Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

American Soldier Missing in Iraq; Bush and Blair Meet

Aired April 16, 2004 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for April . Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, the first direct talks between U.S. Marines and civic leaders in surrounding Fallujah. There is also news tonight about an American soldier missing in Iraq.

President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, they agree on Iraq. Their views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, something less than full agreement.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now in this century our nations see clearly the dangers of our time.

DOBBS: American and British officials in Iraq off have different priorities. Former coalition adviser Michael Rubin is our guest.

The White House may preempt the 9/11 Commission and create a national intelligence director; 9/11 Commission member John Lehman joins us.

And in our special report "Making the Grade," bilingual education, instead of helping, it may be hurting many of this country's students.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The best way for your child to learn English is to be taught in English.

DOBBS: Tonight, our special report on education in America.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Friday, April 16. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening.

Tonight, an Arab television network is broadcasting a videotape of an American soldier being held hostage in Iraq. The videotape was broadcast by the Al-Jazeera network. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called Al-Jazeera's reporting vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.

Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre has the report.

Jamie, what is the Pentagon saying about the videotape of the young American soldier tonight?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, very briefly, Lou, the Pentagon is saying nothing.

The Pentagon officials say that they believe, in these kinds of situations, there's very little that they can say that would be of any help. And they want to do nothing at all to encourage the hostage takers. They're not even confirming, for instance, that this man who identified himself on the tape as Private 1st Class Keith Matthew Maupin is in fact Private Maupin, although they do admit that two U.S. soldiers have been reported missing since an April 9 incident in which there was an attack on a convoy.

That's also where several contractors from the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root also went missing after that event. But the Pentagon will simply say they're reviewing the tape. They understand why news organizations are airing it, but they're not commenting on it. And earlier today before this tape surfaced, the U.S. military in Baghdad reiterated its policy about dealing with hostage takers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN SENOR, COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY: We are putting everything behind trying to rescue these hostages. And we will not negotiate with the terrorists who are -- who have engaged in the hostage taking. But we are putting everything behind their release, both from an intelligence standpoint and from a military standpoint and other resources we have at our disposal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCINTYRE: Now, a few days ago, the military did say that there were 40 hostages being held from 12 different countries. But today when asked the same question, how many were being held, they said they're not going to be giving a tally every day of how many people are being held and what's being done to try to secure their release, again, because they believe it only plays into the hands of the hostage takers -- Lou.

DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much, Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.

And to make this note, we on this broadcast have chosen to show only the image of the young hostage, purportedly an American soldier, out of sensibilities for the situation.

DOBBS: President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair today presented a united front on Iraq. They reaffirmed their commitment to the June 30 deadline for handing over power to the Iraqis.

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair also welcomed the United Nations' help in Iraq one year after the United States said the United Nations was not wanted.

White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux has the report -- Suzanne.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, with the rising death toll in Iraq and also that June 30 deadline to turn power to the Iraqi people fast approaching, this is a critical time for President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Both leaders earlier today in the Rose Garden presenting a united front on a number of issues. As you know, Blair has been facing growing criticism at home and both from European allies for support for the Iraq war. He has privately been pushing Mr. Bush to allow for a greater role for the United Nations inside of Iraq.

Now, Mr. Bush, who has seen, of course, this renewed violence in that country over the last couple of weeks, is now acknowledging that more international help is needed. The Bush administration is endorsing a U.N. Security Council resolution that would give United Nations a central role in the political transformation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: This week, we've seen the outlines of a new Iraqi government that will take the keys of sovereignty. We welcome the proposals presented by the U.N. special envoy Brahimi. He's identified a way forward to establishing an interim government that is broadly acceptable to the Iraqi people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now, the two leaders also presented a united front when it comes to this new plan from Israel to pull out of Gaza and just a portion of the West Bank, both of them saying that they believe this will jump-start the Israeli-Palestinian talks, the road map that they talk about.

But Blair went on to say as well that he believes that more international aid should be given to the Palestinian Authority. This is an organization that the U.S. refuses to deal with under the leadership of Yasser Arafat -- Lou.

DOBBS: Suzanne, thank you very much.

U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi wants to dissolve the U.S.- appointed Iraqi Governing Council and to replace it with a caretaker government. That interim government would stay in power until elections could be held early next year.

Senior United Nations correspondent Richard Roth reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He calls it a sketch for now, but the picture in the mind of top U.N. diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi may become the political road map for Iraq as the U.S. transfers power. Brahimi called elections early next year the defining moment for Iraq. LAKHDAR BRAHIMI, U. N. -IRAQ ENVOY: Naturally the security situation has to improve significantly for these elections to take place in an acceptable environment.

ROTH: Despite the turmoil now, Brahimi thinks it possible to form a caretaker government in May. The provisional government would replace the Iraqi Governing Council handpicked by the U.S.

BRAHIMI: I am absolutely confident that most Iraqi people want a simple formula for this interim period of just six or seven months.

ROTH: During that time, the coalition authority would dissolve, the government would be led by a prime minister, along with a president as nominal head of state.

Brahimi wants to duplicate his work in Afghanistan where he held a national conference to promote dialogue and reconciliation, bring differing factions under one tent and perhaps people start talking.

As long as Brahimi shoots for the June 30 hand over deadline, the U.S. is happy with his early plans.

MCCLELLAN: I think the Iraqi people will have the central role going forward after June 30.

QUESTION: But not the U.N.? The U.N. won't have a central role?

MCCLELLAN: Well, we think they should have a vital role.

QUESTION: Is there a difference between vital and central?

MCCLELLAN: Well, you maybe have different ideas than I do. But the central role is going to be led by the Iraqi people come the end of June.

ROTH: Left unclear, how much authority the caretaker leaders would have over the U.S. military and the nation.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: In Iraq so far, no plan has gone according to plan. Afghanistan could serve as a short-term model. But protecting national balloting will be a huge test for Iraqis and their protectors -- Lou.

DOBBS: The shifts in U.S.-Iraqi policy are breathtaking over the past few weeks. In effect, the Iraqi Governing Council, which has been dominant to this point, would be simply removed. The United Nations would appoint a new government without any sort of election until at least next year. What is the reaction at the United Nations? What is the reaction from other nations?

ROTH: Well, right now, at the U.N. and at the U.S., if this was a sitcom, it would be, "Everybody Loves Brahimi." They're pinning their hopes on him. They're just staking everything on him. He is well respected, a former Algerian foreign minister. But there are huge gaps still. How will they be selected, this vice president, this prime minister, considering the ethnic political divisions? And how much authority will they really have? There is no way they're going to be able to tell the U.S. military on the ground what to do. As Brahimi said, you're not going to make 150,000 troops disappear.

The U.N. means process. It's part of the process, but the violence is still too high for the U.N. to return in vast numbers, according to Kofi Annan.

DOBBS: A United Nations that has chosen to withdraw to this point and a United Nations that this administration said was unnecessary and unwanted just a year ago.

ROTH: Well, the U.N. has often complained that they only want us when it's a total dirty mess. And that is what seems to be happening right now.

DOBBS: Well, just so no one at the United Nations gets too upset, the United Nations does not have a shining record from 1998 through 2002.

ROTH: Well, the U.N. is made up of its own members, though, which the U.S. is still the big stick.

DOBBS: Richard Roth, thank you very much.

After nearly a week of a shaky cease-fire in Fallujah, U.S. military and coalition representatives met with city leaders today. Officials say they are hopeful they can strengthen that cease-fire with the insurgents. U.S. military officials are demanding the people involved in the killing and maiming of four contract workers be handed over to coalition authorities. Talks are scheduled to resume tomorrow.

In Najaf, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on his supporters to rally again in the streets; 2,500 American troops are now massed outside the city, preparing for battle with Sadr's gunmen.

Nearby in the city of Kufa, Shiite gunmen clashed with coalition troops today. There were several skirmishes reported.

On the hostage front, three Czech citizens were released, as well as one Chinese and one Canadian citizen. However, two more civilians are missing in Iraq, one from Denmark, another from Jordan.

That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. The question: Should the United States turn over responsibility for Iraq to the United Nations, yes or no? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Lou. We'll have results for you later in the broadcast.

Still to come here, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair stand united on Iraq. But British and American officials in Iraq often disagree. Former Pentagon and coalition adviser Michael Rubin joins us.

And the White House may appoint a new national intelligence director, effectively preempting the 9/11 Commission. I'll be talking with 9/11 Commission member John Lehman.

And in "Making the Grade," our special report on American education, bilingual education it turns out may cause our students far more harm than good.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair today put on a show of unity in the face of escalating violence in Iraq. My next guest says there are significant differences, however, between the U.S. and British approaches in Iraq.

Michael Rubin has just resigned from the Pentagon after completing a tour of duty with the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq. He is now with the American Enterprise Institute, joining us from Washington, D.C.

Good to have you with us.

MICHAEL RUBIN, FORMER PENTAGON ADVISER: Thank you.

You're here on a day in which Tony Blair and George Bush joined at the shoulder on the issue of Iraq and seemingly, without necessarily characterizing it negatively -- I don't mean to do that -- almost anxiously awaiting envoy Brahimi's imprimatur on any organization, any government to turn over control of Iraq to. What's your reaction?

RUBIN: Well, the problem with Lakhdar Brahimi and the United Nations in general, Lakhdar Brahimi might be a wonderful person and the United Nations might be a great organization, but what connotes legitimacy and London and what connotes legitimacy in Baghdad are two very different things.

The short-term political expediency of turning the situation over to the United States will backfire, because the Iraqis -- the Iraqis really dislike the United Nations and they dislike Lakhdar Brahimi in the extreme.

DOBBS: Lakhdar Brahimi -- many of our -- many people may not realize the history that he has with the Iraqis. If you would, take us back more than a decade.

RUBIN: Will do.

Between 1984 and 1991, before he became foreign minister of Algeria, Lakhdar Brahimi was the undersecretary of the Arab League. This is the time when Saddam Hussein used poison gas against the Kurds and also in March 1991 used helicopter gunships against the Shia, killing tens of thousands of Iraqi Arabs. And Lakhdar Brahimi stayed silent. The other thing to remember...

DOBBS: As did the Arab League itself, in point of fact.

RUBIN: As did the Arab League.

The other thing to remember is that, under Saddam Hussein, the Iraqis only saw on television what Saddam Hussein wanted them to see on television. And with regard to the United Nations, what they saw was in February 1998 Kofi Annan saying, Saddam Hussein is a man I can do business with. And as we see from the oil-for-food scandal, he meant it in more ways than one.

And Lakhdar Brahimi was on television hugging, embracing Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister who is now in prison about to stand trial for crimes against humanity.

DOBBS: Of course, you're talking, Michael, primarily about the Shia population, admittedly, more than 60 percent of the population Iraq, who would have the strongest aversion to Brahimi.

But the fact is they have a strong aversion, it seems, to -- certainly to the you United States, to the coalition and just about everyone else. At what point does the culture -- does it become manifestly clear to everyone that the culture, the society of Iraq is such that one can't rest policy on popular opinion amongst the Iraqis themselves to build a future for that nation?

RUBIN: Well, I disagree a little bit with the premise of part of your question, in that the Shia really don't want the Americans there. And the vast majority of the Shia, the silent majority, if you will, are very positive to the Americans.

When I lived outside the security zone and I would travel around the country on my own with Iraqi friends, and when I would go down to places like Najaf, where Muqtada al-Sadr, this firebrand cleric, is now holed up, people wouldn't complain about the American occupation. What they were complaining about was, Muqtada al-Sadr and his gangs are harassing our women, breaking into our homes and smashing satellite dishes.

And what the Iraqis need, and Shia, Sunni and Kurds, is a little bit of consistency. One of the things that surprised us in the Pentagon and elsewhere was the reaction -- the impact of 1991, when many of the Iraqis saw us as abandoning them. They're afraid that we're going to cut and run. And so they're sort of standing on the sidelines. But what they need is a little bit of consistency. Shaking it up again isn't going to work.

DOBBS: Michael, then, do you think that the Shia in particular, then, setting aside the Sunni and the Kurdish question for now, how do you think the Shia, then, see what you refer to as the expediency of turning to envoy Brahimi's creation of a provisional government and turning to the United Nations, rather than -- and apparently this, in large, bold, capitalized print, saying American exit strategy.

RUBIN: I think it's, again, short-term solution which is going to do long-term harm.

Lakhdar Brahimi and the United Nations are not popular among the Shia. And, also, with regard to Muqtada al-Sadr, this uprising, the silent majority, their leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani was notable by his silence in not endorsing Muqtada al-Sadr, in not promoting this uprising. The problem is that, again, there needs to be consistency. People are upset with the idea that the United States would cut and run.

And the more we keep changing the system, the more trouble we're going to have. It's a cheap analogy, but I draw an analogy to Michael Jackson's nose. You can operate on it once, twice, maybe three times, fine. But no matter what you do after that, it's just going to fall apart. And the same thing if we keep shaking up the government in Iraq. The Governing Council, generally, Iraqis complain about it. Iraqis will complain about anybody that doesn't include their cousin, brother or uncle.

But people will identify one or two people on there whom they find popular or whom they endorse. And we basically need some consistency.

DOBBS: Michael Rubin, we thank you for being with us here tonight.

RUBIN: Thank you very much.

DOBBS: Still ahead, the White House may appoint a new national intelligence director, effectively preempting the 9/11 Commission before it can finish its work. I'll be joined by 9/11 Commission member John Lehman.

And in "Making the Grade," education in America. Bilingual education may actually be harming the prospects of many students who don't speak English. We'll have that special report coming up.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Tonight, we continue our special report, "Making the Grade." Tonight, we focus on bilingual education in this country; 5.5 million students in our public schools don't speak English. And the federal government spends billions of dollars each year trying to change those numbers.

Kitty Pilgrim has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Four hundred and fifty high school students at International High School in Queens are learning English.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Say that again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Walked to his van.

PILGRIM: They come from 60 different countries, yet they sit together in a class taught in English. Their future depends on mastering the new language.

CLAIRE SYLVAN, INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS: This is a high-tech economy. And other than the service workers and dishwashers and house cleaners, there aren't high paying unionized or nonunionized jobs with health benefits to people who have not mastered the English language.

PILGRIM: In humanities class, they learn about current events.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Post-9/11, what does that mean?

PILGRIM: Some check unfamiliar vocabulary on handheld electronic dictionaries for instant translation.

The original bilingual programs were designed to teach non- English-speaking students in separate classes, primarily in their native language, with some portions in English; 80 percent of programs were in Spanish. Efforts to change that system were controversial, but many educators say it didn't work.

CHRISTINE ROSSELL, BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Their parents are being told that the best way for your child to learn English is to be taught in Spanish. And that's not true. The best way for your child to learn English is to be taught in English.

PILGRIM: Some schools now keep kids in regular classes and then pull them out of class for an hour or two for special help in English each day. Other programs put all non-English speakers in a separate class, where teachers speak English at a slower space.

Nationally, $13 billion in federal funding goes to English- language programs in school, including funds for non-English-speaking students.

KATHLEEN LEOS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: And the state decides the kind of program it's going to offer to non-English-speaking students to hit the state's academic targets set for all students.

PILGRIM: States get their share of federal money based on how many non-English-speaking students they need to bring up to what the law calls proficiency.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Nineteen states have reported up to a 200 percent increase in English-language students over the past three years. Federal programming for those programs has increased to nearly $700 million during that time -- Lou.

DOBBS: So most of the bilingual education that's being used in this country's schools are in normal classrooms?

PILGRIM: The thinking has changed from separating the classes out to including the students in the room.

DOBBS: Well, right now, let's call it practice rather than thinking, because this is a very difficult issue and it doesn't seem to be working.

PILGRIM: Right.

DOBBS: So let's not call it thinking yet.

PILGRIM: All right.

Well, the current method is to keep the non-English-speaking students in an English classroom and then pull them out for special instruction.

DOBBS: It seems monumentally unfair to those students who do not speak English and monumentally unfair to those students who do, slowing down those who do, not accelerating those who don't.

PILGRIM: The educators have found that if you separate them out, they spend too much time teaching the non-English speaking students in their native language. And they weren't moving along quickly enough in English.

DOBBS: Well, that would be the case, wouldn't it?

PILGRIM: Yes. That was what was happening.

DOBBS: How about teaching them English in an accelerated form?

PILGRIM: They also do that. They have an English -- they separate out classes, too. There's two different methods to do this. They're trying a variety of different methods, Lou, to try to get these...

DOBBS: And they're not working right now in this country.

PILGRIM: That's exactly right.

DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much -- Kitty Pilgrim.

Tonight's thought is on education and its importance. "Upon the education of the people of this country, the fate of this country depends," those the words of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.

Still ahead here, critical questions about how to improve this nation's intelligence gathering; 9/11 Commission member John Lehman is our guest.

Also, "Heroes." Marine Sergeant Chad Shovelin (ph) almost lost his life in Iraq. Now he is making a remarkable recovery. We'll have his story.

And then a critically acclaimed account of the march toward Baghdad with the 101st Airborne Division. And "Washington Post" reporter, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Rick Atkinson will be here to talk about his new book, "In the Company of Soldiers."

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The White House today said it is considering the creation of a new position that would oversee all of this country's intelligence operations. However, the Bush administration first wants to hear the recommendations of the commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

My next guest is a member of that commission. John Lehman served as secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan. He joins us tonight from Newtown, Pennsylvania.

Good to have you with us.

JOHN LEHMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Great to be here.

DOBBS: I'm going to begin with the first question that I've heard from a number of people. Why is this -- and, frankly, some people criticizing the commission. Why is this commission, its members, why are you all talking so openly and so much about what you're doing?

LEHMAN: Well, this was a topic that took up a good part of the first meeting we ever had a year-and-a-quarter ago.

And we decided then, the chairman and the vice chairman decided that we were going to be different than previous commissions. This was too important. This is really the most important commission that's ever been put together. Previous commissions often have behaved as if they're a judge and a jury. They sequester themselves. They do no discussion. And everybody's in the dark until they launch their report.

We're not doing that. We want the people to know what these issues are as we go forward. We want to have a national debate over this as we go along. So that when we come out with our report, we are determined that it does not share the fate of nearly every other commission report in the last 20 years, be put on a shelf and forgotten. We're going to enact reforms.

DOBBS: Let's talk a bit about what you've learned to this point. And in the broadest summary possible, obviously, September 11 represents a tremendous failure by the Central Intelligence Agency. It represents a tremendous failure by a number of other agencies as well, but in particular the FBI. Where do you go from there?

LEHMAN: Well, first of all, we had -- our primary mission is to come up with the lessons learned and make the recommendations for the kind of fundamental changes that can make us safer. But the first part of our responsibility is to really lay out the facts, to tell the story of what happened and why it happened. And so it's a kind of a dual process. And we're going all the way back to 1983 and putting a perspective before that. And what we're doing is showing that what has already been demonstrated, we've got a terribly dysfunctional system.

We have a cold war intelligence community that was set up after the second World War to deal with the communist alliance and to deal with nation states. It's way out of date. In the meantime, over the years, in addition to the enemy becoming a very different enemy, both agencies have been subjected to a jihad after jihad starting with Watergate and with Iran-Contra and so forth and restriction after restriction, hobbling legislation, prohibiting sharing of information. Walls being erected to protect privacy, et cetera, so that we just have a shambles of an intelligence community today.

DOBBS: When you served as secretary of Navy under Ronald Reagan and the -- the enemy was, without reservation or question, the Soviet Union. A contest, a cold war between two superpowers, were you aware that the CIA and the FBI had limitations that dated back to those dates? Could you imagine possibly that the FBI, in the midst of the 1990s, would not have a functioning e-mail system and an aggregating centralized ubiquitous communication system that it could rely upon against any enemy?

LEHMAN: Absolutely. The first job I had in the government was working for Henry Kissinger in 1969. And if you read his memoirs, you will see failure after failure that he recounts of our dysfunctional intelligence community. This is not a new development at all. With regard to the inability of the FBI to even use computers, most offices didn't even have a computer. That was because after Watergate and the Pipe committee and Church committee jihads, there were prohibitions put in of FBI automating, in those old days, it was called automated data processing.

They were prohibited from computerizing their files. So FBI, in a time when they have to be the front of the -- of our defenses against an al Qaeda kind of threat, they are the worst agency or were, at least, until very recently -- the worst agency in the government because they were prohibited for many years from joining the 20th century.

DOBBS: Whether one is talking about the Bush administration or the Clinton administration, are there, if I may ask this -- because it's curious to me in terms of accountability -- are there instances in which failures on the part of the intelligence community and the FBI led to a senior official of any kind being fired for a failure to be effective?

LEHMAN: No. Unfortunately, I think this is -- this is a real failure of the system. No one -- the only person that's been fired, ironically, is a guy whom I consider a hero. And that's Admiral Poindexter. Because he was trying too hard to use, according to the politically correct atmosphere, to catch these people after 9/11. Not a single person that was fired or even disciplined after 9/11. And that just should not be. Accountability has kind of disappeared in Washington lately.

DOBBS: There has also been a call from some quarters for Jamie Gorelick, another member of the commission, a Democrat with ties to Janet Reno and others who are being obviously surveyed by the commission, for her to be removed from the commission for conflict of interest, for her role in the history of this entire sad chapter in the intelligence, the American intelligence services. What's your reaction?

LEHMAN: Well, my reaction is that she should definitely not leave the commission. She's been a very, very positive member of the commission. She's made a -- continues to make a very significant contribution. All of us, in a way, since all ten of us have in one way or another served over the last 30 years, bear a certain amount of blame for different parts.

Most of us, as you heard Tenet testify earlier this week, he was there to run what he had. He was trying to make evolutionary changes. But nobody stood back and really said, hey, this whole thing is broken. We need absolutely -- we have to change this whole system. So from that sense, we're all a little guilty. But each of us has -- recused ourselves from any area that we actually worked on. And she has recused herself. And I think that's fine. We need her perspective, her experience and her judgment.

DOBBS: John Lehman, quickly, we're out of time, if I may ask this final question. On the central issue of accountability, is it -- do you have a high level of confidence that as a result of the commission's work there will be accountability from here on in the U.S. intelligence community?

LEHMAN: Well, you can never make a perfect system in the government. It is, after all, the government. So what we're -- what we can do is make a system that removes the huge obstacles to sharing all of the layers and incrustations of congressional interference, prohibition and regulation and provide an environment will attract and hold entrepreneurial people in the intelligence community, not bureaucratic people, and enable them to do the job that -- we have so many fine people in the intelligence community but they're like stuck in amber because of all these bureaucratic stovepipes and restrictions.

And that's why it's such a great thing that the president has now said he's going to work with us to perhaps create a new czar, although that is by no means the sine qua non of what needs to be done. But we now have the congressional committees working with us, we're going to have the White House working with us. I'm very confident by the end of this year you're going to see the outlines of an entirely new intelligence and security structure that will be enacted and will be enacted soon.

DOBBS: And the worst news in all of that, if I may say, John Lehman, is that will be more than three years after September 11.

LEHMAN: That's right.

DOBBS: John Lehman, we thank you very much for being with us.

LEHMAN: Pleasure.

DOBBS: Still ahead here, a chronicle of combat. We'll be joined by Pulitzer prize-winning writer Rick Atkinson, who spent time embedded with the 101st Airborne in combat in Iraq and has written a terrific new book.

Also tonight, heroes, our weekly segment. Marine sergeant Chad Shevlin struggling to readjust to civilian life after being wounded in Iraq. His story is coming up next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The commander of the 101st Airborne Division is returning to Iraq only two months after he left. Major General David Patrias has a new mission, to revamp the training program for Iraqi security forces.

My guest tonight was embedded with General Patrias' Screaming Eagles, the 101st, during the march to Baghdad a year ago. He wrote a book about it called "In the Company of Soldiers: A Chronicle of Combat." Rick Atkinson is the Pulitzer Prize winning writer of "An Army At Dawn." Also a reporter for "The Washington Post." Joining us tonight from Washington D.C. Rick, good to have you with us.

RICK ATKINSON, WASHINGTON POST: Thank you.

DOBBS: Your book is garnering critical acclaim. It is a chronicle, if you will, that everyone expected from your talents. I think there's also a great deal of surprise at, if you will the -- not altogether is it a story of glory for the Bush administration, nor in fact for the U.S. military.

As you were with 101st, what were your reactions as you moved toward Baghdad?

ATKINSON: Well, I went with the 101st when they left Fort Campbell, Kentucky, at the end of February last year. And I was with them really at the General Patrias's side, at his elbow, for about two months, almost every day, all day long. I was with them as they invaded Iraq up through the Shiite cities of Najaf and Karbala. They had sharp fire fights in these cities and on into Baghdad.

And it was my ambition to try to get inside the American army in the 21st Century at a time when our wars are small and sequential and expeditionary and bottomless. And I really did feel, having been around the army all my life starting as an army brat, that I had a more intimate view than ever before of the American army.

DOBBS: Amongst the things that you've written in this book, in this climate, as you well know, one of the things you wrote of the 101st division, they were better than the cause they served. That is explosive in these times. What did you mean?

ATKINSON: Well, I think it's very important that we not confuse the warriors with the war. And this is a book fundamentally about the warriors and not their war. But it occurred to me, even before the war started -- and I certainly feel even more strongly about it now -- that the case had not been made sufficiently for an invasion of Iraq that was virtually unilateral without allies. As a scholar of World War II, I come away from studying World War II, believing that nothing is more important than when you're waging a global campaign whether against the axis in the 1940s or global terrorism in the 21st Century than having a robust, righteous coalition. My feeling was we did not have that when the war started and certainly don't have it now.

DOBBS: You reflect on your own ambivalence at that point as U.S. forces were moving into Iraq. At the same time, that coalition and the issues of weapons of mass destruction, you also build a very strong case, if you will, for the Bush administration in the preparation for biochemical warfare and the preparation that the men and the women of the 101st went through, along with thousands of other American forces to suit up, to be ready with gas masks. Was it your sense that they were certain they would encounter biochemical warfare?

ATKINSON: You know, most were more certain and they were only reflecting, parroting really, the intelligence that was coming down the stove pipe. General Sinclair, E.J. Sinclair, who was the assistant division commander for support, the chief logistitian for the 101st, when I asked him what are the chances that we'll find weapons of mass destruction, he 100 percent.

And that was not an uncommon anticipation by officers, senior officers in the 101st.

DOBBS: You reflect on the question that General Patrias asks now as we have said back in Iraq, how does it all end. Let me ask you that as we conclude here tonight, Rick. How does it all end, in your view?

ATKINSON: Well, General Patrias first asked this question tongue-in-cheek. It was an ironic backspin to it, about three days into the war, when he turned and said, tell me how this ends. it was a legitimate question then. It became kind of his mantra through the war. It's certainly a legitimate question now.

The short answer is, I don't know how it ends. I don't think anybody in Washington knows how it ends. I think that clearly there is an effort, and it's probably the right thing to do to try to internationalize this as much as possible, to try to make American soldiers less of a target, to give them allies on the left and right in order to try to back out of this and turn it over to the Iraqis. And it seems to me that there will be something akin to a kind of Vietnamization which we saw in Vietnam with an Iraqiization.

Whether it will work or not, that remains to be seen. That's part of what General Patrias is going back to try to take over as he trains the new Iraqi army and the other security forces.

DOBBS: Obviously the cause more hopeful with the presence of General. Patrias. I think you would agree.

ATKINSON: He's a great soldier. He's only been home for two months after being gone a year. We owe him a great debt as we do everybody else over there serving. DOBBS: Rick Atkinson, we thank you very much. The book is "In The Company Of Soldiers."

In "Heroes" tonight, our weekly segment, Sergeant Chad Shevlin was one of the first marines to enter Iraq last year. He was badly wounded the day after the fall of Baghdad. Now Sergeant Shevlin is once again home and he's struggling to build his future. Bill Tucker reports.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bless you! You sneezing?

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sergeant Chad Shevlin first met his daughter, Makayla (ph) a year ago. She was two months old, born while he was in Kuwait getting ready for war in Iraq. The meeting almost didn't happen. In Baghdad, the sergeant came within inches of losing his life.

SGT. CHAD SHEVLIN, U.S. MARINES: We took about five to six RPG hits in the track itself before one came up underneath the hatch and blasted me in the face. I put my hand up on my neck and realized my finger went in my neck and it was kind of -- a lot of blood on my hands so I knew I was hit. So then I tried to yell and I couldn't yell because my jaw got pretty much blown off my face. Some people said they seen me and I was just a pile of mush basically.

TUCKER: Shevlin lost his jaw, his esophagus badly damaged. Just 23 years old, he worried about the future.

SHEVLIN: I started thinking about what could I do if they tell me that I can't be a cop or continue to be a marine.

TUCKER: Throughout the past year he's undergone a series of reconstructive surgeries with remarkable results. He credits the support of his family.

SHEVLIN: They've been great. I mean it's probably why I healed so fast. The doctors have very impressed with my heal rate. Something that would take an average person years to do I'm doing within like half the time.

TUCKER: Shevlin is scheduled for more surgeries before his face is completely restored. With job offers to be a cop back home in New Hampshire, he's anxious to get through with them and get on with a new life. Bill Tucker, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: We know you join us in wishing Sergeant Shevlin a speedy recovery and all the very best.

Still ahead here, an extraordinary week in international diplomacy, including a major shift in White House Middle East policy. We'll be talking with the panel of newsmakers. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: We're joined now by our panel of newsmakers, Jim Ellis, chief of correspondent at "Businessweek." Paul Maidment, he's executive editor of "Forbes" and Nelson Schwartz, senior writer for "Fortune" magazine. Gentlemen, good to have you here. We have just received word, mistrial and acquittal in the Crust case. This was supposed to be the big deal for the prosecutors and they have just taken another hit. Your reaction, Jim?

JIM ELLIS, "BUSINESSWEEK": What we're seeing now, it's a lot harder to prove these cases than it is to bring them. A lot harder to get a jury to come up and say that these things really happened beyond a reasonable doubt. I also think that it probably sends a really bad message to people in the marketplace because a lot of people thought, this is great, we're fully putting people on trial and it means that these laws have teeth. But I don't think it happens anymore.

DOBBS: Alan Greenspan today said those committing acts of corporate scandal should be expeditiously punished. They're doing collateral damage to the markets. That's a strong statement from the chairman. It's the first time, Paul, that he's really come out in this tone.

PAUL MAIDMENT, "FORBES": Yes. Certainly it's the tone. He expressed sentiments like that in the past. I think Jim put his finger on the issue. Moral indignation doesn't necessarily stand up in the courtrooms and it's very hard to prosecute these. These are meant to be exemplary trials and again, I think what Greenspan is trying to do is set this tone that this stuff is not allowed to go on because it is damaging to the economy.

DOBBS: We've got Bill (UNINTELLIGIBLE) saying -- the head of the Public Accounting Board saying that corporate America is in shambles in terms of its ethics, it's morality, it's principled execution of business policy and commerce in this country. You have the chairman of the Federal Reserve exhorting business to be principled. What do you make of it, Nelson?

NELSON SCHWARTZ, "FORTUNE": I think there is a gap between what they're saying and what they're doing which existed when the market was booming and when the market bottomed out. I think it will be interesting to see if some of the heat recedes if the corporate profits continue to be strong and when the market goes up. As the head of a Wall Street brokerage once said to me, you know, it's only when the market goes down you get this Spitzer stuff, that's their attitude.

DOBBS: Well, in fairness to Mr. Spitzer, and actually to keep the record straight, the market is up 40 percent as Mr. Spitzer pursues the bad guys, as Alan Greenspan exhorts corporate America to be principled and to act with some basic sense of decency in the American way. What do you mean?

SCHWARTZ: I mean that the pressure, I think, recedes and sort of the heat goes down a little bit on the pot when these -- when the market is so strong and when profits go up. A lot of this started in '01 and '02 when the market was down a few years in a row. In the late '90s you didn't hear so much of these scandals even though a lot of the same practices were going on.

MAIDMEN: In the end, it's man who makes (UNINTELLIGIBLE) business. It comes down to the fundamental integrity of people who are running companies. This is very hard to legislate for that.

DOBBS: It also comes down to investors and consumers that drive this greatest economy. Consumer confidence fell unexpectedly in this latest survey from the University of Michigan. Jim, is this something to be concerned about, along with 30,000 more jobless...

ELLIS: Yes, it's to be concerned about but I think a lot of it has to do with gasoline prices. A lot of people have seen gasoline prices go up. Also, with all the negative news coming out of the Middle East right now, it's sort of hard to be very confident. I still think that we've got to give it a month or two, the same way there was all this irrational exuberance a couple of weeks ago about the strong job numbers, we're now see now unemployment claims going up again. We're in a choppy period right now. We don't really know what's going on. So I don't think the administration can crow yet that we're over the hump.

DOBBS: Paul, your last thoughts here. We have about 30 seconds. How much of this has to do with President Bush and how much of it was Senator Kerry and their contest?

MAIDMENT: In terms of the confidence of the economy? I think a lot of it has to do with the fear of rising interest rates rather than the political background.

DOBBS: A wonderful conclusion to a political discussion, taking it back to economic fundamentals. Paul, thank you very much. Nelson, Jim, as always.

Now for a look at some of your thoughts.

Charlie from Tampa, Florida. "How is it," he asked, "that the government can afford to hire civilian security guards to Halliburton contracts yet that same government still insists that an increase in the armed forces is too expensive?"

Morgana Rhys of Bigforx, Montana. "These brave men and women not only face a war situation, they've had to deal with their families being on food stamps and problems even receiving their pay, not to mention a lack of adequate supplies. It is a national disgrace that we let this war profiteering go on while our true heroes are forced to suffer."

We love hearing from you. E-mail us at loudobbs.com. Still ahead, the results of our poll. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results of our poll, 90 percent of you -- 90 percent said the United States should turn over responsibility for Iraq to the United Nations. 10 percent do not.

That's our show for tonight. We thank you for being with us. Please be with us Monday. We'll be joined by former assistant defense secretary Richard Perle to talk about Iraq. Congressman David Dreier will be here to tell us his recent trip to India and why he still maintains outsourcing American jobs is great for our economy. Please be with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" coming up next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com


Aired April 16, 2004 - 18:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for April . Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, the first direct talks between U.S. Marines and civic leaders in surrounding Fallujah. There is also news tonight about an American soldier missing in Iraq.

President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, they agree on Iraq. Their views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, something less than full agreement.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now in this century our nations see clearly the dangers of our time.

DOBBS: American and British officials in Iraq off have different priorities. Former coalition adviser Michael Rubin is our guest.

The White House may preempt the 9/11 Commission and create a national intelligence director; 9/11 Commission member John Lehman joins us.

And in our special report "Making the Grade," bilingual education, instead of helping, it may be hurting many of this country's students.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The best way for your child to learn English is to be taught in English.

DOBBS: Tonight, our special report on education in America.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Friday, April 16. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening.

Tonight, an Arab television network is broadcasting a videotape of an American soldier being held hostage in Iraq. The videotape was broadcast by the Al-Jazeera network. Yesterday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called Al-Jazeera's reporting vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.

Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre has the report.

Jamie, what is the Pentagon saying about the videotape of the young American soldier tonight?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, very briefly, Lou, the Pentagon is saying nothing.

The Pentagon officials say that they believe, in these kinds of situations, there's very little that they can say that would be of any help. And they want to do nothing at all to encourage the hostage takers. They're not even confirming, for instance, that this man who identified himself on the tape as Private 1st Class Keith Matthew Maupin is in fact Private Maupin, although they do admit that two U.S. soldiers have been reported missing since an April 9 incident in which there was an attack on a convoy.

That's also where several contractors from the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root also went missing after that event. But the Pentagon will simply say they're reviewing the tape. They understand why news organizations are airing it, but they're not commenting on it. And earlier today before this tape surfaced, the U.S. military in Baghdad reiterated its policy about dealing with hostage takers.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN SENOR, COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY: We are putting everything behind trying to rescue these hostages. And we will not negotiate with the terrorists who are -- who have engaged in the hostage taking. But we are putting everything behind their release, both from an intelligence standpoint and from a military standpoint and other resources we have at our disposal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCINTYRE: Now, a few days ago, the military did say that there were 40 hostages being held from 12 different countries. But today when asked the same question, how many were being held, they said they're not going to be giving a tally every day of how many people are being held and what's being done to try to secure their release, again, because they believe it only plays into the hands of the hostage takers -- Lou.

DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much, Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.

And to make this note, we on this broadcast have chosen to show only the image of the young hostage, purportedly an American soldier, out of sensibilities for the situation.

DOBBS: President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair today presented a united front on Iraq. They reaffirmed their commitment to the June 30 deadline for handing over power to the Iraqis.

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair also welcomed the United Nations' help in Iraq one year after the United States said the United Nations was not wanted.

White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux has the report -- Suzanne.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, with the rising death toll in Iraq and also that June 30 deadline to turn power to the Iraqi people fast approaching, this is a critical time for President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Both leaders earlier today in the Rose Garden presenting a united front on a number of issues. As you know, Blair has been facing growing criticism at home and both from European allies for support for the Iraq war. He has privately been pushing Mr. Bush to allow for a greater role for the United Nations inside of Iraq.

Now, Mr. Bush, who has seen, of course, this renewed violence in that country over the last couple of weeks, is now acknowledging that more international help is needed. The Bush administration is endorsing a U.N. Security Council resolution that would give United Nations a central role in the political transformation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: This week, we've seen the outlines of a new Iraqi government that will take the keys of sovereignty. We welcome the proposals presented by the U.N. special envoy Brahimi. He's identified a way forward to establishing an interim government that is broadly acceptable to the Iraqi people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now, the two leaders also presented a united front when it comes to this new plan from Israel to pull out of Gaza and just a portion of the West Bank, both of them saying that they believe this will jump-start the Israeli-Palestinian talks, the road map that they talk about.

But Blair went on to say as well that he believes that more international aid should be given to the Palestinian Authority. This is an organization that the U.S. refuses to deal with under the leadership of Yasser Arafat -- Lou.

DOBBS: Suzanne, thank you very much.

U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi wants to dissolve the U.S.- appointed Iraqi Governing Council and to replace it with a caretaker government. That interim government would stay in power until elections could be held early next year.

Senior United Nations correspondent Richard Roth reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR U.N. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He calls it a sketch for now, but the picture in the mind of top U.N. diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi may become the political road map for Iraq as the U.S. transfers power. Brahimi called elections early next year the defining moment for Iraq. LAKHDAR BRAHIMI, U. N. -IRAQ ENVOY: Naturally the security situation has to improve significantly for these elections to take place in an acceptable environment.

ROTH: Despite the turmoil now, Brahimi thinks it possible to form a caretaker government in May. The provisional government would replace the Iraqi Governing Council handpicked by the U.S.

BRAHIMI: I am absolutely confident that most Iraqi people want a simple formula for this interim period of just six or seven months.

ROTH: During that time, the coalition authority would dissolve, the government would be led by a prime minister, along with a president as nominal head of state.

Brahimi wants to duplicate his work in Afghanistan where he held a national conference to promote dialogue and reconciliation, bring differing factions under one tent and perhaps people start talking.

As long as Brahimi shoots for the June 30 hand over deadline, the U.S. is happy with his early plans.

MCCLELLAN: I think the Iraqi people will have the central role going forward after June 30.

QUESTION: But not the U.N.? The U.N. won't have a central role?

MCCLELLAN: Well, we think they should have a vital role.

QUESTION: Is there a difference between vital and central?

MCCLELLAN: Well, you maybe have different ideas than I do. But the central role is going to be led by the Iraqi people come the end of June.

ROTH: Left unclear, how much authority the caretaker leaders would have over the U.S. military and the nation.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: In Iraq so far, no plan has gone according to plan. Afghanistan could serve as a short-term model. But protecting national balloting will be a huge test for Iraqis and their protectors -- Lou.

DOBBS: The shifts in U.S.-Iraqi policy are breathtaking over the past few weeks. In effect, the Iraqi Governing Council, which has been dominant to this point, would be simply removed. The United Nations would appoint a new government without any sort of election until at least next year. What is the reaction at the United Nations? What is the reaction from other nations?

ROTH: Well, right now, at the U.N. and at the U.S., if this was a sitcom, it would be, "Everybody Loves Brahimi." They're pinning their hopes on him. They're just staking everything on him. He is well respected, a former Algerian foreign minister. But there are huge gaps still. How will they be selected, this vice president, this prime minister, considering the ethnic political divisions? And how much authority will they really have? There is no way they're going to be able to tell the U.S. military on the ground what to do. As Brahimi said, you're not going to make 150,000 troops disappear.

The U.N. means process. It's part of the process, but the violence is still too high for the U.N. to return in vast numbers, according to Kofi Annan.

DOBBS: A United Nations that has chosen to withdraw to this point and a United Nations that this administration said was unnecessary and unwanted just a year ago.

ROTH: Well, the U.N. has often complained that they only want us when it's a total dirty mess. And that is what seems to be happening right now.

DOBBS: Well, just so no one at the United Nations gets too upset, the United Nations does not have a shining record from 1998 through 2002.

ROTH: Well, the U.N. is made up of its own members, though, which the U.S. is still the big stick.

DOBBS: Richard Roth, thank you very much.

After nearly a week of a shaky cease-fire in Fallujah, U.S. military and coalition representatives met with city leaders today. Officials say they are hopeful they can strengthen that cease-fire with the insurgents. U.S. military officials are demanding the people involved in the killing and maiming of four contract workers be handed over to coalition authorities. Talks are scheduled to resume tomorrow.

In Najaf, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on his supporters to rally again in the streets; 2,500 American troops are now massed outside the city, preparing for battle with Sadr's gunmen.

Nearby in the city of Kufa, Shiite gunmen clashed with coalition troops today. There were several skirmishes reported.

On the hostage front, three Czech citizens were released, as well as one Chinese and one Canadian citizen. However, two more civilians are missing in Iraq, one from Denmark, another from Jordan.

That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. The question: Should the United States turn over responsibility for Iraq to the United Nations, yes or no? Cast your vote at CNN.com/Lou. We'll have results for you later in the broadcast.

Still to come here, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair stand united on Iraq. But British and American officials in Iraq often disagree. Former Pentagon and coalition adviser Michael Rubin joins us.

And the White House may appoint a new national intelligence director, effectively preempting the 9/11 Commission. I'll be talking with 9/11 Commission member John Lehman.

And in "Making the Grade," our special report on American education, bilingual education it turns out may cause our students far more harm than good.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair today put on a show of unity in the face of escalating violence in Iraq. My next guest says there are significant differences, however, between the U.S. and British approaches in Iraq.

Michael Rubin has just resigned from the Pentagon after completing a tour of duty with the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq. He is now with the American Enterprise Institute, joining us from Washington, D.C.

Good to have you with us.

MICHAEL RUBIN, FORMER PENTAGON ADVISER: Thank you.

You're here on a day in which Tony Blair and George Bush joined at the shoulder on the issue of Iraq and seemingly, without necessarily characterizing it negatively -- I don't mean to do that -- almost anxiously awaiting envoy Brahimi's imprimatur on any organization, any government to turn over control of Iraq to. What's your reaction?

RUBIN: Well, the problem with Lakhdar Brahimi and the United Nations in general, Lakhdar Brahimi might be a wonderful person and the United Nations might be a great organization, but what connotes legitimacy and London and what connotes legitimacy in Baghdad are two very different things.

The short-term political expediency of turning the situation over to the United States will backfire, because the Iraqis -- the Iraqis really dislike the United Nations and they dislike Lakhdar Brahimi in the extreme.

DOBBS: Lakhdar Brahimi -- many of our -- many people may not realize the history that he has with the Iraqis. If you would, take us back more than a decade.

RUBIN: Will do.

Between 1984 and 1991, before he became foreign minister of Algeria, Lakhdar Brahimi was the undersecretary of the Arab League. This is the time when Saddam Hussein used poison gas against the Kurds and also in March 1991 used helicopter gunships against the Shia, killing tens of thousands of Iraqi Arabs. And Lakhdar Brahimi stayed silent. The other thing to remember...

DOBBS: As did the Arab League itself, in point of fact.

RUBIN: As did the Arab League.

The other thing to remember is that, under Saddam Hussein, the Iraqis only saw on television what Saddam Hussein wanted them to see on television. And with regard to the United Nations, what they saw was in February 1998 Kofi Annan saying, Saddam Hussein is a man I can do business with. And as we see from the oil-for-food scandal, he meant it in more ways than one.

And Lakhdar Brahimi was on television hugging, embracing Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister who is now in prison about to stand trial for crimes against humanity.

DOBBS: Of course, you're talking, Michael, primarily about the Shia population, admittedly, more than 60 percent of the population Iraq, who would have the strongest aversion to Brahimi.

But the fact is they have a strong aversion, it seems, to -- certainly to the you United States, to the coalition and just about everyone else. At what point does the culture -- does it become manifestly clear to everyone that the culture, the society of Iraq is such that one can't rest policy on popular opinion amongst the Iraqis themselves to build a future for that nation?

RUBIN: Well, I disagree a little bit with the premise of part of your question, in that the Shia really don't want the Americans there. And the vast majority of the Shia, the silent majority, if you will, are very positive to the Americans.

When I lived outside the security zone and I would travel around the country on my own with Iraqi friends, and when I would go down to places like Najaf, where Muqtada al-Sadr, this firebrand cleric, is now holed up, people wouldn't complain about the American occupation. What they were complaining about was, Muqtada al-Sadr and his gangs are harassing our women, breaking into our homes and smashing satellite dishes.

And what the Iraqis need, and Shia, Sunni and Kurds, is a little bit of consistency. One of the things that surprised us in the Pentagon and elsewhere was the reaction -- the impact of 1991, when many of the Iraqis saw us as abandoning them. They're afraid that we're going to cut and run. And so they're sort of standing on the sidelines. But what they need is a little bit of consistency. Shaking it up again isn't going to work.

DOBBS: Michael, then, do you think that the Shia in particular, then, setting aside the Sunni and the Kurdish question for now, how do you think the Shia, then, see what you refer to as the expediency of turning to envoy Brahimi's creation of a provisional government and turning to the United Nations, rather than -- and apparently this, in large, bold, capitalized print, saying American exit strategy.

RUBIN: I think it's, again, short-term solution which is going to do long-term harm.

Lakhdar Brahimi and the United Nations are not popular among the Shia. And, also, with regard to Muqtada al-Sadr, this uprising, the silent majority, their leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani was notable by his silence in not endorsing Muqtada al-Sadr, in not promoting this uprising. The problem is that, again, there needs to be consistency. People are upset with the idea that the United States would cut and run.

And the more we keep changing the system, the more trouble we're going to have. It's a cheap analogy, but I draw an analogy to Michael Jackson's nose. You can operate on it once, twice, maybe three times, fine. But no matter what you do after that, it's just going to fall apart. And the same thing if we keep shaking up the government in Iraq. The Governing Council, generally, Iraqis complain about it. Iraqis will complain about anybody that doesn't include their cousin, brother or uncle.

But people will identify one or two people on there whom they find popular or whom they endorse. And we basically need some consistency.

DOBBS: Michael Rubin, we thank you for being with us here tonight.

RUBIN: Thank you very much.

DOBBS: Still ahead, the White House may appoint a new national intelligence director, effectively preempting the 9/11 Commission before it can finish its work. I'll be joined by 9/11 Commission member John Lehman.

And in "Making the Grade," education in America. Bilingual education may actually be harming the prospects of many students who don't speak English. We'll have that special report coming up.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Tonight, we continue our special report, "Making the Grade." Tonight, we focus on bilingual education in this country; 5.5 million students in our public schools don't speak English. And the federal government spends billions of dollars each year trying to change those numbers.

Kitty Pilgrim has the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Four hundred and fifty high school students at International High School in Queens are learning English.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Say that again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Walked to his van.

PILGRIM: They come from 60 different countries, yet they sit together in a class taught in English. Their future depends on mastering the new language.

CLAIRE SYLVAN, INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS: This is a high-tech economy. And other than the service workers and dishwashers and house cleaners, there aren't high paying unionized or nonunionized jobs with health benefits to people who have not mastered the English language.

PILGRIM: In humanities class, they learn about current events.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Post-9/11, what does that mean?

PILGRIM: Some check unfamiliar vocabulary on handheld electronic dictionaries for instant translation.

The original bilingual programs were designed to teach non- English-speaking students in separate classes, primarily in their native language, with some portions in English; 80 percent of programs were in Spanish. Efforts to change that system were controversial, but many educators say it didn't work.

CHRISTINE ROSSELL, BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Their parents are being told that the best way for your child to learn English is to be taught in Spanish. And that's not true. The best way for your child to learn English is to be taught in English.

PILGRIM: Some schools now keep kids in regular classes and then pull them out of class for an hour or two for special help in English each day. Other programs put all non-English speakers in a separate class, where teachers speak English at a slower space.

Nationally, $13 billion in federal funding goes to English- language programs in school, including funds for non-English-speaking students.

KATHLEEN LEOS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: And the state decides the kind of program it's going to offer to non-English-speaking students to hit the state's academic targets set for all students.

PILGRIM: States get their share of federal money based on how many non-English-speaking students they need to bring up to what the law calls proficiency.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Nineteen states have reported up to a 200 percent increase in English-language students over the past three years. Federal programming for those programs has increased to nearly $700 million during that time -- Lou.

DOBBS: So most of the bilingual education that's being used in this country's schools are in normal classrooms?

PILGRIM: The thinking has changed from separating the classes out to including the students in the room.

DOBBS: Well, right now, let's call it practice rather than thinking, because this is a very difficult issue and it doesn't seem to be working.

PILGRIM: Right.

DOBBS: So let's not call it thinking yet.

PILGRIM: All right.

Well, the current method is to keep the non-English-speaking students in an English classroom and then pull them out for special instruction.

DOBBS: It seems monumentally unfair to those students who do not speak English and monumentally unfair to those students who do, slowing down those who do, not accelerating those who don't.

PILGRIM: The educators have found that if you separate them out, they spend too much time teaching the non-English speaking students in their native language. And they weren't moving along quickly enough in English.

DOBBS: Well, that would be the case, wouldn't it?

PILGRIM: Yes. That was what was happening.

DOBBS: How about teaching them English in an accelerated form?

PILGRIM: They also do that. They have an English -- they separate out classes, too. There's two different methods to do this. They're trying a variety of different methods, Lou, to try to get these...

DOBBS: And they're not working right now in this country.

PILGRIM: That's exactly right.

DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much -- Kitty Pilgrim.

Tonight's thought is on education and its importance. "Upon the education of the people of this country, the fate of this country depends," those the words of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.

Still ahead here, critical questions about how to improve this nation's intelligence gathering; 9/11 Commission member John Lehman is our guest.

Also, "Heroes." Marine Sergeant Chad Shovelin (ph) almost lost his life in Iraq. Now he is making a remarkable recovery. We'll have his story.

And then a critically acclaimed account of the march toward Baghdad with the 101st Airborne Division. And "Washington Post" reporter, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Rick Atkinson will be here to talk about his new book, "In the Company of Soldiers."

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The White House today said it is considering the creation of a new position that would oversee all of this country's intelligence operations. However, the Bush administration first wants to hear the recommendations of the commission investigating the September 11 attacks.

My next guest is a member of that commission. John Lehman served as secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan. He joins us tonight from Newtown, Pennsylvania.

Good to have you with us.

JOHN LEHMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: Great to be here.

DOBBS: I'm going to begin with the first question that I've heard from a number of people. Why is this -- and, frankly, some people criticizing the commission. Why is this commission, its members, why are you all talking so openly and so much about what you're doing?

LEHMAN: Well, this was a topic that took up a good part of the first meeting we ever had a year-and-a-quarter ago.

And we decided then, the chairman and the vice chairman decided that we were going to be different than previous commissions. This was too important. This is really the most important commission that's ever been put together. Previous commissions often have behaved as if they're a judge and a jury. They sequester themselves. They do no discussion. And everybody's in the dark until they launch their report.

We're not doing that. We want the people to know what these issues are as we go forward. We want to have a national debate over this as we go along. So that when we come out with our report, we are determined that it does not share the fate of nearly every other commission report in the last 20 years, be put on a shelf and forgotten. We're going to enact reforms.

DOBBS: Let's talk a bit about what you've learned to this point. And in the broadest summary possible, obviously, September 11 represents a tremendous failure by the Central Intelligence Agency. It represents a tremendous failure by a number of other agencies as well, but in particular the FBI. Where do you go from there?

LEHMAN: Well, first of all, we had -- our primary mission is to come up with the lessons learned and make the recommendations for the kind of fundamental changes that can make us safer. But the first part of our responsibility is to really lay out the facts, to tell the story of what happened and why it happened. And so it's a kind of a dual process. And we're going all the way back to 1983 and putting a perspective before that. And what we're doing is showing that what has already been demonstrated, we've got a terribly dysfunctional system.

We have a cold war intelligence community that was set up after the second World War to deal with the communist alliance and to deal with nation states. It's way out of date. In the meantime, over the years, in addition to the enemy becoming a very different enemy, both agencies have been subjected to a jihad after jihad starting with Watergate and with Iran-Contra and so forth and restriction after restriction, hobbling legislation, prohibiting sharing of information. Walls being erected to protect privacy, et cetera, so that we just have a shambles of an intelligence community today.

DOBBS: When you served as secretary of Navy under Ronald Reagan and the -- the enemy was, without reservation or question, the Soviet Union. A contest, a cold war between two superpowers, were you aware that the CIA and the FBI had limitations that dated back to those dates? Could you imagine possibly that the FBI, in the midst of the 1990s, would not have a functioning e-mail system and an aggregating centralized ubiquitous communication system that it could rely upon against any enemy?

LEHMAN: Absolutely. The first job I had in the government was working for Henry Kissinger in 1969. And if you read his memoirs, you will see failure after failure that he recounts of our dysfunctional intelligence community. This is not a new development at all. With regard to the inability of the FBI to even use computers, most offices didn't even have a computer. That was because after Watergate and the Pipe committee and Church committee jihads, there were prohibitions put in of FBI automating, in those old days, it was called automated data processing.

They were prohibited from computerizing their files. So FBI, in a time when they have to be the front of the -- of our defenses against an al Qaeda kind of threat, they are the worst agency or were, at least, until very recently -- the worst agency in the government because they were prohibited for many years from joining the 20th century.

DOBBS: Whether one is talking about the Bush administration or the Clinton administration, are there, if I may ask this -- because it's curious to me in terms of accountability -- are there instances in which failures on the part of the intelligence community and the FBI led to a senior official of any kind being fired for a failure to be effective?

LEHMAN: No. Unfortunately, I think this is -- this is a real failure of the system. No one -- the only person that's been fired, ironically, is a guy whom I consider a hero. And that's Admiral Poindexter. Because he was trying too hard to use, according to the politically correct atmosphere, to catch these people after 9/11. Not a single person that was fired or even disciplined after 9/11. And that just should not be. Accountability has kind of disappeared in Washington lately.

DOBBS: There has also been a call from some quarters for Jamie Gorelick, another member of the commission, a Democrat with ties to Janet Reno and others who are being obviously surveyed by the commission, for her to be removed from the commission for conflict of interest, for her role in the history of this entire sad chapter in the intelligence, the American intelligence services. What's your reaction?

LEHMAN: Well, my reaction is that she should definitely not leave the commission. She's been a very, very positive member of the commission. She's made a -- continues to make a very significant contribution. All of us, in a way, since all ten of us have in one way or another served over the last 30 years, bear a certain amount of blame for different parts.

Most of us, as you heard Tenet testify earlier this week, he was there to run what he had. He was trying to make evolutionary changes. But nobody stood back and really said, hey, this whole thing is broken. We need absolutely -- we have to change this whole system. So from that sense, we're all a little guilty. But each of us has -- recused ourselves from any area that we actually worked on. And she has recused herself. And I think that's fine. We need her perspective, her experience and her judgment.

DOBBS: John Lehman, quickly, we're out of time, if I may ask this final question. On the central issue of accountability, is it -- do you have a high level of confidence that as a result of the commission's work there will be accountability from here on in the U.S. intelligence community?

LEHMAN: Well, you can never make a perfect system in the government. It is, after all, the government. So what we're -- what we can do is make a system that removes the huge obstacles to sharing all of the layers and incrustations of congressional interference, prohibition and regulation and provide an environment will attract and hold entrepreneurial people in the intelligence community, not bureaucratic people, and enable them to do the job that -- we have so many fine people in the intelligence community but they're like stuck in amber because of all these bureaucratic stovepipes and restrictions.

And that's why it's such a great thing that the president has now said he's going to work with us to perhaps create a new czar, although that is by no means the sine qua non of what needs to be done. But we now have the congressional committees working with us, we're going to have the White House working with us. I'm very confident by the end of this year you're going to see the outlines of an entirely new intelligence and security structure that will be enacted and will be enacted soon.

DOBBS: And the worst news in all of that, if I may say, John Lehman, is that will be more than three years after September 11.

LEHMAN: That's right.

DOBBS: John Lehman, we thank you very much for being with us.

LEHMAN: Pleasure.

DOBBS: Still ahead here, a chronicle of combat. We'll be joined by Pulitzer prize-winning writer Rick Atkinson, who spent time embedded with the 101st Airborne in combat in Iraq and has written a terrific new book.

Also tonight, heroes, our weekly segment. Marine sergeant Chad Shevlin struggling to readjust to civilian life after being wounded in Iraq. His story is coming up next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The commander of the 101st Airborne Division is returning to Iraq only two months after he left. Major General David Patrias has a new mission, to revamp the training program for Iraqi security forces.

My guest tonight was embedded with General Patrias' Screaming Eagles, the 101st, during the march to Baghdad a year ago. He wrote a book about it called "In the Company of Soldiers: A Chronicle of Combat." Rick Atkinson is the Pulitzer Prize winning writer of "An Army At Dawn." Also a reporter for "The Washington Post." Joining us tonight from Washington D.C. Rick, good to have you with us.

RICK ATKINSON, WASHINGTON POST: Thank you.

DOBBS: Your book is garnering critical acclaim. It is a chronicle, if you will, that everyone expected from your talents. I think there's also a great deal of surprise at, if you will the -- not altogether is it a story of glory for the Bush administration, nor in fact for the U.S. military.

As you were with 101st, what were your reactions as you moved toward Baghdad?

ATKINSON: Well, I went with the 101st when they left Fort Campbell, Kentucky, at the end of February last year. And I was with them really at the General Patrias's side, at his elbow, for about two months, almost every day, all day long. I was with them as they invaded Iraq up through the Shiite cities of Najaf and Karbala. They had sharp fire fights in these cities and on into Baghdad.

And it was my ambition to try to get inside the American army in the 21st Century at a time when our wars are small and sequential and expeditionary and bottomless. And I really did feel, having been around the army all my life starting as an army brat, that I had a more intimate view than ever before of the American army.

DOBBS: Amongst the things that you've written in this book, in this climate, as you well know, one of the things you wrote of the 101st division, they were better than the cause they served. That is explosive in these times. What did you mean?

ATKINSON: Well, I think it's very important that we not confuse the warriors with the war. And this is a book fundamentally about the warriors and not their war. But it occurred to me, even before the war started -- and I certainly feel even more strongly about it now -- that the case had not been made sufficiently for an invasion of Iraq that was virtually unilateral without allies. As a scholar of World War II, I come away from studying World War II, believing that nothing is more important than when you're waging a global campaign whether against the axis in the 1940s or global terrorism in the 21st Century than having a robust, righteous coalition. My feeling was we did not have that when the war started and certainly don't have it now.

DOBBS: You reflect on your own ambivalence at that point as U.S. forces were moving into Iraq. At the same time, that coalition and the issues of weapons of mass destruction, you also build a very strong case, if you will, for the Bush administration in the preparation for biochemical warfare and the preparation that the men and the women of the 101st went through, along with thousands of other American forces to suit up, to be ready with gas masks. Was it your sense that they were certain they would encounter biochemical warfare?

ATKINSON: You know, most were more certain and they were only reflecting, parroting really, the intelligence that was coming down the stove pipe. General Sinclair, E.J. Sinclair, who was the assistant division commander for support, the chief logistitian for the 101st, when I asked him what are the chances that we'll find weapons of mass destruction, he 100 percent.

And that was not an uncommon anticipation by officers, senior officers in the 101st.

DOBBS: You reflect on the question that General Patrias asks now as we have said back in Iraq, how does it all end. Let me ask you that as we conclude here tonight, Rick. How does it all end, in your view?

ATKINSON: Well, General Patrias first asked this question tongue-in-cheek. It was an ironic backspin to it, about three days into the war, when he turned and said, tell me how this ends. it was a legitimate question then. It became kind of his mantra through the war. It's certainly a legitimate question now.

The short answer is, I don't know how it ends. I don't think anybody in Washington knows how it ends. I think that clearly there is an effort, and it's probably the right thing to do to try to internationalize this as much as possible, to try to make American soldiers less of a target, to give them allies on the left and right in order to try to back out of this and turn it over to the Iraqis. And it seems to me that there will be something akin to a kind of Vietnamization which we saw in Vietnam with an Iraqiization.

Whether it will work or not, that remains to be seen. That's part of what General Patrias is going back to try to take over as he trains the new Iraqi army and the other security forces.

DOBBS: Obviously the cause more hopeful with the presence of General. Patrias. I think you would agree.

ATKINSON: He's a great soldier. He's only been home for two months after being gone a year. We owe him a great debt as we do everybody else over there serving. DOBBS: Rick Atkinson, we thank you very much. The book is "In The Company Of Soldiers."

In "Heroes" tonight, our weekly segment, Sergeant Chad Shevlin was one of the first marines to enter Iraq last year. He was badly wounded the day after the fall of Baghdad. Now Sergeant Shevlin is once again home and he's struggling to build his future. Bill Tucker reports.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bless you! You sneezing?

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Sergeant Chad Shevlin first met his daughter, Makayla (ph) a year ago. She was two months old, born while he was in Kuwait getting ready for war in Iraq. The meeting almost didn't happen. In Baghdad, the sergeant came within inches of losing his life.

SGT. CHAD SHEVLIN, U.S. MARINES: We took about five to six RPG hits in the track itself before one came up underneath the hatch and blasted me in the face. I put my hand up on my neck and realized my finger went in my neck and it was kind of -- a lot of blood on my hands so I knew I was hit. So then I tried to yell and I couldn't yell because my jaw got pretty much blown off my face. Some people said they seen me and I was just a pile of mush basically.

TUCKER: Shevlin lost his jaw, his esophagus badly damaged. Just 23 years old, he worried about the future.

SHEVLIN: I started thinking about what could I do if they tell me that I can't be a cop or continue to be a marine.

TUCKER: Throughout the past year he's undergone a series of reconstructive surgeries with remarkable results. He credits the support of his family.

SHEVLIN: They've been great. I mean it's probably why I healed so fast. The doctors have very impressed with my heal rate. Something that would take an average person years to do I'm doing within like half the time.

TUCKER: Shevlin is scheduled for more surgeries before his face is completely restored. With job offers to be a cop back home in New Hampshire, he's anxious to get through with them and get on with a new life. Bill Tucker, CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: We know you join us in wishing Sergeant Shevlin a speedy recovery and all the very best.

Still ahead here, an extraordinary week in international diplomacy, including a major shift in White House Middle East policy. We'll be talking with the panel of newsmakers. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: We're joined now by our panel of newsmakers, Jim Ellis, chief of correspondent at "Businessweek." Paul Maidment, he's executive editor of "Forbes" and Nelson Schwartz, senior writer for "Fortune" magazine. Gentlemen, good to have you here. We have just received word, mistrial and acquittal in the Crust case. This was supposed to be the big deal for the prosecutors and they have just taken another hit. Your reaction, Jim?

JIM ELLIS, "BUSINESSWEEK": What we're seeing now, it's a lot harder to prove these cases than it is to bring them. A lot harder to get a jury to come up and say that these things really happened beyond a reasonable doubt. I also think that it probably sends a really bad message to people in the marketplace because a lot of people thought, this is great, we're fully putting people on trial and it means that these laws have teeth. But I don't think it happens anymore.

DOBBS: Alan Greenspan today said those committing acts of corporate scandal should be expeditiously punished. They're doing collateral damage to the markets. That's a strong statement from the chairman. It's the first time, Paul, that he's really come out in this tone.

PAUL MAIDMENT, "FORBES": Yes. Certainly it's the tone. He expressed sentiments like that in the past. I think Jim put his finger on the issue. Moral indignation doesn't necessarily stand up in the courtrooms and it's very hard to prosecute these. These are meant to be exemplary trials and again, I think what Greenspan is trying to do is set this tone that this stuff is not allowed to go on because it is damaging to the economy.

DOBBS: We've got Bill (UNINTELLIGIBLE) saying -- the head of the Public Accounting Board saying that corporate America is in shambles in terms of its ethics, it's morality, it's principled execution of business policy and commerce in this country. You have the chairman of the Federal Reserve exhorting business to be principled. What do you make of it, Nelson?

NELSON SCHWARTZ, "FORTUNE": I think there is a gap between what they're saying and what they're doing which existed when the market was booming and when the market bottomed out. I think it will be interesting to see if some of the heat recedes if the corporate profits continue to be strong and when the market goes up. As the head of a Wall Street brokerage once said to me, you know, it's only when the market goes down you get this Spitzer stuff, that's their attitude.

DOBBS: Well, in fairness to Mr. Spitzer, and actually to keep the record straight, the market is up 40 percent as Mr. Spitzer pursues the bad guys, as Alan Greenspan exhorts corporate America to be principled and to act with some basic sense of decency in the American way. What do you mean?

SCHWARTZ: I mean that the pressure, I think, recedes and sort of the heat goes down a little bit on the pot when these -- when the market is so strong and when profits go up. A lot of this started in '01 and '02 when the market was down a few years in a row. In the late '90s you didn't hear so much of these scandals even though a lot of the same practices were going on.

MAIDMEN: In the end, it's man who makes (UNINTELLIGIBLE) business. It comes down to the fundamental integrity of people who are running companies. This is very hard to legislate for that.

DOBBS: It also comes down to investors and consumers that drive this greatest economy. Consumer confidence fell unexpectedly in this latest survey from the University of Michigan. Jim, is this something to be concerned about, along with 30,000 more jobless...

ELLIS: Yes, it's to be concerned about but I think a lot of it has to do with gasoline prices. A lot of people have seen gasoline prices go up. Also, with all the negative news coming out of the Middle East right now, it's sort of hard to be very confident. I still think that we've got to give it a month or two, the same way there was all this irrational exuberance a couple of weeks ago about the strong job numbers, we're now see now unemployment claims going up again. We're in a choppy period right now. We don't really know what's going on. So I don't think the administration can crow yet that we're over the hump.

DOBBS: Paul, your last thoughts here. We have about 30 seconds. How much of this has to do with President Bush and how much of it was Senator Kerry and their contest?

MAIDMENT: In terms of the confidence of the economy? I think a lot of it has to do with the fear of rising interest rates rather than the political background.

DOBBS: A wonderful conclusion to a political discussion, taking it back to economic fundamentals. Paul, thank you very much. Nelson, Jim, as always.

Now for a look at some of your thoughts.

Charlie from Tampa, Florida. "How is it," he asked, "that the government can afford to hire civilian security guards to Halliburton contracts yet that same government still insists that an increase in the armed forces is too expensive?"

Morgana Rhys of Bigforx, Montana. "These brave men and women not only face a war situation, they've had to deal with their families being on food stamps and problems even receiving their pay, not to mention a lack of adequate supplies. It is a national disgrace that we let this war profiteering go on while our true heroes are forced to suffer."

We love hearing from you. E-mail us at loudobbs.com. Still ahead, the results of our poll. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results of our poll, 90 percent of you -- 90 percent said the United States should turn over responsibility for Iraq to the United Nations. 10 percent do not.

That's our show for tonight. We thank you for being with us. Please be with us Monday. We'll be joined by former assistant defense secretary Richard Perle to talk about Iraq. Congressman David Dreier will be here to tell us his recent trip to India and why he still maintains outsourcing American jobs is great for our economy. Please be with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" coming up next.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com