Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs This Week
Three Congressman, Many Other Legal Experts Decry The Severe Sentencing Of Border Patrol Agents For Wounding A Mexican Drug Smuggler, China Tests Anti-Satellite Missile
Aired January 21, 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: Good evening, everybody.
Tonight, President Bush is isolated. He remains embattled on a range of issues, from his refusal to pardon two former border patrol agents who shot an illegal alien drug smuggler given immunity by the Justice Department all the way to his conduct of the war in Iraq and his call for reinforcements.
President Bush is struggling to quell a rising rebellion within his own political party. Can the president unite the Republicans in his state of the union speech? We'll have special reports for you from the White House, Los Angeles, and a great deal more, straight ahead here tonight.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK: news, debate, and opinion for Sunday January 21. From Miami, Florida, here now, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening. Two former Border Patrol agents have begun serving long prison sentences for shooting and wounding an illegal- alien, Mexican drug smuggler in a case that has sparked national outrage.
The White House and federal prosecutors are refusing to acknowledge multiple inconsistencies in this startling case. Many lawmakers are simply furious. They're calling for nothing less than a presidential pardon for these agents. Casey Wian joins me from Los Angeles -- Casey.
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT, LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK: Lou, President Bush for the first time is promising to look into the case of two Border Patrol agents convicted and imprisoned for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN (voice over): It's a sight supporters of former Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos, and Jose Compean hoped they would never see. Two brace men, dedicated to securing the nation's southern border, ripped from their wives, six young children, and other grieving family members.
IGNACIO RAMOS, FMR. BORDER PATROL AGENT: I have to be strong for my kids.
JOE LOYA, RAMOS' FATHER-IN-LAW: Questions why the government has betrayed him like this after so many years of service with the U.S. Border Patrol, over 100 drug busts and never hurt anybody. Never hurt anybody, never shot anyone, never, you know, clean record.
WIAN: They began serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences for pursuing, shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler and not properly reporting the incident.
RE. TED POE, (R) TEXAS: Altercation on the border, drug dealer trying to escape with $1 million worth of drugs. He flees from law enforcement that try to stop him. There is a scuffle. Shots are exchanged. The Border agents don't know whether they shot the offender or not because he escapes back to Mexico. The next thing they know is the federal government now gets involved.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER, (R) CALIFORNIA: Today is a day of infamy and disgrace. The policies set down by this president is sending the defenders of our borders to prison be while rewarding illegal, alien drug smugglers. Shame on you, President Bush.
WIAN: U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton defends his office's prosecution of the agents and grant of immunity to the drug smuggler, citing testimony he was unarmed, posed no threat and was running away when he was shot.
However, agent Ramos says he testified that the smuggler was turning and pointing at the agents as if he had a gun.
RAMOS: He went like this.
WIAN: And that medical evidence of the smuggler's wounds is supports that. Both agents say their only regret is not properly reporting the shooting.
REP. BRIAN BILBRAY, (R) CALIFORNIA: There might have been a mistake made here, but not to the magnitude of almost the viciousness of enforcement on these two agents.
WIAN: Federal Judge Kathleen Cardone denied the agents' request to remain free on bond while their convictions are appealed. In her ruling she found no exceptional reason exists to allow the agents to remain free, despite the fact that three jurors now say they were coerced into voting guilty; that prosecutors did not oppose the motion for continued bail; and that the agents' families are in financial and emotional ruin.
Scores of lawmakers and 250,000 Americans are demanding a presidential pardon. President Bush now faces a full-scale revolt from members of his own party.
REP. WALTER JONES, (R) NORTH CAROLINA: Mr. President, look at your poll ratings. They will soon be less than 20 percent. Certainly Iraq is one factor. But another factor is the fact that you do not care about protecting our borders, and our heroes, who try to arrest a drug smuggler.
Mr. President, I hope tonight as you sit with your wife watching TV that maybe you'll see the faces and the families of these two men as they enter federal prison and you've done nothing about it.
WIAN: President Bush for the first time this week said he would look into the case. And he left open the possibility of a presidential pardon.
T.J. BONNER, NAT'L. BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: If people knew all of the facts in the case, they would be even more furious than they are now.
The facts prove that these agents were simply doing their jobs, defending themselves against an armed drug smuggler, and yet, the U.S. government turns on them with all of its might and resources and prosecutes them, giving the drug dealer a free pass.
WIAN: Supporters and the agents say they will continue to fight even from prison.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not over.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: The appeals process will now move ahead but not and until the court certifies transcripts of the agents' trial, that is expected to happen within the next few weeks.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Marshal Service says both agents are in protective custody because they are former law enforcement officers. Family members, however, say the agents have already received death threats, Lou.
DOBBS: Casey, this is a horrible controversial case. Stay with us for a moment, if you will, Casey. We're being joined by Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin for his perspective on this case.
Jeffrey, let's start with the idea of this prosecution, the situation in which two U.S. Border Patrol agents are now in a prison population, which could well include people that they will have previously apprehended, and arrested. Give us your take on what is going on here?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Well, that's a very dangerous situation for those Border Patrol agents because former law enforcement officials are always targets in prison.
Now, unfortunately, prison officials have some experience with law enforcement officials being in prison. I mean, there are New York City cops who are in prison, there are people who work for various police departments in prison. They are always in protective custody. But that's an imperfect system. So they have to be considered at risk.
DOBBS: The president has refused to even respond to 55 U.S. congressmen, members of his own party, who have called for an investigation of this case. And who are now calling for a pardon of these agents at this point.
The intractable seemingly intractable position taken by this White House, how do you explain it?
TOOBIN: Well, there's an official policy in the Justice Department about pardons. There's a procedure; it's set out in the code of federal regulations. And it says the pardon office will only even entertain requests for pardons five years after someone finishes their sentence. So that's long time from now.
DOBBS: Right.
TOOBIN: However, the president has the ultimate pardon authority. He doesn't have to follow those rules. And presidents sometimes don't. So yes, that's the procedure. But President Bush is well within his rights if he wanted to pardon them tomorrow.
WIAN: I will say one thing, Lou, if I can point out, family members, we do know have been in contact with the White House over the last couple of days. And the initial response that they're getting from the White House is encouraging. For the first time, they feel like they're actually may be a pardon as a possibility, Lou.
DOBBS: Well, we can all hold out that hope. But I want to go to the issue of this prosecution, Jeffrey, in is addition to being an outstanding legal mind, and our senior legal analyst, a former prosecutor, as well. And Jeffrey, what has struck Casey, what has struck me, all of us who have been reporting on this case over these long months, is that the U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. attorney in Texas, had to make a determination of some kind that a drug dealer, who was also an illegal alien, who was found with $1 million worth of drugs, for some reason had a standing that was superior to that have two federal agents, with distinguished service records.
TOOBIN: I mean --
DOBBS: What in the world could be the political basis for the prosecution here?
TOOBIN: You know, it is really just so astonishing because, you know one of the things you learn being a prosecutor is you know, you are essentially teammates with the FBI, the Border Patrol, if you're in that part of the country, the DEA. Those are the people you work with every day.
So it has got to have been so unusual and so disruptive inside the office to launch a prosecution of two of these colleagues, much less one that resulted in such extraordinarily long prison sentences, 11 and 12 years.
This is in the federal system where there's no parole. So the best they can hope for is having 15 percent cut off those sentences. They're going to be serving eight, nine years. It's just an extraordinarily unusual situation.
DOBBS: Is there a way in which, aside from our journalistic efforts, in which there can be an investigation of this prosecution? Is there apparatus by which -- and presumably -- many in Congress believe that U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton was persuaded to take this action by the attorney general himself, or certainly someone high in the Justice Department. Is there some way to carry out an investigation of this prosecution?
TOOBIN: Absolutely. The Congress -- that's what oversight is there for. They not only have the opportunity to do an investigation, they have subpoena power. They could call Johnny Sutton in. They could call Alberto Gonzalez in. They reconstruct how this decision was made. And these administration officials would have to answer that question.
That doesn't really do the two agents any good. That won't get them out of prison any faster, but it will explain the basis for their prosecution a little bit, perhaps.
DOBBS: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, as always, thank you very much for your insights. Casey Wian in Los Angeles, thank you.
Later here, three of the president's most outspoken critics in this case will be joining us, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman Brian Bilbray and Ted Poe.
Coming up, corporate elites and the Bush administration are moving ahead with the partnership among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, without the approval of voters, or Congress, without constitutional authority. You say you didn't know the about that? There's a reason why. We'll have the report. And what can be done about it.
And as agents Compean and Ramos begin serving their harsh prison sentences, leading Republican members of Congress are accusing President Bush of outright arrogance, and they want justice. Three of those congressmen join us here tonight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The Bush administration is pushing, and pushing hard, a partnership among the United States, Mexico and Canada. With a goal of what it calls integration by 2010. This stealth partnership among the three nations is being discussed at the highest levels of three governments, at the urging of the largest multinational corporations,
And it is barreling ahead with absolutely no congressional oversight, no voter approval, and completely out of sight of the American people.
As far as we can determine, it is also doing so without any constitutional authority of any kind, whatsoever. Christine Romans has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT, LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK (voice over): Congressman Virgil Goode wants to stop the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
REP. VIRGIL GOODE, (R) VIRGINIA: It will lead to a union between Canada, the United States, and Mexico and it will greatly harm the sovereignty of the United States. It is part of the open borders philosophy to do away with borders and I vigorously oppose it.
ROMANS: Launched in 2005, it's a dramatic government and business effort to quote, "harmonize regulations". The president promised no matter who the players are in Washington, Mexico City, and Ottawa, this bureaucracy is meant to endure.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I appreciate the commitment of the prime minister and the president toward a spirit of partnership to outlast whatever politics may occur.
ROMANS: To critics, outlasting politics means skirting Congress and the will of the American people, in secrecy. It took a Freedom of Information Request to find out what happened in Banff last fall. Closed to the press, the North American forum was attended by the highest levels of business and government. The conservative group Judicial Watch found --
TOM FITTON, JUDICIAL WATCH: This is a forum where the push is for taxes. The push is for open borders. The push is for investment funds for Mexico. So all the talk is on one side of the equation.
ROMANS: Among the notes the Pentagon released of the meeting a goal of integration and, quote, "open borders for industry and investment."
"North America needs to be more competitive and yet security goals seem to interfere with this outcome." And the admission "most people are not compelled by North American integration -- need to identify steps that demonstrate the concept and success."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: Numerous documents advocate open borders between, and a secure perimeter, around the three countries taking what is called a "continental vision". It is a vision that Congressman Goode does not share and he's introducing a resolution opposing the Security and Prosperity Partnership, as it's called, Lou.
DOBBS: This meeting in Banff, in which high U.S. government officials are talking about really the interference of national security interests with commercial and trade interests. That is appalling.
ROMANS: That meeting in Banff has become a lightning rod for the people who say there has to be better transparency. This is all going on without congressional approval. The proponents of the SPP tell me, though, Lou -- they say nothing we're doing needs congressional approval.
DOBBS: I would say to them that they're liars. Because the Constitution of the United States still applies to them as well as to each of us. And so long as we can be preserve the First Amendment, we'll keep bringing their handiwork to the public's attention. It is remarkable. And so few people are reporting on this issue.
ROMANS: One of those reasons is all of the meetings are closed to the press. You have to file a Freedom of Information Act to request to get any information about the participants, any kind of information. It just feeds into the whole idea this is all being done very stealthily.
DOBBS: And Congressman Goode, does he sense he's getting support for his measure to oppose this and to stop it?
ROMANS: He's getting some more people on his side here. He's very, very concerned about this. He's also concerned, Lou, that the media hasn't been reporting on it, there hasn't been a lot of interest in it quite yet. He's going to continue to beat the drum.
DOBBS: I know you will continue to watch them very carefully. Christine, thank you.
The Senate, this week, passed ethics and lobbying reforms that would ban free meals, free trips and free gifts for lobbyists. One provision makes it harder for lawmakers to anonymously giveaway millions of tariff breaks for multinational corporations. A lot of people didn't even know they were doing that. Now we do. Lisa Sylvester has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT, LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK (voice over): Auburn Leather Crafters specializes in dog collars and leashes. The family business faces competition from Chinese imports. The company has survived, in part, because of tariffs on those imported foreign products.
But recently, company President Anita Dungey discovered Congress has been quietly eliminating the tariffs on a number of products, including leather and electronic gadgets at the expense of small U.S. Manufacturers.
ANITA DUNGEY, AUBURN LEATHER CRAFTERS: Unless we had someone in Washington, my fear is that these tariffs will be lifted, and we won't know about it until our sales drop off.
SYLVESTER: The tariff breaks benefit retailers like Wal-Mart, who import these foreign goods and have an army of Washington lobbyists at their disposal. The number of tariff suspensions has increased substantially. The last Congress in its final hours gave away 520 tariff suspensions.
JIM SCHOLLAERT, MADE IN USA STRATEGIES: It's a matter of more and more lobbyists getting on the gravy train, as word got around how easy it was to pick up some easy cash for your company, and yourself.
SYLVESTER: Like earmarks, those special pet projects that congressional members slip into legislation, trade suspensions are done in secret, and end up costing the taxpayer. The Senate passed a bill that would require legislators to disclose when they insert a tariff break in a bill, and to specify which companies benefit.
RYAN ALEXANDER, TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE: What it says is that in the future, requests for and any successful efforts to suspend tariffs for individual companies, or groups of companies, would have to be disclosed in advance of they're being considered.
SYLVESTER: Anita Dungey says her company is at a disadvantage to the big-box retailers, but more transparency gives small businesses at least a fighting chance.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: The House approved ethics changes, with similar language, it tightens the rules on tariffs breaks requiring House representatives to disclose if and when they sponsor a suspension, Lou.
DOBBS: Lisa, thank you very much. Lisa Sylvester from Washington.
Up next here, three congressmen voicing anger, frustration, and outrage at President Bush for what they call his indifference to those imprisoned Border Patrol agents, and the president's outright arrogance. They'll be joining us.
And our distinguished panel of political analysts join us, Republican fundraiser Georgette Mosbacher, "New York Daily News" Columnist Errol Louis, Syndicated Columnist Miguel Perez. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Turning now to the war in Iraq, insurgents have killed more than 3,000 of our troops, wounded almost 23,000 of our troops since the beginning of this war. The first U.S. reinforcements being sent to Baghdad by President Bush have now arrived in the Iraqi capital.
The violence rages on. Insurgents have killed 70 people in coordinated bomb attacks outside a university in northern Baghdad, the worst insurgent attack in Iraq in weeks.
The president is expected to strongly defend his Iraq policy in his State of the Union Speech, Tuesday. The speech will also give President Bush an opportunity to answer critics within his own party, and try to seek common ground with the Democratic majority in Congress. Elaine Quijano has the report for us from the White House -- Elaine.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the address comes at a time when the political debate over the president's plan for more U.S. forces in Iraq has intensified. But it also comes on the heels of some harsh words by Iraq's Prime Minister Northern Alliance al-Maliki, pushing back hard against the Bush administration; even as the White House continues to insist that the Iraqi government does support the president's new plan.
Now, in an interview, the prime minister blame the Bush administration for not providing enough weapons for Iraqi troops. And said had that happened, Iraq would have been in a much better position than it is now. For his part, President Bush essentially dismissed the criticism. He said the U.S. was providing the prime minister with the necessary American forces to help secure his country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We may not be providing it as quickly as he wants, but nevertheless it's a good sign when the prime minister says, just give us the capabilities. That's precisely what my new strategy and new plan is attempting to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Now, the president this weekend meeting with his Defense secretary and his secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The White House calls it a chance for an update on their recent visits to the Mideast region, as the Bush administration tries to convince skeptical U.S. allies and build support for the president's Iraq plan.
But the president is facing a skeptical audience at home, as well, as he prepares to deliver the State of the Union Address before the Democratic-led Congress. Iraq and the larger war of terror, of course, will be part of that address on Tuesday. Aides say, though, that the address will not include a laundry list of proposals. Instead, it will talk about broader themes, they say, including energy, immigration, and education policy, Lou.
DOBBS: Elaine, Thank you.
Let's take now to take a look at some of your thoughts.
Al in Washington wrote in to say: "Countless people were appalled when the National Guard fled in the face of illegal alien criminals crossing our border. But seeing what happened to Agents Compean and Ramos, it certainly explains why they chose the prudent course.
Lawrence in Illinois: "When are you going to stop using the politically correct terminology U.S. Justice Department? In light of the Border Patrol agents' convictions, that department is incapable of determining justice. Suggest that from now on, you use the terminology "Legal Department" when reporting the antics of those incompetents."
Each of you who's e-mail is read here receives a copy of my book "War on the Middle Class."
Up next, outrage on Capitol Hill as two U.S. Border Patrol agents are imprisoned this week. Three congressmen join us here.
And President Bush is under siege over his policies, and the conduct of the war in Iraq. Our panel of top political analysts, Republican fundraiser Georgette Mosbacher, "New York Daily News" Columnist Errol Louis, Syndicated Columnist Miguel Perez join us.
And Senator Jay Rockefeller, the new chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, joins us, as well, to discuss the war in Iraq, domestic spying and other critically important issues. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This "LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK": news, debate and opinion.
Here again, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: There's rising outrage among Republican members of Congress as former Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean have begun serving harsh prison sentences for doing their duty. Three of the many Congressmen seeking justice for these agents -- Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman Brian Bilbray -- both of California -- and Congressman Ted Poe, a former prosecutor and judge -- have strong thoughts about the president and about what this president could be thinking.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER, (R) CALIFORNIA: I don't remember where there was ever a time when the president of the United States was so out of sync with the national security interests of the American people. And his policies are so wrong-headed that we end up putting the Border Patrol agents in such a horrible situation, that now what we find is these two Border Patrol agents, who are heroes, putting their lives on the line for us, are -- end up being charged with a crime while the drug dealer goes free. So I don't ever remember a presidency as out of sync as this one.
DOBBS: Congressman Bilbray, you -- what have you heard from your constituents? What is their thinking as they watch a president, as you gentlemen put it, just arrogantly ignore members of his own party, congressmen in the House of Representatives, ignoring your entreaties, your letters, not responding in any way?
REP. BRIAN BILBRAY, (R) CALIFORNIA: Well, I was born and raised along the border. I guess the frustration is the administration from the bottom up just does not understand how out of control and violent the border is, the kind of environment that we're asking Border Patrolmen to work on. Anybody that looks at the murder rate in Tijuana understands that law enforcement is being killed all along this frontier. And to sit there and all along second-guess people in a violent area -- and remember that this was an area where there was a major firefight with assault weapons not too long ago.
DOBBS: Right.
BILBRAY: And all I say is that, Mr. President, if you're going to consider Mr. Kennedy's amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens, couldn't you just add two more Border Patrol agents onto that list? DOBBS: Congressman Poe, Texan, judge, prosecutor, you have watched this unfold in Texas. And a number of viewers have said shame on Texas for permitting this. How do you react?
REP. TED POE, (R) TEXAS: Well, it is a bad situation that has occurred in our state. The border is out of control. The border agents did their job. The federal government chose to believe the drug dealer and prosecute the border agents. Thirty thousand Texans have asked the president through petitions to pardon these individuals. Total number in the United States is almost 250,000 people have signed petitions asking the president pardon them. We want the president to do that. He's pardoned people in the past, over 100 people, some of those are drug offenders. And why not a pardon to two people, border agents, that they'll send a message not only to the Border Patrol that we'll support you, but it will send a message to the drug dealers, don't bring drugs to the United States.
DOBBS: Don't bring drugs to the United States. The fact that...
POE: Lou, Lou...
DOBBS: Go ahead.
POE: Lou, we're talking about a message that says that we're going to punish Border Patrol agents for trying to defend it, but then we're also sending the message that if you're a drug smuggler, if you broke the law, you will not only get amnesty and protection, you can make up to $5 million by suing the people. I mean, the signal and the message sent around the world is scary. This is not the American signal that we want to send, this is not the way we defend our borders.
ROHRABACHER: And the White House now is vilifying these two Border Patrol agents. The message coming out of the White House now is Ramos and Compean are really terrible human beings. These are heroic individuals. One of them was up to be Border Patrol Agent of the Year right before this happened.
If we care about our country, we have to control our borders. You know that, Lou. Everybody out there knows that. These Border Patrol agents have been put in a horrible situation because this president has some kind of a policy that we don't know about that -- I believe it's an open border policy and it's untenable.
DOBBS: It's untenable. This issue is also a metaphor for, as you both -- as you all have suggested -- we're now approaching six months this year from September 11. The fact that that border is still, as you say, it is a battle zone across much of its breadth.
ROHRABACHER: I wish it was a battle zone, Lou, because you know what? That would mean we were fighting back. The policy of this administration, people have to understand this, and the reason these two Border Patrol agents are in trouble is that they should not fire their weapons unless they are fired upon, which means there is no control of the borders whatsoever. No one will ever stop for a Border Patrol agent. That word is out to all the drug dealers and terrorists around the world that our border in the southern part of the United States is open.
DOBBS: Fifty-five Congressmen sending a letter to the president on behalf of these agents. The idea that this president would not even respond, that none of his senior staff would respond, that Tony Snow, White House spokesman, referred to your suggestion as nonsensical. Is this for each of you, is this a break with this president?
POE: We would think that when 55 members of Congress ask for a specific thing to occur from the administration, we'd at least get an answer, even a no would be fine. We've had follow-up phone calls, follow-up letters and we have received no communication from the White House about this request. And we wonder why we haven't even received correspondence in the form of a note. So it is concerning that there is a big disconnect between what occurs in Congress and what members of Congress are asking questions about and an answer from the administration.
BILBRAY: Lou, it's hard to get the message across to anybody in Washington about the conditions along the border. But the administration just needs friends that are willing to be persistent at opening their eyes to the reality of the situation.
ROHRABACHER: I'm going to disagree with Brian on that. You know, this president knows darn well what's going on down at the border. He just has a policy that we don't know about. Maybe it's an unstated policy that's an open border policy. He knows what's going on down there, Brian. But he now -- that puts the Border Patrol in a totally untenable situation where they have to then -- what, if the president says you can have an open border, that puts them on the line. And now they try to enforce the law and they end up putting the Border Patrol agents in jail.
DOBBS: You gentlemen have described this as a betrayal by the president of these agents and the responsibility to secure that border. The lack of response I couldn't help but think, to tell you the truth, congressmen, as you were talking about the lack of response from this White House, that you've just conveyed a feeling that is felt, according to our audience, by millions and millions of Americans in this country who feel that they're just now -- their will is not being represented at all in Washington, D.C.
ROHRABACHER: I used to call the White House during the Clinton years and I would get a call back from high level administration officials. Or the president himself would call me a number of times. This president doesn't return calls and underlings way down the line return the calls of elected congressmen. That's arrogance.
DOBBS: Well, gentlemen, thank you for taking up this cause, and we wish you obviously all of the luck in the world.
BILBRAY: Thank you, and let's hope it all works out for the agents and for America.
DOBBS: Absolutely.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Just ahead, one of the Senate's most influential Democrats shares his thoughts about the president's decision to send more than 20,000 of our troops into Iraq. Senator Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee joins us.
And the Republican rebellion against the president's new Iraq policy continues to widen. Three of the country's leading political strategists and analysts join me.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: A bipartisan group of senators this week introduced a non-binding resolution against the president's plan to send those 21,500 troops to Iraq. The resolution, proposed by Senators Levin, Biden and Hagel, a Republican, will most likely win widespread support among Democrats.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, the new chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, also will support that effort.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D), WEST VIRGINIA: Absolutely. And I think those who say that that's a symbolic you know, nonbinding resolution, really have it wrong, because I think it's going to be a bipartisan rejection not of the president per se, but of a policy which has never made any sense, which has never been thought through and which never understood what they were getting into.
DOBBS: Do you also support, as Senator Hillary Clinton has suggested, putting a cap on the number of troops in Iraq?
ROCKEFELLER: Not sure yet. I mean, I think that may -- we may come to that depending upon what happens. The president has indicated, as you know, that he hasn't listened to anything Congress says. That's not the first time that's happened. And we tend to believe that. So, if we want to make our point, we will probably going to have to move on to something stronger.
DOBBS: Are you hopeful? General David Grange said he believed this increase should go ahead. He's in obvious disagreement with you and a number of other generals. Should go ahead and within four to six months a best effort and at that point withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq if there is a lack of -- if there is no success? Either way, give them four to six months to at least succeed where they have failed over the course over the past year or so. You reject that out of hand.
ROCKEFELLER: No, I don't reject that out of hand. In fact I sort of agree with that. And you know the four to six months depends when you start.
But let's say you started two to three months and you said to the Iraqi government, which I don't think is committed to doing this. Remember Maliki came out and was against the increase in troops and now he's for it and I'm sort of what happened in between. But I do think that you have to be very tough with them. And I don't think there's a military solution.
I do think you have to make them confront their own reality of 1,500 years, and that is, can Sunnis and Shias in that country live together in something called Iraq? And if they can't, why are we there when the real war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and we're not doing very well there?
DOBBS: Senator, let's turn to domestic surveillance or warrantless wiretapping. Attorney General Gonzales was questioned today by members of Senate Judiciary Committee, as you know, about the administration's about face, if you will, in turning to FISA for that program. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We believe that the court's orders will allow the necessary speed and agility the government needs to protect our nation from a terrorist threat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Senator, you and I have talked about this over the course of the past better than a year, what's your reaction?
ROCKEFELLER: My reaction is that's a very broad statement under which they can fit almost anything they want. Now, look, let's be realistic, what happened -- a FISA court judge made a decision that they were tired of having all of these warrantless, unpermitted spying to take place. And so they said it's going to be different. And then the Justice Department kind of took credit for it, and he comes before the Judiciary Committee and says, well we have certain problems.
Well, to be honest with you, there a lot of problems still with the Warrantless Surveillance Act -- wiretap, whatever you want to call it. And that's exactly what Judiciary Committee and the Intelligence Committee are for, to make sure that are there no loopholes, that every single person who is listened to in their conversation that there is a warrant for that. Not some kind a blanket thing thrown out over 10,000 people, but every single person.
If not, Lou, we haven't improved that much. And that gets to the core of what America is as a country.
DOBBS: Senator, we thank you very much for being with us here.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.
Thank you, Senator.
(END VIDEOTAPE) DOBBS: Coming up next here, President Bush is isolated and embattled as his own party is critical of his actions in Iraq and here at home. I'll be joined by three of the best political analysts in the country: Georgette Mosbacher, Errol Louis and Miguel Perez.
They're next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me now are three of the country's very best political analysts and strategists. From New York, Republican strategist and fund-raiser Georgette Mosbacher. Here in Miami with me, a columnist for the "New York Daily News" and editorial board member, Errol Louis -- good to have you with us here -- and syndicated columnist Miguel Perez.
Miguel, good to have you.
Let's start with a president who is embattled, who is under siege and is increasingly isolated on both foreign policy and domestic policy.
Errol, what in the world is this White House trying to do?
ERROL LOUIS, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": Well, I think they're sticking to their old script. Part of what he's been saying this week reminded me of 2004, saying if we don't stop the al Qaeda terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq, they're going to follow us here, a naked, direct appeal to the public to try and protect the homeland. I mean, and it sounded like what he was saying in the closing hours of the 2004 campaign.
DOBBS: Georgette?
GEORGETTTE MOSBACHER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I mean this president has been very, very clear. It's -- one thing about him is he doesn't change. He doesn't go by the polls or where -- how the wind's blowing. I think he is very serious about sticking it out till the -- until the very end.
DOBBS: Until -- I guess the word that sort of came to mind as you were expressing that thought was the bitter end.
Miguel, your thoughts?
MIGUEL PEREZ, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, you know, I think that the one thing that saves the president is that the Democrats aren't offering anything better. All they're doing is they're threatening to cut back the funding and all of this other stuff. But what solutions are they proposing? Zero.
DOBBS: Is there a solution here? Because, you know, for years, I have been extremely critical of the general staff at the Pentagon for not insisting upon victory. These troops still do not have the resources, whether it's armored vehicles, whether it is body armor, for crying out loud, even helmets. We're having to import ammunition, for crying out loud.
PEREZ: The solution, as far as I see it, was overwhelming force, not 20,000 troops, but overwhelming force. And if we cannot do that because maybe we don't have the manpower to do it, then, you know, just pull out as soon as possible.
LOUIS: And it's shocking, Lou. I mean, by the government's own estimates, you need about a ratio of one to 50 soldiers or security forces to population. I mean, there should be 120,000 peacekeepers in Baghdad, as opposed to the 15,000 we have now or the 33,000 we're going to build up to. It's shocking. And the Democrats are not going to question this because they got into office in November by not being specific, by not trying to take the reigns from the president but letting him...
DOBBS: That may be good politics, but it doesn't seem to me, Georgette, to be very good governance. And that's the role they're in now as the leaders of both the House and the Senate.
MOSBACHER: Look, Lou, there's really nothing they can do. I mean, they can spend all the time they want -- these resolutions. But at the end of the day, the president is the commander in chief. We may not agree with the direction he's taking. But I'm not sure that this time is -- we've been debating this issue for how long?
The fact of the matter is it doesn't seem to be resonating with the president. He is the commander in chief and is steadfast on this course.
DOBBS: Let's turn to the issue right now of comprehensive immigration reform. This president is now being roundly criticized by members of his own party for the prosecution of these two Border Patrol agents, who now have been sentenced to a long time in prison by a prosecutor, a U.S. prosecutor who is taking the word of an admitted illegal alien, drug smuggler with $1 million in drugs in his possession against of that of two U.S. Border Patrol officers. The Democrats have said nothing. What is going on?
LOUIS: The Democrats have said nothing. The president of the United States has said, "Well, maybe they'll be eligible for a pardon." Which would have sounded a lot more comforting had it been said months earlier or if it was coming from somebody who had not as governor of Texas executed so many people and rarely, if ever, used the pardon power that he had back then. So we don't know what's going to happen to these men. I wouldn't feel at all comforted by the fact that the president has finally taken notice of it.
DOBBS: Georgette, members of your party, members of the president's party serving in the United States Congress, 55 of them, sending an entreaty to the president of the United States. He nor his staff had even the basic courtesy to respond to them whether on the merits or whether simply as a matter of good manners. What in the world does he think he's doing by insulting the people's representatives and members of his own party?
MOSBACHER: Lou, this is mind-boggling. I have to tell you, I don't understand why he just doesn't pardon them and get this off the news and get this out of the debate. This is -- I can't explain this one. This one should have been a simple one that he can get rid of. This really does force one to step back and say, what is going on in that White House? Even I cannot defend this.
DOBBS: Miguel?
PEREZ: I cannot defend it, either. I think that the -- I never like it when prosecutors cut deals, you know, have a lesser crook for a bigger crook...
DOBBS: Especially with drug dealers and illegal aliens.
PEREZ: Especially with drug dealers and against law enforcement officers.
DOBBS: Exactly.
PEREZ: But the situation is this: the president should step in right away and...
DOBBS: These men.
PEREZ: ... get it over with.
DOBBS: Forgive me for introducing race into this. These men are Hispanic officers with great records serving the nation. Where in the heck is be LULAC? Where is Maldep (ph)? Where is La Raza? Where are these people who call themselves Hispanics activists?
PEREZ: Well, Miguel Perez is here.
DOBBS: Well, I appreciate that. But where are they?
PEREZ: That's a good question.
DOBBS: It is. I think it is shameful what is happening on the part of this administration, the fact that the Democratic Party is not dealing with this, not a single member -- Democratic member of Congress. The shame is horrible. We're going to do our very best to get to the bottom of it.
We're going to continue in just a moment. We'll be back with more in just a moment. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: While we're on the subject of immigration, government taking a strange turn -- Miguel Perez.
PEREZ: Yes, finally. I've been advocating this for years in my column. When political asylum seekers come to this country, they have to prove that they have a well-founded fear of persecution if they return to their homeland.
DOBBS: I would think that makes sense. PEREZ: Many of them are going back two days after they get a green card. So obviously they did not have this fear if they're turning around and going back to their homeland as tourists. So the deposited is now saying, "Look, if you go back, you revoke your right to stay here and you can stay wherever it is that you came from."
And I think it's a great idea.
DOBBS: And other organizations, however, activist organizations saying that's terrible, it's a terrible idea. Maybe we'll start to see some parts of this government actually make some sense.
Georgette Mosbacher, I want to turn to you. This week, Communist China shot down one of its own satellites in low earth orbit, but demonstrating it has a killer capacity and demonstrating that that capacity would be most effective, obviously, if used against the U.S. communication satellites, military satellites. Your reaction?
MOSBACHER: Well, I think it's -- the fact that we don't have any treaties with them, that we have basically ignored this subject -- but what was more stunning is that we didn't know about it. And that very same day that they shot the missile at their satellite, our chiefs of intelligence agencies were giving their annual risk assessment to the Congress without a mention -- without a mention of what China was doing with this anti-satellite missile.
DOBBS: Do you think it's time for this Republican president to perhaps take seriously the idea that there is a significant economic and geopolitical and perhaps military challenge emanating from the People's Republic of China?
MOSBACHER: Well, the very fact that we don't have any treaties, the very fact that the chiefs of our intelligence agencies knew nothing about this really is in itself scary.
LOUIS: You know, every time I hear about the united States being the sole remaining superpower, I think about the fact that the Chinese are funding all of this debt, this big deficit we're running up. Wal- Mart couldn't exist without all of the goods imported from there. So if we're the last superpower, then who are they? They're the last superpower's rich uncle, I guess.
And now they're showing, I think, the fallacy of this notion that you can trade your way out of this kind of global rivalry, that it doesn't go away, and maybe we're no the only superpower left.
DOBBS: I don't think that there's any question that it's time to take them very seriously. As we've been reporting on this broadcast for some number of years, the idea of separating geopolitical interests and commercial and trade interests, as the U.S. government has now been doing for two decades, is absurd and hopefully will soon end.
PEREZ: ... beginning of a space war race.
DOBBS: Well, let's hope it does not turn to that. But you're exactly right. And it's something that obviously this government and all of us have to be prepared for.
Thank you very much, Errol Louis, Miguel Perez, Georgette Mosbacher. Thank you very much.
And we thank you for being with us tonight.
For all of us here, thanks for watching. Have a great weekend. Good night from Miami.
"THIS WEEK AT WAR" begins now with John Roberts.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com.
