Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs This Week
Encore Presentation: Bush's New Iraq Plan Greeted With Skepticism, House Votes to Raise Minimum Wage, U.S. Trade Deficit With China Reaches All Time High
Aired January 14, 2007 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(NEWS BREAK)
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the first American reinforcements are preparing to deploy to Iraq. Will the president's new plan to defeat the insurgency work? Two of the country's most distinguished former military leaders join us.
And America's farmers are protesting federal government efforts to actually enforce U.S. immigration laws. And the rare efforts to actually secure parts of our border with Mexico. We'll tell you why.
All of that, a great deal more, straight ahead here tonight.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK, news, debate, and opinion. Here now, Lou Dobbs.
Good evening. President Bush tonight faces rising skepticism and anger about his new approach in the conduct of the war in Iraq. President Bush says his plan to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq is the best way to break the cycle of violence and to hasten the day our troops return home.
But Democrats and some Republicans say the president's plan is a huge mistake that will simply lead to more American casualties. More than 3,000 troops of our have been killed in Iraq. Nearly 23,000 others wounded. Elaine Quijano reports from the White House -- Elaine?
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And Lou, the Bush administration does continue to face sharp criticism from both Democrats as well as some fellow Republicans who do feel that sending more than 21,000 additional U.S. forces to Iraq is, in fact, a mistake. Now, this weekend the president met privately at Camp David with GOP congressional leaders trying to shore up support for his ideas. But senior Bush aides though say that the doubt on Capitol Hill does not come as a shock. Here is White House press secretary Tony Snow.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: I don't think we're terribly surprised. You knew going in that there was going to be opposition and you knew that a lot of people had made public statements about the commitment of additional forces to Iraq. But on the other hand, what we now expect is people to actually look at the plan. (END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Now, Snow says those critics have an obligation not just to oppose the plan outright but to come up with alternatives. A senior Bush aide, though, as this is debate intensifies says that President Bush predicted he would be politically isolated on this plan but that he continues to take the long view, that the United States should not retreat. At the same time, the official acknowledged it is a very difficult political climate for the White House as it tries to build his public support for this idea for a U.S. troop increase. The officials saying until things change on the ground in Iraq, the White House fully understands and expects this criticism will continue. Lou?
DOBBS: Thank you very much, Elaine Quijano from the White House. The president's new plan has apparently his full unshakable conviction that this war in Iraq can be won. The president has ignored the doubts of some of his most senior military commanders about the wisdom of the increase and President Bush is also determined to override congressional opposition to his plan from both Democrats and some members of his own party. John King reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He was on shaky ground to begin with and made his choices knowing it would leave him more isolated.
KEN DUBERSTEIN, FORMER REAGAN CHIEF STAFF: It's a lonely road. George Bush thinks he is on the right path. This is very uphill. This is a lonely walk.
KING: Speaking to troops at Fort Benning, Mr. Bush said his strategy offered the best chance of success.
BUSH: This is new. This is something different. That enables the military folks to predict that we will succeed in helping quell sectarian violence in Baghdad.
KING: But critics and even some past allies see stubborn defiance, ignoring evidence past troop increases haven't worked and ignoring the message war-weary voters sent last November.
BRUCE BUCHANAN, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: He's been willing to ignore the will of the people perhaps more than any modern president certainly on this issue. We could be headed for a constitutional crisis. It kind of depends on how determined the Congress is to push back.
KING: In trademark Bush style, he defied his critics and upped the ante. This National Security Council slide presentation outlines a plan that not only orders more troops into Iraq but vows key operational shifts will include new efforts to counter Iranian and Syrian action that threatens coalition forces. Such talk alarms some in Congress.
SEN. JOE BIDEN, (D) DE: Let me say that again. Explicitly denies you the authority to go into Iran (ph).
KING: The administration says it has no intention of widening the conflict.
GEN. PETER PACE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: We can take care of the security for our troops by doing the business we need to do inside of Iraq.
KING: Another key tactical shift raising eyebrows is a plan to remobilize the National Guard, which most governors oppose and most of all, critics cite the promise of bold new steps by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, the same prime minister the president's national security advisor described in a recent classified memo as "unwilling or unable to make the necessary tough choices."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING (on camera): And Lou, an interesting dichotomy here. As the week drew to a close, out in the country many strategists in both parties saying the president deserves more credit for being more contrite in that speech, acknowledging mistakes were made and accepting personal responsibility for them. But here in Washington, quite a different dynamic. Even some past supporters of the administration say they have severe doubts that an administration that got it so wrong so many times can now get Iraq right. Lou?
DOBBS: John, thank you very much. John King from Washington. The Pentagon's top civilian and military leadership insists the new plan will work. Defense secretary Robert Gates says it is a pivotal moment for Iraq. The defense secretary said failure in Iraq could lead to nothing less than calamity for this country. Jamie McIntyre reports from the Pentagon.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Iraq new strategy is a last ditch effort to secure Baghdad by correcting the two biggest failings of the old strategy. Too few troops in the Iraqi capital, both U.S. and Iraqi and too much political interference that has allowed Shia extremists to act with impunity.
ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: The Iraqi military will be in the lead in these operations. Another is that no parts of the city will be immune, that there will be no more calls from government offices to Iraqi or U.S. forces who have detained someone who is politically connected demanding that they be released.
MCINTYRE: The strategy calls for putting an Iraqi commander in charge of Baghdad and dividing the city into nine sectors. Each would have an Iraqi brigade in the lead, several thousand troops, backed by a U.S. battalion, several hundred troops.
The Iraqi army and police would clear neighbors with U.S. help, but unlike the last plan, U.S. troops would stay and help keep the peace. While some American troops are already moving into Baghdad, the Pentagon stresses the full deployment of more than 17,000 U.S. soldiers will be gradual. So there is time to determine if the Iraqis are really doing their part.
GATES: I think within a couple of months or so, whether this strategy is in fact beginning to bear fruit, it's going to take awhile.
MCINTYRE: And it won't be hard to tell. If violence drops, the plan is working. Gates says the U.S. will be quick to adjust if it fails but no one in the administration is willing to say what would be next.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: Senator, I don't think you go to plan B. You work with plan A.
SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D) FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: That's not a plan B. That's a very critical issue here.
RICE: You work with plan A and you give it the possibility of success, the best possibility of success.
MCINTYRE: The Pentagon says the plan was devised by U.S. military commanders including generals like George Casey and John Abizaid who in the past opposed send are more U.S. troops to Iraq.
PACE: I have been one who has said frequently do not send extra troops, just to do what the troops there now are already doing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (on camera): And Lou, Secretary Gates ended the week with an admission that the U.S. strategy in Iraq could fail. But saying that plan B should not be the phased withdrawal called for by some Democrats. Asked what the alternatives would be, he said at this point he doesn't know, but that none of them look good. Lou?
DOBBS: Jamie, as you reported during the week, the Joint Chiefs of Staff divided on the issue of this proposal, some styling it as unanimous disagreement among the Joint Chiefs. What is the impact of that?
MCINTYRE: Well, at this point, this is a done deal. The strategy is going to go forward. It has been fashioned by U.S. commanders. The critical part of this is that absolutely everything rests in the hands of the Iraqis. It's really out of the U.S. military's control. If they don't do what they're supposed to do, they're going to have to have a major assessment very quickly. So what the Joint Chiefs and those who have reservations within the Pentagon are simply holding their breath and hoping for the best.
DOBBS: It is I think perhaps to many people remarkable that the Joint Chiefs of Staff have been relegated effectively to an advisory role in the chain of command.
MCINTYRE: Well, that is their role as advisors and we do have civilian control of the military. You know, the famous saying by Clemens (ph) that war is too important to be left to the generals. For better or worse in the United States, we have civilians in charge. And that commander in chief is President Bush.
DOBBS: Absolutely. But again, a mere advisory role for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is I think a remarkable situation when there can that kind of division at the highest levels of our military leadership. Jamie, thank you very much. Jamie McIntyre from the Pentagon.
Iraq, of course, not the only issue facing this new Congress and this nation. Congressional Democrats have begun implementing an ambitious agenda of domestic reform in their first 100 legislative hours. Among the issues, an increase in the federal minimum wage. This is the first time in a decade that Congress has voted to raise the pay of someone other than themselves. Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The 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."
REP. LLOYD DOGGETT, (D) TX: But these days, it's poor folks, poor working folks who have the heart breaks when the minimum wage is not even close to being a living wage.
REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) SPEAKER: The bill is passed.
SYLVESTER: By a vote of 315-116 largely along party lines, the House of Representatives is 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) CA: 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 week, 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 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) TX: 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 (on camera): The House bill extends the minimum wage to the American territory of the Northern Marianas Islands, however, it does not cover another U.S. territory American Samoa. The primary employer in Samoa is Starkist Tuna which is based in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district. Some Republicans say there's something a little fishy about that.
Lou?
DOBBS: Lisa, thank you very much. Lisa Sylvester from Washington. Coming up here next, America's farmers protesting U.S. federal efforts to actually enforce immigration laws and even some rare efforts to secure our border.
We'll be telling you all about that and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposing new benefits for illegal aliens in his state subsidized of course by the taxpayers. We'll have that story and communist China, manipulating its currency, forcing some Americans out of jobs. What's your government doing about that? Why, not much. We'll tell you all about it in our next special report. Stay with us.
(COMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: American farmers complaining they're being unfairly burdened U.S. immigration laws that require them to verify the legal status of workers and those farmers claim the agricultural industry in this country will collapse without those illegal aliens. But the evidence certainly suggests otherwise. Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Nine out of 10 farmers attending the American Farm Bureau convention in Salt Lake City this week say they have an unfair burden to ensure workers are legal according to a Reuters survey. Now that federal immigration authorities are beginning to crack down on employers of illegal aliens and improve border security, many farmers are complaining they can't find enough workers.
KEVIN ROGERS, PRESIDENT, ARIZONA FARM BUREAU: In Arizona and California, in the areas of the country that are trying to harvest lettuce right now, trying to harvest broccoli, there's crops in the field that are not being harvested because there is no one here that wants to do the job. Whether it's $10 an hour, whether it's $20 an hour.
WIAN: But a 2006 Congressional Research Service report reached a dramatically different conclusion. It found a significant surplus, not a shortage of agricultural workers. Since 2001, the annual farm worker unemployment rate has averaged 12 percent, more than double the jobless rate for other U.S. workers and farm workers earn about 50 cents for every dollar earned by other non-supervisory private sector employees. Still farmers are pressuring Congress for a guest worker program to legalize the same illegal labor critics say has driven down wages and destroyed American farming jobs.
REP. STEVE KING, (R) IA: I've gone to ag hearings all around this country. And I see people in the business that have premised their business on hiring illegal labor and then they come to the hearing and ask us to legalize those illegal employees.
WIAN: Fifty two percent of U.S. agricultural workers are illegal aliens up from 37 percent 12 years ago. The Congressional Research report says it can't determine if the farm industry's addiction to illegal alien labor could be cured by raising wages or relying on mechanization because farmers have never had to operate without illegal aliens.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN (on camera): Farmers say they don't want amnesty, only temporary guest workers who can help them compete against cheaper foreign imports. However, this week, four senators introduced a bill that would grant amnesty to 1.5 million farm workers over five years. That, Lou, despite the fact that 100,000 farm workers are already unemployed each year in the United States.
DOBBS: And despite as well the fact that there is no indication whatsoever that the federal government could reasonably determine who has been working in this country for five years or reasonably determine who has valid identification. A remarkable situation.
WIAN: Perhaps they're planning on using the fake Social Security cards that these workers have been using to get those jobs, Lou.
DOBBS: That would be an interesting thing to have those illegal alien workers show up and prove that they've been using false identities for a period of time, which is the situation many would be put in actually. Casey, thank you very much. Casey Wian from Los Angeles.
California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has angered members of his own party and the public by prosing new benefits for illegal aliens. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed mandatory state subsidized state health insurance for all state residents including illegal aliens. Peter Viles reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing that everyone in his state, including those here illegally, be required to purchase health insurance.
GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, (R) CA: If you can't afford it, the state would help you buy it, but you must be insured.
VILES: He argues since the state is obligated to pay for emergency room treatment for illegal aliens, it makes financial sense to force them to buy subsidized health insurance. SCHWARZENEGGER: Our question, the decisions that our team has made was not should we treat them or not treat them. The question really is how can we treat them in a most cost effective way. We are trying to be realistic here and not live in denial.
VILES: Republicans immediately criticized the governor's plan saying it would attract and reward illegal aliens.
REP. BRIAN BILBRAY, (R) CA: If they break the law, come into our country, they'll get benefits that they wouldn't receive if they played by the rules, and that kind of message is a very dangerous message for a nation that supposedly believes in the rule of law to send anywhere around the world, especially in our own neighborhoods.
MICHAEL VILLINES, CALIF. STATE ASSEMBLY: This would be further validation of saying that illegal behavior is OK. I don't think that's where Californians want to go. Californians have been very clear about that.
VILES: Schwarzenegger estimates the cost of subsidizing insurance for illegal aliens at roughly $2.5 billion a year. California already spends heavily on health care for illegals. In 2004, an estimated 43 percent of all births covered by the state's MediCal program were to illegal aliens. The cost of those 105,000 deliveries was $400 million.
(on camera): This is a national problem, in Dallas, Texas, at Parkland Hospital, the hospital where President Kennedy died, 75 percent of the babies now born at that hospital are born to illegal aliens. Peter Viles for CNN, Los Angeles.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: A new poll shows that a majority of Californians are opposed to guaranteeing health coverage for illegal aliens. Nearly six out of 10 California voters in fact, are strongly opposed to providing guaranteed health insurance to those in this country illegally. The poll conducted by San Jose State University.
Up next here, one congressman's efforts to see that justice is done in the case of two convicted U.S. Border Patrol agents. I'll be talking with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher about his fight for justice for agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos.
And new trade numbers indicate communist China's policies will cost more Americans their jobs. We'll have that special report.
And trade agreements being made by elitist groups without any consideration for working men in this country nor any oversight from Congress. We'll have that report as well. Stay with us for that and a lot more straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The U.S. trade deficit with communist China has hit a new all time high. That deficit reaching more than $213 billion and the final numbers for the year aren't even in yet. But as China keeps its currency undervalued, its trade surplus rises and that leads to the loss of American jobs. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Prepare for an avalanche of cheap Chinese products. China grew its global trade surplus by 74 percent last year, to a record high. And expects even more growth this year. But China is a trade cheat. China keeps its currency artificially local to boost its products in foreign markets. The issue is vital to American jobs. Made in China means that product is not made in the USA. And not made by U.S. workers. Some in Congress want to put tariffs on Chinese products until China makes a currency adjustment.
REP. TIM RYAN, (OH): Nobody wants to put tariffs on China, but we're to the point now where we really don't have many more options. We've heard lip service for years. They continue to manipulate the statistics. They manipulate their currency and so when push comes to shove, the United States of America is going to having to act in its own best interests and the best interests of a stable global economy.
PILGRIM: The head of the Chinese he central bank again paid lip service to the currency imbalance, saying, "I think the flexibility of the exchange rate will be increased."
Back in July, China was under similar pressure to let its currency rise, but so far, the adjustment is only a pittance, 3.8 percent.
PETER MORICI, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND: China has let its currency rise a bit in value but nowhere near enough. China's currency is 40 to 50 percent undervalued and letting it rise two or three or four percentage points a year won't do much good.
PILGRIM: The U.S. Treasury Department buys into China's all talk and no action. A U.S. delegation led by Secretary Henry Paulson returned from talks in Beijing in December. But afterward, the Treasury Department tepidly reported that the Chinese currency reforms were considerably less than is needed.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM (on camera): A U.S. delegation led by Secretary Hank Paulson returned from talks in Beijing in December. But afterwards, the Treasury Department tepidly reported that Chinese currency reforms were considerably less than is needed.
Lou?
DOBBS: Currency reforms, that may be fun for the inside baseball game but the fact is this country isn't exporting enough of its own goods and services, nor will China permit the entry of those products and services. That is truly the issue. Thank you very much, Kitty Pilgrim. Reports tonight that another state-owned Chinese company is defying the United States in preparing to announce a huge energy deal with Iran. China's Natural Petroleum Corporation is close to investing nearly $4 billion in an Iranian gas field. That in addition to the $16 billion already pledged by C-NOOC.
The U.S. trying to cut Iran off from foreign investment because Tehran sponsors terrorism, is trying to manufacture nuclear weapons in defiance of UN sanctions. C-NOOC in that deal, they're now under congressional review. China refusing to back down, however. The Chinese Foreign Ministry this week telling Washington it must not interfere.
Coming up next here, the two Border Patrol agents days away from prison. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher trying to stave off that eventuality and trying to right a terrible wrong. And a former U.S. trade representative pushing a bold agenda for big business. We'll tell you why it's bad for the rest of us Americans.
And two distinguished former military leaders give us their assessment of the president's proposals to escalate in Iraq. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Congressman Dana Rohrabacher is among the leaders of an effort to see that two former U.S. Border Patrol agents are treated at least as well as the drug smuggler they stopped. I asked Congressman Rohrabacher whether there's any hope that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez will do anything at all.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R), CALIFORNIA: 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.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: To show is your support for Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, you can contact the White House or the Justice Department and you can find that contact information on our website, loudobbs.com.
The Border Patrol this week seized 2,000 pounds of marijuana at the Tahoa-Oadum (ph) Reservation in Arizona. The ton of pot was found in two separate locations on the reservation, the combined street value more than $2 million.
As we reported here, one community on that reservation voted to ban the National Guard from using its tribal lands to patrol a section of the U.S. border with Mexico. The reservation about the size of the state of Connecticut is located on the section of the border with the highest number of illegal crossings and drug smuggling trails. Those trails, at least one of them, somebody kind of cast aside $2 million worth of pot. I wonder what the connection is.
Border control or borders themselves won't be an issue if some business and political elitist groups have their way. This week a proposal for an expended so-called free trade zone from Alaska to the tip of Argentina. It's a plan from those elitists that will cost more American jobs, cost more American sovereignty, but it would fulfill the president's father's vision.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's not a new idea. President Bush talked about it back in 1991.
GEORGE H.W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is a big idea, a new world order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause.
TUCKER: Now former United States Trade Ambassador Robert Zoellick is talking about it again with renewed vigor, this time a new world order with business at the helm of trade and economic policy, advocating what he calls the Association of American Free Trade Agreements, a separate non government entity which would include North, Central and South America.
ROBERT SCOTT, ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE: What Zoellick is really proposing here is a stealth trade agenda. It's not a national agenda. He's proposing to set up what's essentially a private organization to try to achieve what he couldn't get done when he was the U.S. trade representative. And this is a business agenda.
TUCKER: It's an agenda that goes hand in hand with the United States, Mexico and Canada working quietly and behind the scenes to promote a common market with common deregulation for the benefit of multinational corporations.
It's an agenda that so far has resulted in an increase in U.S. corporate profits of 45 percent while wages of American workers have risen only three percent from the last five years.
ALAN TONELSON, U.S. BUSINESS & INDUSTRY COUNCIL: The main danger raised by Zoellick's proposals is that the future of American international economic policy, which affects not only our nation's prosperity but its national security, will be set not by the American people and their elected representatives, but by a small corporate elite that is accountable to no one but itself.
TUCKER: Effectively surrendering the sovereignty of the United States.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER (on camera): And as justification for trusting those who would have the authority, well, the argument is made that free trade promises democracy and welfare of the people.
Lou, you have to look no further than China to see if in fact that's true.
DOBBS: Yes. The nonsense that is growing up among corporate and political and academic elites in this country, that the economic system -- that is, free markets, so-called, are far more important to the United States and, indeed, the world, than the political system that makes them possible, that is, democracy. And that is -- that is an imperative that's got to be thrown back in their faces.
Thank you very much, Bill Tucker.
Coming up next, we'll have the political perspective, the military perspective on the president's proposals for Iraq. Three of the country's best political analysts join us to give us their assessment. I'll be talking with two outstanding former outstanding military leaders about whether or not the president's new strategy can succeed. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now two of the country's most distinguished former military leaders, General Paul Eaton -- he served in Iraq in 2003 and 04 leading the effort to train Iraqi troops and police -- General David Grange, a decorated Vietnam veteran serving in infantry and airborne forces leading the famous Delta Force.
I asked General Eaton whether he believes the president's plan will work.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MAJ. GEN. PAUL EATON, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Lou, I think it's a compromise approach, given the number of soldiers we have available to the United States right now for deployment.
And what's really going to be interesting is how these soldiers are used and whether or not they embed these men into Iraqi formations to help -- help leverage numbers of Iraqis with the professionalism and the combat power that U.S. forces bring.
DOBBS: General Grange, the plan is, as the president put it forward, is to put Americans in battalion strength into Iraqi brigades and to begin the operations for securing Baghdad, ostensibly to disarm, particularly the al Sadr militia. What's your thought? BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, I think that one reason the Americans bring, of course, the firepower, the command and control, the expertise, the experience -- and to make sure the Iraqi units do what they say they're going to do. It also gives them a little bit more of hope of accomplishing their mission, instead of feeling a little bit underdogs with the militia, who are doing quite well.
I think that if you don't take down the militia, if you don't do something with that and you don't provide the protection, the security for the people, you'll never have the loyalty from the people in Baghdad. So I think that's a must.
DOBBS: General Eaton, striking is that, while there is a great firestorm of protest about the president's plan, the additional 21,000 troops -- 4,000 of them being dispatched out of al Anbar province, the rest going into Baghdad -- that still puts us well below the height of the force levels in Iraq just about a year ago.
EATON: Lou, it does. And again, I think this is a compromise number that's been worked out between the Army leadership on their ability to produce numbers and a gauged bet that this will be below a certain radar line with the American people, not to -- not to exceed that which we can provide.
DOBBS: How would you judge its impact, if this is carried out, on overall morale?
GRANGE: That's a great point because it's underrated
I think that they're watching carefully about -- "Hey, look, if you have me do this mission -- whether you have me do the mission with what I have now or you add another 20-plus thousand, please resource me. Please support me to accomplish this mission or get me the hell out of here. Do one or the other but don't be wishy-washy about trying to win this thing if your heart is not into it."
And that's really what these G.I.s need and what they understand; do you or do you not support them and what you sent them into harm's way to accomplish?
DOBBS: Does the General Staff, General Eaton -- do they understand that we are in -- there are many complex elements involved?
EATON: Lou, our senior leadership in the armed forces fully understand what's going on. And what they should be gratified to have heard is the -- and we have to get into execution level detail on this -- but a leverage the diplomatic and political approach and the leverage against the current Iraqi leadership to get them motivated, to get them on line to produce; and the economic power of the United States brought to bear in the environment, so that we can provide a real build in the clear, hold, build environment of Baghdad.
DOBBS: General Grange, let me conclude with you. It will mean more strain on those troops, on all of the troops, but certainly the Reserves and the Guard who are carrying a heavy burden here. Are we taking them to the breaking point?
GRANGE: They're near the breaking point. But right now this next six months, this next year has to be a total effort -- a total effort to be successful. And it's going to take all that we have -- to include much more of the American people and the government in order to accomplish this. And we ought to do it -- to do it right because there's too many consequences if we don't.
DOBBS: Do you concur, General Eaton?
EATON: Absolutely. We've got to win this. This is not the loss of Vietnam. Loss in Iraq will have repercussions worldwide.
DOBBS: Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.
General Eaton, General Grange.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Coming up next, three top political analysts assess the president's decision to raise the number of troops in Iraq. And the political and possibly human cost.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me now, three of the country's best political analysts: James Taranto of the "Wall Street Journal"; Errol Lewis, columnist, "New York Daily News"; Miguel Perez, syndicated columnist.
Gentlemen, good to have you with us.
Twenty-one thousand troops. Is it going to work?
JAMES TARANTO, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": I think the question is less the number of troops than whether the military has got itself a new strategy, has learned the lessons of its previous failures and its successes here and there with counterinsurgency. David Petraeus is the guy who led some of the few successful counterinsurgency efforts they've had. He's now in charge of Iraq, so it's all up to him I think.
DOBBS: Yes, I -- well, the co-author, in point of fact, of the counterinsurgency strategy for the Army. Errol, what do you make of all this?
ERROL LOUIS, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": Well, you know, the problem -- and it runs all the way through the counterinsurgency manual that Petraeus worked on -- is that it assumes that there will be a central, stable government that's not involved in all of the sectarian fighting. And the point of the counterinsurgency is to prop up and to help that central government operate efficiently and effectively and stabilize the country.
The existence of that central government that's not participating in the bloodshed and the militia activity and the counter strikes and all of the religious civil warfare is not clear. Everything you see about it suggests that there are elements of the police force, there are elements of the government itself that are in league with Shiite or Sunni or former Saddam loyalists...
DOBBS: Some people characterize the situation as a mess. Do you agree with what Errol's saying?
MIGUEL PEREZ, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: It's a huge mess. And it's just -- you know, we are going into police a civil war. It's not a war between Americans and Iraqis. It's a war between Sunnis and Shiites. And we cannot win that war. It was -- the war was between Americans and Iraqi when we first went in there. And it stopped being that a long, long time ago.
And it's also a question of whether we can confide or believe in the Iraqi government and all its promises...
DOBBS: ... the credibility of this administration, this government, this Congress, either political party on the issue of Iraq? Neither party has distinguished itself, but the Republican administration has responsibility for the conduct of this war. I can recall vividly the president talking about all that political capital he had garnered with the election of 2004. James, he has spent that and more. If I've ever seen a man in deficit with political capital, it's him.
TARANTO: Yes, sad but true. There's no way he gets his political capital back unless this is a military success.
DOBBS: And the military leaders are telling us, Errol, that it can't be won militarily.
LOUIS: Well, and they're absolutely right. The mantra all along has been, "We're going to do what the general tell us."
That's what the generals are telling us. They're going to send these boys and girls over there. They're going to clear out every neighborhood that they're asked to clear out. And it still is not going to accomplish what the stated goal was.
DOBBS: Over the past week, I've talked with the House Armed Services Committee Chairman, I've talked with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Both men, holding hearings, moving straight ahead on this issue. This -- Bob Gates, the defense secretary, says this can't -- will not happen, this escalation, surge, troop increase, reinforcements, whatever you want to style it, it won't happen until February.
Do you think the Democratic Congress will stop support, that is, appropriation support for the war?
PEREZ: I think the Democrats are afraid of stopping it, especially stopping the funding for it because if we lose, end up losing the war, then they may get blamed for it. And that's the bottom line here. The Democrats are willing to criticize but they're not coming up with a solution themselves either.
TARANTO: Well, and furthermore, everyone pretty much recognizes that it would be catastrophic if we just pulled out, as the Iraq Study Group said. And I -- so, you know, only the most ideological Bush haters want to do that.
And the problem is right now we have three options. We have total withdrawal, which would be a disaster. We have the Bush plan. And we have the status quo, which is already a mess...
DOBBS: Whoa, whoa. We've got other plans here. Let's be fair. We've got the plans of the generals in theater that were rejected. We've got the plan of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their views, which have been rejected, describing, as Jamie McIntyre here reported this evening, describing their consultation as unanimous disagreement on this plan. It is -- there are other policy options here. It's not really that black and white.
TARANTO: Well, I don't see any of them coming out of the political system, though.
DOBBS: Well, the political system. What about the government system? What in the world has happened to governance in this country? Because everywhere you turn right now -- and this is not simply -- certainly George W. Bush is going to be judged, I think, harshly for the conduct of the war in Iraq. I think he's going to be judged harshly on a number of issues. But, my gosh, these two political parties right now, what they have accomplished over the last decade is frighteningly feeble.
LOUIS: It reminds me in a way of what was said around the funeral of Gerald Ford, that this was somebody who just fell on his sword politically, so to speak, that he issued a pardon which right or wrong was what he thought was right. And it didn't work for him politically, but he went ahead and did it anyway.
What we have right now -- what I see in Washington is both parties -- a lot of people in government are really jockeying to see on whose watch are we going to have one of those end of Vietnam scenes when the last helicopter is being thrown into the sea and the nation's credibility is being torn to shreds.
DOBBS: We'll be right back with these gentlemen and a lot more.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We're back. And Miguel's just asked the question, "How does all of this affect those who want to be president in 2008?"
I'm not sure I quite care yet.
But, Miguel, what do you think?
PEREZ: I think it's very damaging to John McCain. He's the one that advocated additional troops...
DOBBS: And is still advocating.
PEREZ: He's still advocating. He wanted a lot more though, and Bush didn't give him a lot more, an overwhelming force. So -- but still people -- voters in 2008 are going to tie John McCain to Bush's policy and I think it's detrimental to him.
I like John McCain. I'm sorry to see it happen.
DOBBS: Well, there's a lot happening to those candidates. Barack Obama is awfully sensitive about his ears. Hillary Clinton is doing poorly in the caucuses in some early polls.
What do you make of it?
LOUIS: Well, I'll tell you -- actually, to go back to McCain for a minute, it may look unwise from the standpoint of predicting what will work in Iraq, but if he picks up the 30 to 32 percent who are still with President Bush, that may be enough to get him through the primary season. And that's where all of these folks are. They're going be looking to play to the extremes of the parties, at least in the early rounds, and then try migrate back to the middle sometime before November of 2008.
DOBBS: Are these political candidates -- and best I can tell, every one of them to a person is in favor of amnesty for illegal immigration, not a one of them has advanced a plan to urgently secure these borders and ports of ours that remain absolutely wide open. Not one of them has put forward a reasonable, urgent plan to save public education, take control of public education.
What in the world are we watching here, a dance of personalities and politics as usual?
TARANTO: Well, we're watching a wide open presidential for the first time since 1952. And I think we're looking at a lot of candidates who are trying to play it cautious right now. And perhaps, if somebody comes out and acts more boldly, that will be to his benefit. But we haven't seen it yet.
DOBBS: Or hers.
TARANTO: Or hers, sure.
DOBBS: Absolutely.
LOUIS: I mean, a lot of the freedom that candidates had in years past is just gone. I mean, they know that Lou Dobbs will be watching every statement and it will be blasted out -- any misstatements will be blasted out...
DOBBS: And about a million other folks...
LOUIS: Well, that's right, with the Internet, digital radio, all of that stuff. And so people, I think, are going to try and push the other guy forward and let them take the first bullet.
DOBBS: The idea that all of this is being judged right now -- and we're guilty of it ourselves as we sit here, as I listen to us. We're talking about this in political terms, this war in Iraq with 3,000 Americans dead, 22,000 wounded, almost 11,000 of them so seriously they can't return to duty -- the issues are too profound to simply be talking about as the Republican and the Democratic opportunities or pitfalls politically. As a nation, we have exceeded our limits as a superpower. We have exceeded our bounds in national values. And no one is articulating a national vision. When is this going to change?
PEREZ: Unfortunately, as long as the next election and the next election and the next election -- that's American politics, that's how they...
DOBBS: But it has always been...
PEREZ: It's self-preservation. Democrats...
DOBBS: But it's always been so, Miguel. We've -- these elections have been coming around every 24 months for a very long time, thank God.
PEREZ: Sure.
LOUIS: But the basics have always been that, you know, you can't win the game if you're not in the game, so that the first duty of every politician, in their mind, is to get reelected.
TARANTO: And when you look at a president like Reagan, who we now view as a success, he certainly had moments when he looked very weak and the country looked like it was in trouble. And, you know, we came back. I don't know that the current president or his predecessor or his successor will necessarily be viewed that way. But we do have to take the long view. And if the country needs a stronger vision, it will come along eventually.
DOBBS: Spontaneous combustion in national ideas and vision.
I would like -- I would like to be able to share with you that faith-based view of our future. I'm too much -- shackled to cause and effect.
Thanks you very much. James, good to have you here. Errol, thank you very much. Miguel, thank you.
Thanks for being with us tonight. For all of us, thanks for watching and good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
