in deciding whether they can stay free pending their coming appeal, she may also consider the substance of that appeal and its chances of success.
Also at issue, a law that anyone convicted of a federal gun crime must go to prison unless there are exceptional circumstances. Lawyers for the agents say the fact that dozens of U.S. congressmen and hundreds of thousands of American citizens have signed petitions demanding a presidential pardon for the agents are clearly exceptional.
Now, if Judge Cardone denies the motion, agents Ramos and Compean must report to prison to begin their 11 and 12-year sentences on Wednesday.
And Lou, I just got off the phone with former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, and he said he understands that Judge Kathleen Cardone's office have received lots of phone calls from supporters of the agents. And the agents very much appreciate that supports. But he also says he hear that some of those phone calls have been threatening, and we understand that the U.S. Marshal Service is actually involved in looking into some of those threatening phone calls.
So, the agents ask that anyone calling in their support please refrain from any type of threatening behavior. Obviously not helpful to their cause -- Lou.
DOBBS: Threatening not helpful to anyone's cause, and certainly the marshal's office should deal straightforwardly with those people who would do such a thing.
Let's turn to a couple of things, though.
One, because as we talk about this drug smuggler that was given immunity by Johnny Sutton's attorney -- the attorney general, his office, he subsequently committed a crime, did he not, after being given immunity? WIAN: He sure did. Our sources tell us that this drug smuggler was caught smuggling an even bigger load, somewhere near 1,000 pounds of marijuana, subsequent to this first load that agents Ramos and Compean uncovered. And he was granted immunity for that offense as well. He's also suing the U.S. government for $5 million.
DOBBS: And at the same time, at least three jurors feel that they were coerced into their -- into their verdicts.
WIAN: Absolutely. There was a filing of a claim for jury misconduct before the convictions were handed down. That claim was denied.
The basic substance of that was that these jurors claim that the jury foreman said that their -- that a hung jury would be unacceptable to this judge and that they had to reach some sort of a verdict. These jurors had questions. They didn't want to convict. But they feet that they had to, and they now feel that they did the wrong thing -- Lou.
DOBBS: And to -- to put it exactly where we are, more than 50 U.S. congressmen have written the president, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, without response from those gentlemen. Most of those -- those petitioning congressmen are Republicans. The Republican executive branch not responding at all.
Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, basically scoffing at the idea of a pardon for these gentlemen. I happen to agree with him on one level.
I think what should happen here, Casey, is there should be a full investigation of the U.S. Attorney's Office. There should be a full investigation of this case, a full investigation of the court proceedings in that federal court. And meanwhile, they should be holding in suspension any action against these two agents.
Casey, thank you very much.
Casey Wian...
WIAN: OK.
DOBBS: ... reporting on one of the most troubling cases in the country right now.
If you would like to voice your support for those agents, Ramos and Compean, you can e-mail the White House directly at comments@whitehouse.gov, or the attorney general himself at askdoj.gov.
If you prefer to call, you can reach the White House at 202-456- 1111. The attorney general's office, 202-514-2001.
And all of this information and a direct route for your comments and suggestions to our government can always be found at our Web site, LouDobbs.com. Advocates of building a fence along our border with Mexico tonight taking issue with reports over the projected costs of that project. One report put the cost of that fence at an astonishing $49 billion. Congressman Steven King and Duncan Hunter, strong advocates of the fence, say the number is flat-out wrong, and they want to, at least this once, put the record straight.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Forty-nine billion dollars for a fence along the southern border is "phony analysis" in the opinion of the chief architect of the border fence bill.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: The mission impossible crowd is trying to -- trying to subvert the will of the American people.
TUCKER: As evidence that estimates from the Congressional Research Service is flawed, Congressman Hunter quoted from three bids which have already been received to build the authorized fence. The bids put the cost at approximately $2 billion. The report also plays with the numbers and calculates the cost of building and maintenance over 25 years.
REP. STEVE KING (R), IOWA: To argue that the maintenance of this could cost $49 billion over 25 years is to argue that you would rebuild this twice a year every year for 25 years. And it's just -- it's ridiculous.
DAN STEIN, FAIR: Twenty-five-year cost estimates are simply not credible, and the problem with the Congressional Research Service is that they will provide estimates based on congressional requests.
TUCKER: Congressman Hunter and Congressman King pointed out a portion of the fence already exists in San Diego at a cost of $3 million a mile to build, and is successful at stemming the flow of illegal aliens and drugs across the border. A fact the CRS report concedes.
As for costs, the costs of incarcerating the 250,000 criminal illegal aliens now in our jail is greater than $3 billion a year.
HUNTER: You save enough money just from incarceration to pay for the fence every single year.
TUCKER: The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that it would cost significantly less than $3 billion to build the fence.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And as Congressman Hunter and Congressman King, who has a background in construction, by the way, kept repeating over and over and over again in this news conference, Lou, it's just a fence.
DOBBS: Well, it's obviously not just a fence. It is far more than that, symbolically as well, an effective deterrent. Most people think against illegal immigration and those that would cross the border with an intent to harm us, but whatever it is, it would be the principal mainstay against illegal immigration and unlawful entry into this country whether by terrorists or illegal immigrants.
But why -- who is the outfit who did the estimate?
TUCKER: The Congressional Research Service. They...
DOBBS: And who requested it?
TUCKER: We don't know.
DOBBS: What do you mean we don't know?
TUCKER: That's a secret.
DOBBS: A secret?
TUCKER: It's a secret. They exist to serve the requests of members of Congress.
DOBBS: In secret?
TUCKER: Yes. They don't tell us who requested it.
The only way we can actually get a hint at who might have requested it is the requesting Congress member can then post the report.
The first story on this $49 billion estimate came out in San Francisco. So somebody leaked the number to the "San Francisco Chronicle," as near as I can tell, which we can connect the dots.
DOBBS: Well, let's push this, because this government -- I mean, now we can't get from this White House who is visiting whom in the White House. It is...
TUCKER: Right.
DOBBS: ... after all, the people's House. And these folks are just renters who are there right now.
We can't find out who is testifying on conferences on task forces like the energy task force. And we can't find out who in Congress is requesting this, a report that this, by the way, the Congressional Research Office ought to be ashamed with.
Have they explained why it's so upside down and wildly exaggerated?
TUCKER: No.
DOBBS: Well, let's make sure we get that.
TUCKER: But the person making the request can come forward and say, "I'm the one who made the request."
DOBBS: Well, let's put it this way -- if that person fails to do so between, now and let's say, Tuesday, they are a yellow-bellied -- you know, I mean -- and a distortioning -- you know, just a propagandist puke (ph).
I mean, it's an absurdity. At what point are the American people going to say enough of a government run like this? Whether it's in the United States Congress, whether it is in the executive branch, this is unconscionable.
Bill Tucker, thank you, in part. For raising my temper, I'm not so appreciative. But thank you.
Up next, are we already seeing signs of business as usual in this new Congress? Republicans say they are skeptical about an exemption to the minimum wage law. Yes, there is an exception, an exemption.
We'll have that special report.
And a new controversy over the nation's largest maker of e-voting machines. They don't meet federal standards. Some people said they did. They lied.
We'll have the report.
A political power struggle being played out in the streets of a South American city that is turning deadly.
We'll have that report and a great deal more straight ahead.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Troubling new questions about electronic voting machines used in our midterm elections. New tests now show one of the systems used didn't meet federal standards at all. But that didn't stop some states from using those machines anyway.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): New York State didn't use electronic voting in the November election. The state chose to stay with decades-old lever machines until electronic voting was proven tamper-proof and glitch-free.
New York State is glad they didn't use electronic voting. New York State Election Commission co-chair Doug Calner (ph) says ES&S, one of the largest electronic voting machines in the country, used software in other states that didn't meet federal standards, even though it was stamped with federal certification codes.
DOUG KELLNER, NYS. BOARD OF ELECTIONS: They admitted that it doesn't comply, but though said, look, we already got certification previously for this very same product. The rules have not changed since we got certification, therefore, you shouldn't insist on compliance with that rule.
PILGRIM: ES&S brushed aside the concerns in a letter to New York election officials saying federal standards were an arbitrary guideline. ES&S also admitted to election officials that other states used the software anyway. Last November, 25 states used ES&S machines that used this software.
JOHN WASHBURN, VOTETRUST USA: Yes, it's a problem. How big a problem it is and how much it affects the possible -- the possible administration of an election is unknown, because all of the details are considered to be trade secret and not available to the public and, in large measure, not available to many election officials.
PILGRIM: The agency that did the federal certification today admitted they didn't know anything about the problem. ES&S is not required to say which private lab did their testing. So New York state can't get any real information on why this equipment doesn't meet federal standards.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now Senator Feinstein wants to hold hearings on the entire testing process later this month. The Election Assistance Commission told us today they are going to begin a process of recertifying everything. ES&S today still defended the software, saying, those are stylistic and nonsubstantive differences from the federal standards. But, they say they made the modifications in the code and will begin testing it anyway.
DOBBS: And who will be testing it?
PILGRIM: ES&S, of course. Yes.
DOBBS: This is not funny.
PILGRIM: It's not. It's really disturbing.
DOBBS: You -- it's just hard to imagine where this government is headed. It's unbelievable. Thank you very much, Kitty Pilgrim.
Turning to overseas news, more violent clashes today in one of Bolivia's major cities. Supporters of Bolivia's anti-American president took to the streets in the regional capital to protest calls for more autonomy from regional governors. Two people were killed, at least 130 injured in the violence. Federal troops sent in to restore order. Those protests started a month ago, part of a power struggle between the regional governors and President Evo Morales. Morales, a popular figure in the area, when he heads the Cocoa Growers' Association.
Time now for some of your thoughts.
Marilyn in Oklahoma wrote in to say, "if the president of the United States and a majority of the congress of the United States of America wanted to stop illegal immigration, it would be stopped. Obviously, their loyalties don't lie with the United States of America."
And Wendell in Tennessee said, "if we're going to have a border and plan to have it patrolled, how can we prosecute the border patrol agents for doing what they were hired to do, protect our borders? The border patrol agents need to be pardoned immediately."
And Edie in Minnesota said, "I am Edie, I am 13-years-old. By watching Lou Dobbs I see that if I go into the drug smuggling business, I will have more rights than I would if I worked on the border patrol. What kind of message is that to me?"
E-mail us at LouDobbs.com. We'll have more of your thoughts coming up here later. And each of you whose e-mail is read here receives a copy of my book "War on the Middle Class."
Up next, House speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to end the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill, now she's facing Republican charges that she reneged on the promise. We'll have that report.
And several key Republicans have rebelled openly against the president over his plan to send more troops to Iraq. How widespread is the revolt? Where is the support? Three of the country's best political analysts join me.
DOBBS: And a new blast of arctic cold moving across the nation has already claimed two lives. Officials fear it could paralyze the nation's midsection. It's been snowing in Colorado for the fourth time in a month. Temperatures are plunging from Nevada to Minnesota. And the deep freeze could last through the weekend.
In Oklahoma, the arctic chill is expected to leave much of that state coated in ice. Hazardous road conditions have already caused two deadly accidents there. Some schools closed early. The weather's disrupted air travel as well.
A follow-up to a story we brought you last night, the House of Representatives today passed a prescription drug bill that could save millions in taxpayer dollars. It's unlikely, however, to become law.
The House measure requires the government to negotiate with drug companies to lower medicine prices for Medicare patients. The Senate expected to take a much longer look at the issue. President Bush has promised to veto. Even though this is considered to be, although, part of the success of the Democratic initiative for new legislation in the House, a watered-down version, deferring in large measure, to the pharmaceutical lobby.
The Senate voted today to strip pensions from members of Congress convicted of white-collar crimes. The vote 87-0. Senator John Kerry said he was inspired to write the measure in part by former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who is spending eight years in prison for taking millions of dollars in bribes from military contractors. The measure isn't retroactive, so Cunningham could still collect his pension which could be as much as $64,000 a year.
The Democrats have been making good on their promise for quick action since they were sworn in last week. They have made ethics rules changes, limiting gifts to lawmakers and restricting their travel on private jets. And they've raised the nation's minimum wage for the first time in a decade.
However, it appears that not all of the old habits have escaped this new Congress. An exemption to the minimum wage law that first escaped attention -- it looked as though it were an absolutely clean bill -- today was the focus of the Republicans. As it turns out, the beneficiary of that exemption is a company based in the home district of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D-CA) SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The bill is passed!
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The house passed legislation that would give pay raises to the poorest Americans. It would apply to the 50 states, the U.S. territories Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Marianas. But not the U.S. territory American Samoa. And that prompted Patrick McHenry to ask facetiously if American Samoa would also be except from the stem cell research bill, much to the chagrin of Democrat Barney Frank.
REP. PATRICK MCHENRY, (R) NORTH CAROLINA: Would it be appropriate to offer an amendment excepting American Samoa, just as it was from the minimum wage bill?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The gentleman will subside.
MCHENRY: So the chair is saying that I may not offer an amendment excepting American Samoa from this legislation?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The gentleman is making a speech and will suspend. The chair will not say anything.
MCHENRY: If the chair will let my finish my question.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The gentleman will suspend.
SYLVESTER: Republicans say it's a little fishy that the new minimum wage standards apply to the other territories but not American Samoa.
REP. ERIC CANTOR, (R) VIRGINIA: American Samoa's largest corporation is StarKist Tuna, which is owned by Del Monte Corporation, which is headquartered nowhere else but Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco's district.
SYLVESTER: StarKist says it employs nearly 75 percent of the islanders. The U.S. minimum wage has never applied there, instead it is set by Labor Department committees. Pelosi insists she was not carving out an exemption. PELOSI: I don't think it is -- it's the Energy and Education Work Labor Committee that go forward with the legislation to make sure that all of the territories have to comply with the U.S. law on the minimum wage.
SYLVESTER: Pelosi says the intent was the new wage floor would apply to the entire United States and territories. Republicans call that back-pedaling.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Now, the average wage in American Samoa is $3.50. The House Education and Labor Committee will review the wages being paid there and investigate why they have been historically lower than in other U.S. territories. By the way, Lou, Del Monte has not contributed to Pelosi's campaign and, in fact, has given more to Republicans -- Lou.
DOBBS: Then there should be absolutely no question, for the good of the people in American Samoa, for our fellow citizens there it seems like it's time for some catch-up to be undertaken here.
DOBBS: There is agreement there, at least, for the Republicans and Democrats on this one. We'll see if they follow through now, Lou.
DOBBS: Well, it's nice to see the Republicans also behind the minimum wage which they resisted through 12 years in their control of Congress. It's unfortunate that that expression of confidence in the minimum wage had to come as they brought the speaker of the house to heel on the issue. Lisa, thank you very much. Lisa Sylvester, from Washington.
That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. Are you surprised that just days after passing an ethics reform bill, the Democratic leader exempted a company in her home state from complying with a minimum wage bill? Yes or no. Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results here later in the broadcast, and a reminder to us all why we watch everything very carefully in Washington, D.C.
Up next, President Bush tries to end a rebellion in his own party. How isolated is he? Is he isolated? Three of the nation's top political analysts join us.
And outrage tonight over highly personal remarks by Senator Barbara Boxer about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. We'll have that story and a great deal more still ahead here. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Outrage tonight over Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer's remarks to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her testimony yesterday.
Senator Boxer, during her questioning on the administration's Iraq policy, said the secretary of state had no children to lose overseas saying, quote, "you're not going to pay a particular price," said the senator. Secretary Rice did not respond at the time, but today Rice said she thought women had come farther than that.
Joining me now, three of the best political minds in this country: Republican strategist Ed Rollins; Michael Goodwin, columnist, "New York Daily News"; Democratic strategist, Robert Zimmerman. Thank you all for being here.
What is Senator Boxer thinking?
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Good evening, Lou. Look, obviously...
DOBBS: Let's move ahead. I don't want any pleasantries here.
ZIMMERMAN: All right. Let's get down to business. Obviously, it was a -- it doesn't express -- it was a terrible statement.
DOBBS: It was contemptuous.
ZIMMERMAN: But it also doesn't express who Barbara Boxer is.
DOBBS: And contemptible.
MICHAEL GOODWIN, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": I actually think it does express who Barbara Boxer is. I mean, she was incredibly personal during Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearings, she's always been that way, it was a cheap shot.
ZIMMERMAN: She challenged Condoleezza Rice over her failure as national security adviser, and rightly so. I don't object.
GOODWIN: It was very personal at the time.
ED ROLLINS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: You have to remember history here. Condoleezza Rice was who Republicans talked about running against Boxer and probably would have been a very credible candidate a couple of times, and so there's a long, long history there.
ZIMMERMAN: Well, sadly. Condoleezza Rice's record as a national security adviser in Iraq reconstruction buried her political ambitions.
ROLLINS: Well, we can debate that.
DOBBS: Did I ask you about Barbara Boxer?
ZIMMERMAN: I'm trying to talk -- I'm trying to keep focused, Lou.
DOBBS: Absolutely. Then let's talk about Nancy Pelosi and American Samoa. Can you line those up for us on the Mercator?
ZIMMERMAN: It's great when the Democrats are in the majority. I feel so significant now in the panel.
DOBBS: You are becoming increasingly so. ZIMMERMAN: You know, the bottom line is, obviously, it was a mistake that American territories were not included in the minimum wage bill.
DOBBS: Who's mistake was it?
ZIMMERMAN: The Democratic majority, but now they are correcting it through the Education and Labor Committee, so we're going to make sure that American territories are covered with the minimum wage.
DOBBS: Well, but aren't you cheered by the fact that the Republican minority is so concerned about the minimum wage now after denying it for a decade, that they would insist upon it for Americans Samoa? Now that's the kind of attention to middle-class values I would hope that both political parties will embrace.
ROLLINS: We will slowly but surely get into an opposition party, and the quicker we do that the better we will be, and those are the kinds of things you do when you scrutinize bills carefully and you basically charge forward.
DOBBS: The idea that this war in Iraq is now the subject of a surge, phased redeployment debate rather than a debate and a national dialogue led by the president and the leadership, the Democratic leadership of both houses, on the issue of our national interests and how that national interest is served in the Middle East and specifically in Iraq, is astonishing to me.
ROLLINS: Well, the president's speech the other night was extremely weak. We had a two-month buildup. He'd have been better not to given that speech. He'd have been better just to basically move forward and say here's what I'm doing today out of the press room.
I think there was such a buildup that something was going to be so different that I don't think was a whole lot different, and I think going out to the country to try to sell it, it's sort of the campaign mode they've been in for the last four years and it's failed on every front and I think it's...
GOODWIN: Yes, I thought Condoleezza Rice before Congress did the best possible job she could, and it wasn't nearly good enough. It's a terrible idea, and I think fundamentally it...
DOBBS: Secretary Rice looked to me, for all the world, like she would rather have been anywhere else in the world.
GOODWIN: That's right. That's right, yes. But I think the problem with the plan is it has no logic. When you say Maliki cannot act, he doesn't have the capacity, which is her defense, and then to say 21,000 more Americans will make the difference, but the Americans are not cracking down on sectarian violence. That's the Iraqi army's job, it's the U.S. army's job and it's not able to do it.
DOBBS: Michael Goodwin, you were among the first to use the expression World War III in talking about the war in Iraq. This is not how you either conduct World War III, nor is it way in which you debate it, is it?
I mean, the idea that there's not a clear, articulated statement from this White House on the national interests in the Middle East and Iraq, nor from the Democrats, the leadership of both houses, on their views of the national interests and what flows from those two perspectives as to what our decision should be in Iraq and the Middle East.
GOODWIN: Well, we're really in some ways in the short strokes here. It's hand-to-hand combat in Washington now, and I think you're right, we're forgetting the larger picture. We see it in Somalia. We see it throughout the Mideast, we see it in parts of Europe, we see it in Asia.
So there is a large, Islamic fundamentalist terror arc that's around most of the globe, and if we don't begin to focus on it in a wholesale manner, we are going to find ourselves on the defensive for the next 30 years.
ZIMMERMAN: What's most frustrating to me is that you are seeing the beginnings in Congress of Republican senators joining with the Democrats in terms of challenging this administration's foreign policy. The great frustration is, the Senate Republican leader is now -- it's pathetic to watch him now try to employ filibuster to block a debate about our Iraq policy and where to go from here.
The real travesty behind President Bush's speech is the fact that there was nothing new in it. It was a rehash of past failed strategies, and as Senator Levin pointed out on your show, this administration still is not prepared to demand that the prime minister of Iraq hold the Iraqi -- be held accountable for not including the Sunnis in oil settlement and not bring about a political settlement.
DOBBS: We're going to be right back with our distinguished political analysts here in just one moment. We'll have much more for you still ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Up at the top of the hour, THE SITUATION ROOM with Wolf Blitzer -- Wolf?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Lou.
We're following a major development tonight in the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case. We're going to have the new information. That's coming up.
Also, a mysterious incident in Iraq fueling a growing controversy over U.S. intentions toward Iran. Is it a turning point in the standoff between Washington and Tehran?
And Hillary Clinton is on her way right now to Iraq even as she weighs a run for the presidency. We're going to have details of her trip and its possible impact. Plus this, cycling champion Lance Armstrong pays a visit to THE SITUATION ROOM. We're going to show you what he wants from the U.S. government and why he's growing increasingly impatient. My one-on-one interview with Lance Armstrong. That's coming up, Lou, right at the top of the hour.
DOBBS: Wolf, thanks very much.
We're back with our panel.
Ed, let me ask you this, this president facing the issues in Iraq. The other night for all the world, he looked as uncomfortable with that speech, you said she shouldn't have even bothered with it. But is there someone within the Republican party and within the administration, who can talk about proportionality, perspective here, in righting the direction for this administration?
ROLLINS: Obviously there's not. I mean, they've been working on this for months and months. And if that's the best they can do, it's still -- it's still a speech that didn't have clarity. There's still not a strategy. If I had a young son going off to war, which I don't, I would not be very comfortable to know there isn't a new strategy.
And I think to a certain extent the country for -- the country is waiting for you to say, OK, here's what where we are different than we are a year ago. Here's what we're going to do today. There are 300,000 Iraqi troops. We're going to get them out in front. We're going to make them work. We're going to make them be a part of this process. I haven't heard any of that.
DOBBS: Michael, the idea that we can see the Senate minority leader saying that he would filibuster a congressional vote on a resolution on Iraq and the troop strategy, what's your reaction to that?
GOODWIN: Well, look, I think Bush is so quickly becoming isolated, as you reported earlier. And I think it's a downhill thing for him now. There's almost no way he can reverse his own popularity and, therefore, his own relevance to the debate.
It was a fascinating example in today's "Wall Street Journal" op- ed page. There was an op-ed co-authored by Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich about Iraq. It did not mention George Bush by name. Now, these are two presidential candidates, probably, who are running away from George bush.
DOBBS: Did you say probably?
GOODWIN: Both of them, right. Gingrich I think is a little bit less certain than Giuliani.
ZIMMERMAN: With the exception of Jeb Bush.
DOBBS: I don't know whether they're both running, but they are both definitely running away from George W. Bush. ZIMMERMAN: With the exception of Jeb Bush, every Republican is running away from George Bush. We saw in the last campaign, most Republican candidates did. But that's the point, I don't think you can ever discount the relevancy of the president when, in fact, his escalation strategy in his role as commander in chief is very hard to stop.
DOBBS: Why is it so easy for you to call his surge strategy escalation, by the way. I agree with that straightforward discussion -- language, but so difficult to -- to take the Democratic language, phased troop redeployment and not use the word withdrawal.
ZIMMERMAN: Because, in fact, it's not withdrawing our troops. It's, in fact, putting our troops in strategic locations around the area to be there to support the Iraqi army. What concerns me is the fact that this administration refuses consistently to try to approach a political solution and instead tries to win this militarily and every expert, in fact the prime minister of Iraq has said it could cannot be a military solution.
ROLLINS: The dilemma the Democrats have and you articulated it better than most, there are 15 speeches given by different candidates and there is not a singular plan. , The president has a plan that I don't necessarily think it's a good one, but at least it's a plan. Your problem is you've got Biden saying something, Dodd saying something, and everybody else something else.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: They say there is a red line taking the president to task on -- threatening both Syria and Iraq.
ROLLINS: Right.
DOBBS: My god. I mean, let's step back from here just for a moment. If Iran is supplying those who are attacking our soldiers and it's in our national interests to be there and we've made a commitment, why in the world should Iran and Syria or anyone else who would do so not tremble at the prospect of a U.S. response?
ZIMMERMAN: In fact, they are not trembling.
DOBBS: Of course they are not.
ZIMMERMAN: In fact, Iran has become empowered by Bush's strategy in Iraq. The only way we will address Iran effectively is by escalating our diplomatic initiatives in that region and showing them why it's in their best interests...
DOBBS: Give them a big hug?
ZIMMERMAN: No.
DOBBS: A big hug?
ZIMMERMAN: Let me make my point. DOBBS: We've got 30 seconds.
GOODWIN: I think Robert should take yes for an answer. The Democrats have essentially won the argument on Iraq for now. George Bush is powerless to do anything right now. And I think this plan will not happen, because there's absolutely no support for it.
ROLLINS: The only thing these guys understand is power. And the minute the Iraqis come across -- or the Iranians come across, we have to go back and chase them and hurt them. That's the only thing they will understand.
DOBBS: Gentlemen, I hate to cut it off here, but time demands and dictates. Thank you very much, Robert Zimmerman, Michael Goodwin, and Ed Rollins, thank you.
Still ahead, more of your thoughts and the results of our poll tonight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll tonight, two-thirds of you aren't surprised that just days after passing the ethics reform bill the Democratic leader exempted a company in her home state from complying with the minimum wage bill. But the House Speaker does vow to reverse that exemption.
Time now for more of your thoughts. Tom in Kentucky, "Speaker Pelosi banned House smokers from lighting up in the lobby, why is it, then, not as easy to ban lobbying in the lobby."
And Sandy in Oklahoma, "Lou, why is it necessary to phase in the minimum wage over a two year period. Didn't the president and congress get theirs immediately?"
Good question. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us Saturday and Sunday. For all of us here, good night from New York. Have a great weekend. 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.voxant.com
