Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Bremer Admits U.S. Made Mistakes in Iraq; White House Tells Congress to Abandon Tough Measures Against Illegal Aliens

Aired October 05, 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.


LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, in just three hours, a dramatic showdown between Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards. I'll talk with Joe Lockhart, senior adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and Nicolle Devenish, communications director for the Bush- Cheney campaign.
An astonishing admission by the former civil administrator. Paul Bremer says the United States made big mistakes in Iraq. Tonight, U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Thomas Hammes will give us his assess assessment of American strategy in Iraq.

Outrage on Capitol Hill after the White House tells Congress to abandon tough new measures against illegal aliens. My guest, Congressman Tom Tancredo, says the White House is jeopardizing national security.

I'll also talk with House Majority Whip-Republican Congressman Roy Blunt and the Republican Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congresswoman Jane Harman.

And waiting for the big one on Mount St. Helens.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We could see explosive activity anywhere from 10 minutes from now to a few months from now to perhaps never.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: We'll have the latest from Mount St. Helens.

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Tuesday, October 5. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion is Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening.

In just three hours, Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards will confront one another in their only face-to-face meeting of this presidential campaign.

Their meeting comes at a critical point in this election. Several of the latest opinion polls now say President Bush and Senator Kerry are statistically tied. Another poll says President Bush maintains a 5 percent lead over Senator Kerry. John King is at the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland for the vice presidential presentations tonight, and he has our report -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And, Lou, because of those tight polls and because this is the first presidential election since the 9/11 attacks more than three years ago, both campaigns concede that perhaps more than in past campaigns, the vice presidential candidates could matter a bit more in this campaign.

Both candidates facing significant challenges heading into tonight's debate. Let's begin with Vice President Cheney.

He, of course, is a key architect of all Bush administration policies, especially national security policies. He will try to carry a message to the American people tonight, explaining and defending the president's policies in Iraq and in the broader war on terrorism. Republicans concede that bar perhaps a bit higher because of what they consider to be a disappointing performance by the president in that regard in his debate with Senator John Kerry last week.

The vice president, we are told, is prepared to aggressively come in and make the case that the war in Iraq was the right choice, that, yes, there have been some setbacks on the security front, but that he believes the administration is and has been adjusting and will stay the course in that country to get it on the path of democracy.

The vice president, of course, also expected to press his attack that if the American people change course now, they will get a Democratic administration that, in his view, is not ready to lead the war on terror and would raise taxes and hurt the economy here at home as well.

A very different challenge for Senator John Edwards. At 51 years of age, he has been in elected politics just shy of six years, one term in the United States Senate.

His threshold challenge tonight is to convince the American people that he is prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Aides say he relishes that opportunity. He will talk of his own life experience as the son of a man who worked in the mill and a trial lawyer who, in his view, fought for the little guy against big corporations.

Senator Edwards also, of course, will join Senator Kerry's argument from last week's debate that the Iraq war was the wrong war at the wrong time and a diversion, the Democrats say, from the overall war against terrorism.

And he will repeat what is a frequent theme on the campaign trail, that, in his view, Bush administration economic policies have favored the rich and created what he calls two Americas, benefiting the wealthy, putting the squeeze on the middle class.

Lou, a generational contrast, a stylistic contrast, a physical contrast between these two men tonight, perhaps reflected even in how they prepared. Senator Edwards prepared in upstate New York with a mock studio complete with television cameras. Vice President Cheney in his living room in his home in Wyoming. The questions and answers during his mock debates often interrupted, we are told, by his two restless Labrador Retrievers -- Lou.

DOBBS: Thank you very much.

John King reporting from Cleveland.

Today, the former civilian administrator in Iraq delivering a bombshell. He's delivered a stunning assessment of U.S. policy mistakes in Iraq. Paul Bremer said the United States did not send enough troops to Iraq, and the military should have stopped the looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Our Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre has the story -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, Paul Bremer is saying now what critics have been saying for more than a year and a half, that the U.S. should have sent more troops to Iraq to get control of the security situation there and particularly to stop the looting.

In remarks to an insurance group yesterday, Bremer said, quote, "We -- that we paid a big price for not stopping it" -- that is the looting and the security -- "because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground."

He said similar things last night when he was speaking at DePaul University, there telling a student forum "The single most important change, the one thing that would have most improved the situation would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."

And he said, "Although I raised the issue a number of times with our government, I should have been more insistent," second-guessing not only the policy, but also himself.

Now Bremer's second-guessing is pretty much a big political item in Washington today, and the Kerry campaign has already seized on it to help buttress their argument that the war plan was flawed.

The Pentagon, however, insists that the president and Secretary Rumsfeld relied on military commanders for advice on troop requirements, and they say, although Paul Bremer was intimately involved in those discussions, ultimately, it was up to commanders to recommend what they felt was necessary, and all of their requests were met -- Lou.

DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much.

Jamie McIntyre.

Senator Kerry today, as Jamie just reported, seized on Paul Bremer's comments as evidence that the Bush administration is in disarray over Iraq. Senator Kerry said President Bush and Vice President Cheney should follow Paul Bremer and admit they made mistakes in Iraq. Senator Kerry said a fresh start is critical to changing the outcome of the Iraq war.

President Bush will try to regain the initiative from Senator Kerry tomorrow. He will deliver a major speech on the global war on terror and the economy. President Bush will deliver his speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. President Bush was originally due to talk about medical liability. The White House now says the president changed the topic to counter what it calls false and misleading attacks by Senator Kerry.

In Iraq today, U.S. and Iraqi forces began a new offensive against insurgents south of Baghdad. The troops led by the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit captured an insurgent training camp. They arrested 30 people.

This latest offensive follows the recapture of Samarra over the weekend. U.S. and Iraqi troops reportedly killed more than 130 insurgents in the operation, and, in today's "New York Times," U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Thomas Hammes wrote that "The real goal of any broader offensive in Iraq must be less to wipe out the rebel fighters than to give legitimacy to the government in Baghdad."

Colonel Hammes is the author of "The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century." He is a fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, and he joins us tonight from Washington, D.C.

Colonel, good to have you with us.

COL. THOMAS HAMMES, AUTHOR, "THE SLING AND THE STONE": Good evening.

DOBBS: The offensive is broadening. Samarra has been recaptured. This, for all the world, looks like the beginning of what to this point is successful counterinsurgency. Do you agree with the assessment?

HAMMES: I think it's a good first start. The key element that I see -- and, again, I don't have access to the classified reports, but the key point I see is that we're relying on Iraqi security forces to move in behind us and provide the governance that's the essential piece of a counterinsurgency.

DOBBS: It is, in your judgment, a bad idea to move from Samarra to Fallujah, to move into Sadr City, a suburb of about two million people in Baghdad. Why would you prefer a go-slow, go-steady approach, rather than an all-out offensive against the insurgents that hold very important posts, cities within the Sunni triangle?

HAMMES: What I really said was not that it's a bad idea to move, but it would be a bad idea to move too soon. The key limiting factor on the speed of the offensive has to be the capability of the Iraqi government and Iraqi security services to move in behind us. We've already proven the U.S. forces can move at will throughout the country.

The professionalism of the troops on the ground, the leaders over there is just superb. You saw that in the Samarra offensive. I think we're seeing it unfold again today. The key question is: Can we govern after we've cleared?

DOBBS: Governing, of course, now the responsibility of the Iraqi interim government. The U.S. troops in really now a position to provide security.

Go slow with January elections approaching, Colonel? Is that truly an option?

HAMMES: That's a political decision, and, actually, beyond what my expertise is. The key problem is, if you go too fast and you're unable to provide the government behind -- the Iraqis cannot move in and provide the government, then the insurgent will reestablish himself, and that makes it much more difficult the next time you go in.

DOBBS: As you...

HAMMES: Anyone who helps the government will be punished if the insurgents take...

DOBBS: As you yourself have pointed out, insurgency is basically political in nature at its essence. That political judgment that I'm asking of you is simply this: Do we have the troops, the will, the wherewithal to move expeditiously, to secure the cities that are -- until this point at least have been no-go zones for the U.S. and Iraqi military and police?

HAMMES: I think there's no question that the U.S. armed forces can go anywhere they choose to go in Iraq. We proved that each time we go out. That's not the question. The question is, after we have moved through, how do you then go back and sort the insurgents from the people? For instance, if I'm an insurgent facing the U.S. armed forces...

DOBBS: Colonel, I quite understand your point, but my question is this: Do we have the troops necessary to go into those no-go cities, such as Samarra, Fallujah, Sadr City and to stop -- after going into those areas establish control, security, stability for the Iraqi provisional government -- interim government?

HAMMES: That's the key question, and that's what it's very difficult to determine from here, and I wouldn't second-guess the commanders on the ground. What I would say is that the commentators are saying the only solution is to go fast, to push hard. That's not the solution. The solution is to govern. That's got to be the focus of the discussion rather than the speed with which we retake the cities.

DOBBS: Colonel Hammes, we thank you very much for being with us here.

HAMMES: Thank you.

DOBBS: Still ahead, the White House wants tough new rules on illegal aliens stripped from the new intelligence reform bill. Critics say that would jeopardize our national security. Three leading members of Congress are my guests tonight.

And ahead, Vice President Cheney, Senator Edwards will square off in their one and only vice presidential presentation tonight in Cleveland. The senior adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign, Joe Lockhart, communications director for the Bush-Cheney campaign, Nicolle Devenish, are among my guests.

And outsourcing your privacy, this time to Africa. Your most personal information being exported to cheap foreign labor markets along with jobs. Ten thousand miles away? No problem. Your job at risk. Your privacy abandoned. We'll have a special report.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The White House is demanding that the House Republican leadership strip the intelligence reform bill of tough new restrictions on illegal aliens and border security.

Republican Congressman Roy Blunt is the majority whip. He is the second most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives and says the immigration reforms will remain in the legislation, despite what the White House is demanding.

And joining us tonight, Congresswoman Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee who calls the immigration reforms, in her judgment, extraneous.

We thank you both for being with us. Before we begin, let me show you, point out to you, as you well know, and to our viewers who may not be as familiar the provisions that we're discussing here tonight in the intelligence reform legislation.

The first element, of course, is what is the crackdown on driver's licenses on illegal aliens. The White House wants that stripped out, wants to be able to make it easier to deport illegal aliens, those who cross our borders illegally, and to limit the use of foreign consular I.D. cards. That is, such cards as the matricula consular of Mexico, other consular I.D. cards for identification within this country.

Again, thank you both for being here.

Let me begin with you, Congressman Blunt. You are prepared to resist the White House on their demands to weaken the border security provisions of the immigration -- of the intelligence reform legislation?

REP. ROY BLUNT (R), MAJORITY WHIP: Well, we think the border security provisions are important provisions. They're the one thing that the 9/11 commission called for that didn't make it in the Senate bill in any way. I think they make total sense. They're absolutely defensible. For every one of those provisions, there is some egregious case in recent years where someone who really has done great damage to our society could have been stopped if these provisions would have been in place and would have been enforced.

We are working with White House to see if they've got some suggested changes that we might add to this legislation to make them more comfortable in a couple areas. But we intend to go forward with these provisions that, again, the 9/11 commission created the basis for in their report.

DOBBS: And against that backdrop, Congresswoman Harman, the 9/11 commission rather straightforward, talking about the importance of border security, maintaining control. You call it extraneous. Why?

REP. JANE HARMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I'm for stronger border security. That was the recommendation of the 9/11 commission. What I'm not for are poison pills, which are in this House bill. They are not in the 9/11 commission recommendations. They're not in the Senate bill. They're not supported by the White House. They're not supported by the 9/11 commission or the families.

For example, Lou, you've made a big point about outsourcing. This bill -- this House bill -- House leadership bill would outsource torture of terrorists. We're against torture in America, especially after these scandals in prisons in Iraq. That's why the administration strongly opposes them.

Yet that's in this bill, and so are these provisions to ban documents that are used as bank I.D. documents by immigrants, and Roy Blunt supported the use of those documents for banks in a House vote just a couple of months ago.

BLUNT: Lou, I might...

DOBBS: Go ahead, Congressman.

BLUNT: I might also point out, we were with -- we had some of the 9/11 families here this morning, and they were all to a person supportive of these provisions.

In fact, they said that -- the 9/11 families that they couldn't find any individual in the families who oppose these provisions, but they were being told just what my good friend Jane just said, that somehow they're poison pills designed to kill this legislation.

These are in this legislation designed to stop terrorists and terrorism. We -- we think they're totally reasonable, the idea that we would have greater border security. We're not requiring visas from Canada and Mexico, but we are requiring specific documents that have to be approved. And, other than that, you have to have a passport to get in and out of the country.

That's totally appropriate, I think. HARMAN: Well, I'm for counterfeit-proof immigration documents. I think we all are. But these provisions are not that. These are way far to the right. This is the anti-immigrant caucus of the House. Many Republicans don't support this. The Gun Owners of America oppose the provisions on a national driver's license, which is essentially what the House bill would require.

BLUNT: Oh, I think this is not anti-immigrant. In fact, legal immigrants more than any other group want to be sure the law's enforced. They have gone through the process of the law to get here. They want to be protected from people who have come into the country without going through that same legal process. That's all really these are designed to do, and, Lou, you know how important that is.

HARMAN: Well, my recommendation to this Congress is to fully fund Homeland Security. That has a strong border protection piece in it. We passed the law a couple years ago. It's basically an unfunded mandate with respect to our borders.

DOBBS: Congressman Harman, I have to ask you being from California, a large population in California of illegal immigrants, does that take any -- is that forming any basis for your position on this?

HARMAN: Well, I'm the daughter of immigrants. I...

DOBBS: No, I wasn't talking about talking about immigrants. I wasn't talking about immigrants. You know, look, this is a nation of immigrants. I'm talking about illegal aliens.

HARMAN: Ah. Well, yes, these provision -- it may be the basis for the House Republican leaderships' view. This issue of what to do about driver's licenses is a very hot issue in California. Governor Schwarzenegger just vetoed a bill to allow undocumented immigrants to have driver's licenses.

He said it wasn't -- the bill wasn't secure enough, but two million people are now going to be driving without testing, without credentials and without insurance. So there are tradeoffs here that we have to thoroughly and carefully consider.

BLUNT: Does that mean two million people are illegal in California?

HARMAN: That seems to be the estimate, which is a big problem. We need to enforce our immigration laws fairly, but catching terrorists should be our focus, and I sadly think these House provisions aren't about that.

BLUNT: Well, one way to secure the border is proper documents. That's the basis for...

HARMAN: I agree with that.

BLUNT: ... what we're talking about.

HARMAN: Roy and I agree on that.

DOBBS: Yes. With -- on the basis of that agreement, Congressman Blunt, as one of the most powerful people on Capitol Hill in the Republican leadership, are you prepared to resist the White House and maintain the provisions of your legislation as you move for a vote, and should it succeed in conference committee with the Senate legislation?

BLUNT: Well, I'm not sure many days how powerful I am. Some days as a whip in the House, I feel not all that powerful. But we're prepared to pursue what we've got in this bill.

We're certainly talking to the White House, particularly on the provisions that Jane referred to on torture. We don't support torture. We also don't support the idea that people who are known criminals will just be allowed to wander around in this country as the only option.

DOBBS: Well, Congressman, we know how powerful you are, and I assure you, out of respect to that powerful position of yours, we thought that the Congresswoman Harman, powerful in her own respect, would be appropriate with the strength she brings to each issue.

HARMAN: Thank you.

DOBBS: We thank you both for being here.

HARMAN: Thank you. And Susan Collins is powerful in Senate. She's doing a great job!

DOBBS: Well, we'll see how powerful everybody is as we start to rationalize public policy in this country.

Thank you both.

HARMAN: Thank you.

DOBBS: Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado is the chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus who says stripping the immigration reforms in the intelligence overall will jeopardize national security. Congressman Tom Tancredo will be joining us here tonight shortly.

It brings us to the subject of our poll question tonight: Do you believe homeland security is possible without control over our borders? Yes or no. Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou, and, as always, we'll have the results for you later here in the broadcast.

Taking a look now at some of your thoughts. Many of you have e- mailed us about White House demands to abandon proposals for tough new measures against those who cross our borders illegally. An estimate of three million illegal aliens crossing our borders this year.

Frank Vital of Miami, Florida, "How can our president possibly ask Congress to disregard the 9/11 commission's recommendations on stricter immigration control? He is either out of touch with reality or has a total disregard for our safety."

Mickie West in Philadelphia, "It appears that it is not enough that the majority of jobs are being outsourced. Now the president wants lawmakers to drop any restrictions on illegal aliens. Why doesn't he just turn the country over to Mexico because it seems non- citizens will soon have more rights than citizens? They already have many of our jobs."

And Donald Morrison, Bloomfield, Connecticut, "Both Senator Kerry and President Bush should realize America's greatest threat is the outsourcing of our jobs to foreign countries. Not only are our jobs leaving the United States, but those remaining are being taken by illegal aliens."

We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at loudobbs@cnn.com. And please send us your name and address. Each of you whose e-mail is read on the broadcast each evening receives a free copy of my new book on the assault on the middle class, "Exporting America."

Still ahead here tonight, Congressman Tom Tancredo. He'll be here to tell us why he's outraged by White House demands to eliminate strict reforms on immigration.

And then, showdown in Ohio. The vice presidential candidates are preparing to face off in a state that both campaigns are desperate to win. I'll be talking with officials from both campaigns, Nicolle Devenish and Joe Lockhart.

And then, the biggest burst from Mount St. Helens since it came back to life a week ago. We'll have the dramatic pictures for you.

And then, a warning about the flu. Why there could be a major shortage of flu vaccine this fall, and, unfortunately, it is another story about this country's rising dependence on imports.

That and a great deal more still ahead here tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Congressman Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, says he is outraged by the White House demands to strip immigration reforms from the intelligence reform legislation. Congressman Tancredo says very simply that anyone who votes against the new limitations on illegal immigration jeopardizes our national security.

Congressman Tancredo joins me tonight from Capitol Hill.

Good to have you here, Congressman.

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: Likewise.

DOBBS: You have just heard Congressman Blunt, the majority whip, and Congresswoman Harman, basically with two different views, but you heard Congressman Blunt representing the leadership, take -- to me at least -- a surprising view that they're going to defy the White House and move forward with these strict provisions on -- at least stricter provisions on immigration within the intelligence reform bill. Are you surprised?

TANCREDO: Oh, yes! This is wonderful news. The extent to which the leadership in the House has gone out on a limb on this one is amazing. I mean, Lou, we have -- how many years have we been pushing this issue without an awful lot of support from that environment? And, all of a sudden, things are starting to fall into line. I don't know why, but I'm awfully happy.

DOBBS: The idea that there would be any debate over enforcement of border security...

TANCREDO: Oh, yes.

DOBBS: The "TIME" magazine report, now four week ago, its cover story, three million illegal aliens entering this country this year...

TANCREDO: Every year. That's right.

DOBBS: ... at a time we are supposed to be maintaining port and border security? It is -- it's inconceivable, frankly, to any rational person that there would not have to be some adjustment on immigration policy, and I'm saying that as an understatement. What do you think is going to happen to this legislation?

TANCREDO: Well, I think we're going to pass it in the House. Whether -- I mean, the Senate has got to be our focal point here. We really have to ask people to contact their senators because, I guarantee you, that's where it's going to come to a clash.

When we get into the conference committee, that's where I fear these things may be taken out. I hope they're not just being put in on the House side for the political advantage we may gain by having Democrats vote against it, but then take it all out in the conference committee. That's another little strategy that they might employ.

DOBBS: You heard Congresswoman Harman, you know, who is a highly respected member, say basically -- and I think I am not misconstruing in any way -- that there is a certain influence because so many of her constituents in her state of California are illegal aliens.

How much of this do you think will be a similar influence for other congressmen and women in their districts?

TANCREDO: It will be significant. Last night, we had a conference, a Republican conference, and we debated this issue, and it got pretty heated at a couple of points in time.

Other members, even of the Republican conference, are concerned about the way this may be portrayed and how we may be -- you know, how the Republicans may be spotlighted for the kind of attack ads that might occur, and I keep saying, look, we're talking about national security here.

Anybody has got to think about how it would look to the rest of the world. What about the rest of the Americans out there, the 75 percent of America who are saying defend our borders, do something about the national security? Are we just going to ignore them in order to satisfy these pressure groups? Well, this is going to be the debate that we will...

DOBBS: It's interesting to me, Congressman, the pressure groups that are being formed. You heard Congresswoman Harman, again, a member whom I personally respect, talk about this as anti-immigrant legislation. To be clear, it's not immigrant, it's illegal alien.

TANCREDO: And I think Roy Blunt was good in his response when he said...

DOBBS: That's what I was going to say. Absolutely.

TANCREDO: ...in his response he said, "Look, if you are here legally, you are just concerned about your safety and the safety of this nation than anyone else." They're on our side. It's this bizarre sort of commitment we have to the idea that if we say anything at all in opposition to immigration control, we end up being the bad guys.

DOBBS: Yeah, bad guys.

TANCREDO: Not true.

DOBBS: In the country that is the most racially, ethnic in terms of religion, the most diverse society in the face of the earth. It's astounding.

TANCREDO: It is amazing.

DOBBS: Our audience, just so you know Congressman Tancredo is demonstrated every night in the way they are reacting in the broadcast. Their e-mails, letters, and so forth, that there is a powerful consciousness about this issue now. And we as always appreciate you being here and especially one of those that have been work so diligently to raise that consciousness.

TANCREDO: Tell your folks, go after the Senate. Go after the Senate, Lou.

DOBBS: You tell them! You tell them, Congressman.

TANCREDO: Go after the Senate. That's the place. If you want to vent your anger and you want to get rid of your frustration, go after the Senate and tell them to hang in there with our bill.

DOBBS: Or slap a wall or something.

Congressman Tom Tancredo, thank you very much for being here.

TANCREDO: It's a pleasure, Lou. DOBBS: As we have reported extensively here, the presidential candidates are saying little about immigration reform in this campaign. But national security is expected to be a major issue in tonight's one and only vice presidential presentation. Joining me now for more of what we can all expect to hear on security, the economy and other issues are officials from both campaigns. I'm going to be talking with them separately. In a moment, I'll be talking with senior adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign, Joe Lockhart. But first my guest is Nicolle Devenish, she is the communication's director for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Good to have you with us, Nicolle.

NICOLLE DEVENISH, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, BUSH CAMPAIGN: Thanks for having me, Lou.

DOBBS: Given the closings of the polls. In one poll the president and the vice president maintain a five-point lead over Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards but in the others, a closing. How important is tonight's debate? How important is the vice president's performance in your judgment?

DEVENISH: Every day between tonight and November 2 is critically important really for both campaigns but the thing you have to remember for tonight is that John Edwards is actually the only person that's ever beaten John Kerry in a debate. So I think what we'll see tonight is the vice president trying to go head-to-head with all -- I am sorry, Lou?

DOBBS: So you're worried?

DEVENISH: Well, we are certainly going to work hard to hold our own against someone who is selected as the vice presidential nominee for his skills and his talents in a debate-like setting.

DOBBS: Well, doesn't your candidate, Vice President Dick Cheney, with his overwhelming experience in public service and Congress to several other administrations well before this one, doesn't it make him just an overwhelming favorite in this debate tonight?

DEVENISH: Well, when the measure is substance and a record to run on and a record to stand on and a vision for keeping this country safer that we know has worked for the last three and a half years, certainly the vice president, I think, has that resume. But the focus on the debate is on -- is on quips and rhetorical flourishes and I think that this vice president is going to be gimmicky and he isn't going to be funny and flashy but the American people are going to have to decide on November 2nd not just on the president but the vice president who can step in and lead this country during these extraordinary times.

DOBBS: Do you expect we will see a bit of the framing in tonight's debate to be a bit of Halliburton versus trial attorneys, as these two men engage one another?

DEVENISH: Well, I can't imagine they talk about anything other than Halliburton because they're not running on a record. You can't get them to say anything about the records that earned them the distinction of two of the Senate's most out of the mainstream members. So yes, I certainly expect political attacks on Halliburton but the vice president is not going to be here attacking his opponent, he's going to be talking about two very different records. And if I could just say real quick about the strategic importance of this debate and this week. This is the week, four weeks out from Election Day, when we really focus on the substance. The Kerry team can't answer this question, Lou. Was the removal of Saddam Hussein a mistake? I don't know the answer to that question and maybe we'll know at the end of the night. But if they don't clear it up, I think you'll have a hard time calling it a victory.

DOBBS: I think, as you put it, I infer that you mean you don't know whether Senator Kerry or Senator Edwards thinks it was a strong mistake. I have a strong feeling that you know whether or not it was a mistake in your judgment.

DEVENISH: Of course we think that the removal of Saddam Hussein makes America safer and most Americans do too.

DOBBS: Nicolle, the question today on everyone's mind, Paul Bremer's bombshell saying mistakes were in fact made in Iraq, going directly to the heart of the president's decision not to send more troops. Whether not requested or otherwise saying it is a mistake. The timing couldn't have been much worse for the administration, could it?

DEVENISH: Well, look, I think that Paul Bremer has cleared up his own comments and was referring to the situation that he saw when he arrived in Iraq but the president has been very clear. He has always and will always do whatever the generals on the ground ask for in terms of troop level. So that continues to be his strategy and I heard you talking at the top of the show about listening to the people on the ground because they're the ones who know.

DOBBS: Absolutely. They are usually the ones who best know.

DEVENISH: The best experts.

DOBBS: And one hopes their always -- their judgment is always considered with primacy. Nicolle Devenish, thank you very much, representing the Bush-Cheney campaign.

DEVENISH: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Still ahead, I'll be talking with Joe Lockhart, the senior adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign about the importance of tonight's debate or presentation as we style it here and the issues that they at least believe will frame the remainder of this campaign. We'll be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Joining me now from the Kerry campaign, senior adviser Joe Lockhart, he's in Cleveland tonight as you might expect -- the scene of the vice presidential debate, or presentations as we style them here. Joe, good to have you here. How important is this debate following up on what most judge to be the success of Senator Kerry last week, closing in a number of the polls. The president had in one major poll by five points. How important is it?

JOE LOCKHART, KERRY CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, I think it's more important than I guess the average vice presidential debate, I think for two reasons. One is, I think clearly something happening in the electorate. We've seen people begin to make up their minds and moving in our direction and keeping that momentum going I think is important for us. I think the second thing is, is the Bush-Cheney team, Cheney tonight, have to come up with a formula for answering questions about their own record. That's what made President Bush so uncomfortable last Thursday night. He just didn't seem to like to be pressed about what's going on in Iraq. How can you justify this policy or that policy? And I think if the vice president doesn't come up with some way to do it tonight, they're in a lot of trouble.

DOBBS: Yet your assessment as I understand, Joe, was that it was basically a draw?

LOCKHART: That's the great world -- that's the great world of Matt Drudge and I think we will leave it just at that. I think I know who won that debate. And I think I found...

DOBBS: I was going to give you an opportunity to set the record straight, Joe.

LOCKHART: Listen, you know what, the record is moving so fast. I can't barely keep up with it.

DOBBS: Let me ask you this, you talked about the vice president's record. I asked Nicolle Devenish this same question. The vice president's overwhelming record, his just extraordinary wealth in record of experience and in public service. How does a man who is not even completed one term in the U.S. Senate compete against that?

LOCKHART: Listen, I think that John Edwards and everyone in our campaign celebrates public service. There's no higher calling in this country. But you have to look at what kind of experience and what it leads you to do. The vice president's been the architect, or a chief architect, of two main policies in this administration. The first is Iraq. He and the other neocons decided to go it alone, go in without a plan to win the peace, as Paul Bremer said very clearly today. That's been a real liability for this president. The other was on economic policy. The sort of tax cuts that are targeted to the most wealthy in this country and we're supposed to create six million new jobs. We're seven million off. We're at ground zero here of job loss in America. Outsourcing central in America. 237,000 jobs lost. Fully a quarter of the jobs lost in the U.S. under Bush-Cheney. Be very difficult for him tonight to sort of make the case that his experience has been a positive for this country.

DOBBS: Do you expect that we're going to see a certain amount of, at least, Halliburton issues versus trial attorney issues, what are perceived to be vulnerabilities of both candidates tonight?

LOCKHART: Yeah, well listen on Halliburton I do expect it, because I think a legitimate issue and I think it will come up. Trial lawyers, I hope it comes up. Because I think Dick Cheney, for all of his public service, does represent the sort of idea that special interests get special favors and they take care of their friends. And I hope John Edwards has the chance to talk about the people he represented, the families. The families who had their lives ripped apart who lost loved ones because companies and insurance companies didn't do the right thing and he gave power to the people who couldn't defend themselves and that's a good thing and I hope it comes out tonight.

DOBBS: Joe Lockhart, I think we have a sense of what he may say based on your response to that question. We thank you very much for being here. Joe Lockhart who tells me he's signed on for two months of sleepless nights as it turns out. We thank you very much for being here.

We'll have much more, head on tonight's vice presidential presentations. Both running mates hoping to build momentum for their campaigns. I'll be talking with three of the country's very best political journalists here, and also ahead, a flu drug crisis in the making. Why a production flaw in overseas factory could be putting our health at risk.

And American's privacy also in jeopardy. How the shipment of American jobs to cheap overseas labor markets is also sending some of our most private records overseas. We'll have a special report for you coming up next. Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The vice presidential candidates are now just more than two hours away from presenting their messages and vision for the next four years. One hopes vision. Joining me now for more on tonight's so-called debate, three of the country's top political journalists. From Washington, Ron Brownstein, national political correspondent for the "Los Angeles Times." Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent, "Time" magazine. And from the site of the debate tonight in Cleveland, a man who can't resist debates, Roger Simon, political editor of "US News & World Report." Good to have you here. Well, let me start with you, Roger. Excitement is building. Expecting a tough contest tonight?

ROGER SIMON, "US NEWS & WORLD REPORT": You can cut it with a knife. The tension is electric, Lou. No, the tension is building. Everyone is looking forward to a good discussion or even a debate. And they're looking forward to a continuation of what happened in Coral Gables. A tough exchange with two candidates who are frankly pretty good at this.

DOBBS: Pretty good at this, and yet Karen, we just heard representatives of both campaigns basically giving the nod to the other given their mental agility and their articulate agility. What do you think? Who has the advantage here tonight?

KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Well, we would expect them to do nothing else. Certainly if you look at format, it would seem to play to play to Dick Cheney's strengths and the last time we saw him in a one-on-one debate, a lot of people thought he basically he cleaned Joe Lieberman's clock but what we learned last week is that the format may not end up working as we think. John Edwards is a big wild card here. He's never been in a one-on-one debate in politics. We saw a lot of him in these nine candidate forums during the primary. He got off some pretty good lines but nobody really knows what he's going to look like in this sort of situation.

DOBBS: Ron, do you know.

RON BROWNSTEIN, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": No. I want to offer a radical thought here. I don't really think it matters who wins this debate in the sense of who scores more points against the other or whether Halliburton is raised more than trial lawyers. I don't think people in the end vote for vice presidents. I do think the debate matters to the extent one side over the other can use it to advance the basic message of the principal protagonists in this race. I think the Bush people clearly want to use this debate to begin a process that they hope to accelerate tomorrow with the president's speech and try to shift the focus back where it was last Thursday, on President Bush's record toward the Kerry and Edwards records. That was, I think, the big shift that happened at that first debate. We focus much more on the president's record than on Kerry's, you know, fitness to be commander-in-chief, which has been the focus since September- October. The Republicans want to shift it back. And I think that's the real goal tonight. Again, continuing tomorrow with the president's speech.

DOBBS: OK, let me ask you this, each of you, what is that essential question, then that will be framed here tonight in your best judgment. Karen?

TUMULTY: Well, I think it is going to be experience on the part of Vice President Cheney versus the country's desire for a new direction, which is what John Edwards is going to be arguing.

DOBBS: Roger?

SIMON: There's a trap here for John Edwards. I think Ron is absolutely right. If John Edwards spends a lot of time talking about Halliburton, then he's fallen into this trap. Beating the guy across the table is not the object tonight. Nobody cares about Dick Cheney. Nobody really cares about John Edwards. John Edwards has to make this debate about George Bush. Dick Cheney has to make this debate about John Edwards. They have to make it a continuation of Coral Gables and a prelude to St. Louis.

DOBBS: And given that, Ron, then, what in your judgment is the essential question that has to be framed?

BROWNSTEIN: I think it will be national security, for two reasons. One, because Dick Cheney is more identified-- is as identified with the Iraq war as any figure in the administration.

DOBBS: Sure. BROWNSTEIN: He made the most dramatic claims before the war of links, of threats of weapons of mass destruction. Links with al Qaeda and so forth. And in many ways he may have the toughest time defending those, and conversely I think Cheney's views his long experience in national security versus Edwards not being in the Senate for a full term as the embodiment in the contrast they're trying to draw in this campaign. So I think that's the terrain where we will see this most sharply fought out and again where we will see, which side can advance the basic message they tried to put forward last week in Florida.

DOBBS: Let me ask you again, all three of you. Could it be as straightforward as what Nicolle Devenish, the representative from the Bush-Cheney campaign here just articulated? Is the United States, is the world better off without Saddam Hussein, Karen?

TUMULTY: I don't think it's going to be that straightforward because there's a lot of dissonance today in the system, whether it's Bremer's comments that they should have had more troops. Whether it is Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld saying that there was no link with al Qaeda. Even going back to last week with Secretary Powell saying it's not getting better there. There's a lot of dissonance in the system that Dick Cheney is going to have to explain.

DOBBS: And Roger, your view?

SIMON: The world would be better off without a lot of dictators, Lou. Including one 90 miles from our shores. But that doesn't mean we can invade countries for that purpose. And in fact, that was not the stated purpose of our invasion, as Cheney...

DOBBS: No, no, no. I understand.

SIMON: ...as John Kerry always said.

DOBBS: I understand, but do you think that is what the administration will try to frame as the principle question, counting on the response from the public at large?

SIMON: Of course. They'll continue their same theme, which is, if you elect John Edwards and John Kerry, these are two naive men who don't understand terrorism. If you elect them, terrorists will come to our shores and kill us. That is the theme of the Republicans.

DOBBS: Ron, let me ask you, then, what will in your -- again, your best judgment, your assessment of what will be determined in the outcome tonight of this election assuming that there will be a clear winner or a clear loser?

BROWNSTEIN: I don't know if there will be, Lou. But I think the message from last week, what I felt very strongly after that debate was, whoever is in the spotlight of this race, tends to wilt a little bit. August and September was largely about John Kerry. The doubts raised by the swift boat attacks and then, of course, at that Republican convention. Is he up to being commander-in-chief? George Bush opened a lead through that period, even though polls showed a lot of doubt about the course he has set especially in Iraq. Last Thursday, John Kerry was carefully shifting the focus to George Bush. I think the efforts of the Democrats tonight will be to continue that. I don't know if George Bush loses a race that is focused on his record but I can tell you, it's a lot closer and tougher than the race we had in September and August. And I think the tug-of-war here is where the spotlight is. The Republicans want to put it back on Kerry and Edwards. And the Democrats desperately want to keep it on Bush's choices and decisions, especially in the light of some of the comments that Karen cited.

DOBBS: Karen, since you were most recently cited, what do you think will be determined tonight? We've got just a little less than a minute.

TUMULTY: Well, you know, it's impossible to predict but I do think a lot of pressure on John Edwards in particular to show that he can both argue for a change of direction and argue that he and John Kerry have the competence and have the commitment and have the judgment.

DOBBS: All right. Roger Simon, can you give us a quick summation, determinate element tonight?

SIMON: Sure. John Edwards has to make this debate tonight about the decisions of George Bush and Iraq. And secondarily about the economy. Did George Bush miscalculate and mislead the American public and has he led us into a quagmire?

DOBBS: Roger Simon "US News & World Report." Karen Tumulty, "Time" magazine. Ron Brownstein, "Los Angeles Times." As always, we thank the triumvirate for joining us here tonight.

Still ahead, at risk tonight your most confidential information. Why some American companies have chosen to send your personal data and private records overseas. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: A spectacular site as Mount St. Helens continues to have steam eruptions. Today the volcano sent its largest plume of steam and ash into the sky. The largest in days, thousands of feet into the air, today. This just the latest indication that in the opinion of geophysicists that a much bigger eruption could happen at any time, whether imminent or days or months away. Mount St. Helens has been spewing steam and ash since Friday prompting the National Weather Service to issue an ash fall advisory. Today's eruption scattered ash and dust over a small town about 25 miles away from the volcano.

A dramatic illustration tonight on the dangers of relying upon foreign supplies of critical medicine. The national supply of flu vaccine has been cut in half after British regulators suspended one of its major suppliers, in this case, sending flu vaccine to the United States. Inspectors found a flaw in production at the Liverpool, England plant of vaccine maker Chiron. Chiron had been expected to supply as many as 48 million flu shots, nearly half the U.S. intended supply this year. Public health officials are now asking healthy adults not to have their flu shots this year so that doctors may give priority to more vulnerable patients, the elderly, the young and the infirm.

In "Exporting America" tonight, a disturbing trend is on the rise and it threatens your privacy. Your personal data, your most private medical and financial records, even your social security numbers are at risk. That's because your confidential information, in many cases is being sent overseas along with cheap -- along with American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Jeff Koinange reports from Ghana.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you for calling. My name is Diane...

JEFF KOINANGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Diane Tete (ph) takes an order over the phone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May I please have your phone number with the area code, please?

KOINANGE: A few feet away, Kwakoo Dansu (ph) reroutes the call to a far away destination. At first glance, your typical call center telemarketing operation. Except that the operators taking the calls are in Africa. And the calls are coming from 10,000 miles away in the United States. Outsourcing makes sense in Africa, where unemployed university graduates are in plentiful supply and the labor force is willing to work for a tiny fraction of what their U.S. counterparts earn.

(on camera) Ghana is a West African nation, the size of Rhode Island with a population of about 20 million. A former British colony where English is widely spoken. It's also politically stable, a distinct advantage for firms that outsource. This is a typical call center floor operated by Supra Telecom Ghana agency (ph) are taking calls mainly from the U.S. state of Florida. On a typical day, each of these agents will take in a minimum of about 40 calls. Multiply that by about 200 staff and that's a whole lot of calls.

(voice-over) The company, barely a year old, is already serving a client base of a quarter of a million Americans, handling everything from data processing services, to Internet trouble-shooting.

ANDREW ESEMEZIL, SUPRA TELECOM: The bottom line is to provide service to the customer. Keep promises to the customer. It doesn't really matter where you are.

KOINANGE: But despite the obvious advantage, cheap labor, an unlimited work force, no unions, outsourcing threatens the privacy of consumers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Information, especially on health and also on legal issues are very confidential, and that that -- this information can be easily be leaked through the outsourcing procedures.

KOINANGE: As for the customer's reaction when they realize they're speaking to an agent thousands of miles away... ESEMEZIL: Wait a minute. You mean I'm talking to someone in Africa? And the reaction's been great.

KOINANGE: Outsourcing has created political controversy and economic distress in the United States. But there seems to be no downside for its latest beneficiary. Africans are only too happy to cash in on the phenomenon.

Jeff Koinange, CNN, Accra, Ghana.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: And still ahead here, the results of our poll tonight and a preview of what is ahead tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Results of our poll, 96 percent of you do not believe homeland security is possible without control over our borders. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us tomorrow. Our face- off on the United Nations. Is it relevant? A debate.

And exporting some of our most creative, specialized jobs to South Korea. Please be with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. Vice presidential debates coming up, the coverage begins with "ANDERSON COOPER 360." He's 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 October 5, 2004 - 18:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, in just three hours, a dramatic showdown between Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards. I'll talk with Joe Lockhart, senior adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and Nicolle Devenish, communications director for the Bush- Cheney campaign.
An astonishing admission by the former civil administrator. Paul Bremer says the United States made big mistakes in Iraq. Tonight, U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Thomas Hammes will give us his assess assessment of American strategy in Iraq.

Outrage on Capitol Hill after the White House tells Congress to abandon tough new measures against illegal aliens. My guest, Congressman Tom Tancredo, says the White House is jeopardizing national security.

I'll also talk with House Majority Whip-Republican Congressman Roy Blunt and the Republican Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congresswoman Jane Harman.

And waiting for the big one on Mount St. Helens.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We could see explosive activity anywhere from 10 minutes from now to a few months from now to perhaps never.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: We'll have the latest from Mount St. Helens.

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Tuesday, October 5. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion is Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening.

In just three hours, Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards will confront one another in their only face-to-face meeting of this presidential campaign.

Their meeting comes at a critical point in this election. Several of the latest opinion polls now say President Bush and Senator Kerry are statistically tied. Another poll says President Bush maintains a 5 percent lead over Senator Kerry. John King is at the Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland for the vice presidential presentations tonight, and he has our report -- John.

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: And, Lou, because of those tight polls and because this is the first presidential election since the 9/11 attacks more than three years ago, both campaigns concede that perhaps more than in past campaigns, the vice presidential candidates could matter a bit more in this campaign.

Both candidates facing significant challenges heading into tonight's debate. Let's begin with Vice President Cheney.

He, of course, is a key architect of all Bush administration policies, especially national security policies. He will try to carry a message to the American people tonight, explaining and defending the president's policies in Iraq and in the broader war on terrorism. Republicans concede that bar perhaps a bit higher because of what they consider to be a disappointing performance by the president in that regard in his debate with Senator John Kerry last week.

The vice president, we are told, is prepared to aggressively come in and make the case that the war in Iraq was the right choice, that, yes, there have been some setbacks on the security front, but that he believes the administration is and has been adjusting and will stay the course in that country to get it on the path of democracy.

The vice president, of course, also expected to press his attack that if the American people change course now, they will get a Democratic administration that, in his view, is not ready to lead the war on terror and would raise taxes and hurt the economy here at home as well.

A very different challenge for Senator John Edwards. At 51 years of age, he has been in elected politics just shy of six years, one term in the United States Senate.

His threshold challenge tonight is to convince the American people that he is prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Aides say he relishes that opportunity. He will talk of his own life experience as the son of a man who worked in the mill and a trial lawyer who, in his view, fought for the little guy against big corporations.

Senator Edwards also, of course, will join Senator Kerry's argument from last week's debate that the Iraq war was the wrong war at the wrong time and a diversion, the Democrats say, from the overall war against terrorism.

And he will repeat what is a frequent theme on the campaign trail, that, in his view, Bush administration economic policies have favored the rich and created what he calls two Americas, benefiting the wealthy, putting the squeeze on the middle class.

Lou, a generational contrast, a stylistic contrast, a physical contrast between these two men tonight, perhaps reflected even in how they prepared. Senator Edwards prepared in upstate New York with a mock studio complete with television cameras. Vice President Cheney in his living room in his home in Wyoming. The questions and answers during his mock debates often interrupted, we are told, by his two restless Labrador Retrievers -- Lou.

DOBBS: Thank you very much.

John King reporting from Cleveland.

Today, the former civilian administrator in Iraq delivering a bombshell. He's delivered a stunning assessment of U.S. policy mistakes in Iraq. Paul Bremer said the United States did not send enough troops to Iraq, and the military should have stopped the looting after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Our Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre has the story -- Jamie.

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, Paul Bremer is saying now what critics have been saying for more than a year and a half, that the U.S. should have sent more troops to Iraq to get control of the security situation there and particularly to stop the looting.

In remarks to an insurance group yesterday, Bremer said, quote, "We -- that we paid a big price for not stopping it" -- that is the looting and the security -- "because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground."

He said similar things last night when he was speaking at DePaul University, there telling a student forum "The single most important change, the one thing that would have most improved the situation would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."

And he said, "Although I raised the issue a number of times with our government, I should have been more insistent," second-guessing not only the policy, but also himself.

Now Bremer's second-guessing is pretty much a big political item in Washington today, and the Kerry campaign has already seized on it to help buttress their argument that the war plan was flawed.

The Pentagon, however, insists that the president and Secretary Rumsfeld relied on military commanders for advice on troop requirements, and they say, although Paul Bremer was intimately involved in those discussions, ultimately, it was up to commanders to recommend what they felt was necessary, and all of their requests were met -- Lou.

DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much.

Jamie McIntyre.

Senator Kerry today, as Jamie just reported, seized on Paul Bremer's comments as evidence that the Bush administration is in disarray over Iraq. Senator Kerry said President Bush and Vice President Cheney should follow Paul Bremer and admit they made mistakes in Iraq. Senator Kerry said a fresh start is critical to changing the outcome of the Iraq war.

President Bush will try to regain the initiative from Senator Kerry tomorrow. He will deliver a major speech on the global war on terror and the economy. President Bush will deliver his speech in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. President Bush was originally due to talk about medical liability. The White House now says the president changed the topic to counter what it calls false and misleading attacks by Senator Kerry.

In Iraq today, U.S. and Iraqi forces began a new offensive against insurgents south of Baghdad. The troops led by the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit captured an insurgent training camp. They arrested 30 people.

This latest offensive follows the recapture of Samarra over the weekend. U.S. and Iraqi troops reportedly killed more than 130 insurgents in the operation, and, in today's "New York Times," U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Thomas Hammes wrote that "The real goal of any broader offensive in Iraq must be less to wipe out the rebel fighters than to give legitimacy to the government in Baghdad."

Colonel Hammes is the author of "The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century." He is a fellow at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, and he joins us tonight from Washington, D.C.

Colonel, good to have you with us.

COL. THOMAS HAMMES, AUTHOR, "THE SLING AND THE STONE": Good evening.

DOBBS: The offensive is broadening. Samarra has been recaptured. This, for all the world, looks like the beginning of what to this point is successful counterinsurgency. Do you agree with the assessment?

HAMMES: I think it's a good first start. The key element that I see -- and, again, I don't have access to the classified reports, but the key point I see is that we're relying on Iraqi security forces to move in behind us and provide the governance that's the essential piece of a counterinsurgency.

DOBBS: It is, in your judgment, a bad idea to move from Samarra to Fallujah, to move into Sadr City, a suburb of about two million people in Baghdad. Why would you prefer a go-slow, go-steady approach, rather than an all-out offensive against the insurgents that hold very important posts, cities within the Sunni triangle?

HAMMES: What I really said was not that it's a bad idea to move, but it would be a bad idea to move too soon. The key limiting factor on the speed of the offensive has to be the capability of the Iraqi government and Iraqi security services to move in behind us. We've already proven the U.S. forces can move at will throughout the country.

The professionalism of the troops on the ground, the leaders over there is just superb. You saw that in the Samarra offensive. I think we're seeing it unfold again today. The key question is: Can we govern after we've cleared?

DOBBS: Governing, of course, now the responsibility of the Iraqi interim government. The U.S. troops in really now a position to provide security.

Go slow with January elections approaching, Colonel? Is that truly an option?

HAMMES: That's a political decision, and, actually, beyond what my expertise is. The key problem is, if you go too fast and you're unable to provide the government behind -- the Iraqis cannot move in and provide the government, then the insurgent will reestablish himself, and that makes it much more difficult the next time you go in.

DOBBS: As you...

HAMMES: Anyone who helps the government will be punished if the insurgents take...

DOBBS: As you yourself have pointed out, insurgency is basically political in nature at its essence. That political judgment that I'm asking of you is simply this: Do we have the troops, the will, the wherewithal to move expeditiously, to secure the cities that are -- until this point at least have been no-go zones for the U.S. and Iraqi military and police?

HAMMES: I think there's no question that the U.S. armed forces can go anywhere they choose to go in Iraq. We proved that each time we go out. That's not the question. The question is, after we have moved through, how do you then go back and sort the insurgents from the people? For instance, if I'm an insurgent facing the U.S. armed forces...

DOBBS: Colonel, I quite understand your point, but my question is this: Do we have the troops necessary to go into those no-go cities, such as Samarra, Fallujah, Sadr City and to stop -- after going into those areas establish control, security, stability for the Iraqi provisional government -- interim government?

HAMMES: That's the key question, and that's what it's very difficult to determine from here, and I wouldn't second-guess the commanders on the ground. What I would say is that the commentators are saying the only solution is to go fast, to push hard. That's not the solution. The solution is to govern. That's got to be the focus of the discussion rather than the speed with which we retake the cities.

DOBBS: Colonel Hammes, we thank you very much for being with us here.

HAMMES: Thank you.

DOBBS: Still ahead, the White House wants tough new rules on illegal aliens stripped from the new intelligence reform bill. Critics say that would jeopardize our national security. Three leading members of Congress are my guests tonight.

And ahead, Vice President Cheney, Senator Edwards will square off in their one and only vice presidential presentation tonight in Cleveland. The senior adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign, Joe Lockhart, communications director for the Bush-Cheney campaign, Nicolle Devenish, are among my guests.

And outsourcing your privacy, this time to Africa. Your most personal information being exported to cheap foreign labor markets along with jobs. Ten thousand miles away? No problem. Your job at risk. Your privacy abandoned. We'll have a special report.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The White House is demanding that the House Republican leadership strip the intelligence reform bill of tough new restrictions on illegal aliens and border security.

Republican Congressman Roy Blunt is the majority whip. He is the second most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives and says the immigration reforms will remain in the legislation, despite what the White House is demanding.

And joining us tonight, Congresswoman Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee who calls the immigration reforms, in her judgment, extraneous.

We thank you both for being with us. Before we begin, let me show you, point out to you, as you well know, and to our viewers who may not be as familiar the provisions that we're discussing here tonight in the intelligence reform legislation.

The first element, of course, is what is the crackdown on driver's licenses on illegal aliens. The White House wants that stripped out, wants to be able to make it easier to deport illegal aliens, those who cross our borders illegally, and to limit the use of foreign consular I.D. cards. That is, such cards as the matricula consular of Mexico, other consular I.D. cards for identification within this country.

Again, thank you both for being here.

Let me begin with you, Congressman Blunt. You are prepared to resist the White House on their demands to weaken the border security provisions of the immigration -- of the intelligence reform legislation?

REP. ROY BLUNT (R), MAJORITY WHIP: Well, we think the border security provisions are important provisions. They're the one thing that the 9/11 commission called for that didn't make it in the Senate bill in any way. I think they make total sense. They're absolutely defensible. For every one of those provisions, there is some egregious case in recent years where someone who really has done great damage to our society could have been stopped if these provisions would have been in place and would have been enforced.

We are working with White House to see if they've got some suggested changes that we might add to this legislation to make them more comfortable in a couple areas. But we intend to go forward with these provisions that, again, the 9/11 commission created the basis for in their report.

DOBBS: And against that backdrop, Congresswoman Harman, the 9/11 commission rather straightforward, talking about the importance of border security, maintaining control. You call it extraneous. Why?

REP. JANE HARMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, I'm for stronger border security. That was the recommendation of the 9/11 commission. What I'm not for are poison pills, which are in this House bill. They are not in the 9/11 commission recommendations. They're not in the Senate bill. They're not supported by the White House. They're not supported by the 9/11 commission or the families.

For example, Lou, you've made a big point about outsourcing. This bill -- this House bill -- House leadership bill would outsource torture of terrorists. We're against torture in America, especially after these scandals in prisons in Iraq. That's why the administration strongly opposes them.

Yet that's in this bill, and so are these provisions to ban documents that are used as bank I.D. documents by immigrants, and Roy Blunt supported the use of those documents for banks in a House vote just a couple of months ago.

BLUNT: Lou, I might...

DOBBS: Go ahead, Congressman.

BLUNT: I might also point out, we were with -- we had some of the 9/11 families here this morning, and they were all to a person supportive of these provisions.

In fact, they said that -- the 9/11 families that they couldn't find any individual in the families who oppose these provisions, but they were being told just what my good friend Jane just said, that somehow they're poison pills designed to kill this legislation.

These are in this legislation designed to stop terrorists and terrorism. We -- we think they're totally reasonable, the idea that we would have greater border security. We're not requiring visas from Canada and Mexico, but we are requiring specific documents that have to be approved. And, other than that, you have to have a passport to get in and out of the country.

That's totally appropriate, I think. HARMAN: Well, I'm for counterfeit-proof immigration documents. I think we all are. But these provisions are not that. These are way far to the right. This is the anti-immigrant caucus of the House. Many Republicans don't support this. The Gun Owners of America oppose the provisions on a national driver's license, which is essentially what the House bill would require.

BLUNT: Oh, I think this is not anti-immigrant. In fact, legal immigrants more than any other group want to be sure the law's enforced. They have gone through the process of the law to get here. They want to be protected from people who have come into the country without going through that same legal process. That's all really these are designed to do, and, Lou, you know how important that is.

HARMAN: Well, my recommendation to this Congress is to fully fund Homeland Security. That has a strong border protection piece in it. We passed the law a couple years ago. It's basically an unfunded mandate with respect to our borders.

DOBBS: Congressman Harman, I have to ask you being from California, a large population in California of illegal immigrants, does that take any -- is that forming any basis for your position on this?

HARMAN: Well, I'm the daughter of immigrants. I...

DOBBS: No, I wasn't talking about talking about immigrants. I wasn't talking about immigrants. You know, look, this is a nation of immigrants. I'm talking about illegal aliens.

HARMAN: Ah. Well, yes, these provision -- it may be the basis for the House Republican leaderships' view. This issue of what to do about driver's licenses is a very hot issue in California. Governor Schwarzenegger just vetoed a bill to allow undocumented immigrants to have driver's licenses.

He said it wasn't -- the bill wasn't secure enough, but two million people are now going to be driving without testing, without credentials and without insurance. So there are tradeoffs here that we have to thoroughly and carefully consider.

BLUNT: Does that mean two million people are illegal in California?

HARMAN: That seems to be the estimate, which is a big problem. We need to enforce our immigration laws fairly, but catching terrorists should be our focus, and I sadly think these House provisions aren't about that.

BLUNT: Well, one way to secure the border is proper documents. That's the basis for...

HARMAN: I agree with that.

BLUNT: ... what we're talking about.

HARMAN: Roy and I agree on that.

DOBBS: Yes. With -- on the basis of that agreement, Congressman Blunt, as one of the most powerful people on Capitol Hill in the Republican leadership, are you prepared to resist the White House and maintain the provisions of your legislation as you move for a vote, and should it succeed in conference committee with the Senate legislation?

BLUNT: Well, I'm not sure many days how powerful I am. Some days as a whip in the House, I feel not all that powerful. But we're prepared to pursue what we've got in this bill.

We're certainly talking to the White House, particularly on the provisions that Jane referred to on torture. We don't support torture. We also don't support the idea that people who are known criminals will just be allowed to wander around in this country as the only option.

DOBBS: Well, Congressman, we know how powerful you are, and I assure you, out of respect to that powerful position of yours, we thought that the Congresswoman Harman, powerful in her own respect, would be appropriate with the strength she brings to each issue.

HARMAN: Thank you.

DOBBS: We thank you both for being here.

HARMAN: Thank you. And Susan Collins is powerful in Senate. She's doing a great job!

DOBBS: Well, we'll see how powerful everybody is as we start to rationalize public policy in this country.

Thank you both.

HARMAN: Thank you.

DOBBS: Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado is the chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus who says stripping the immigration reforms in the intelligence overall will jeopardize national security. Congressman Tom Tancredo will be joining us here tonight shortly.

It brings us to the subject of our poll question tonight: Do you believe homeland security is possible without control over our borders? Yes or no. Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou, and, as always, we'll have the results for you later here in the broadcast.

Taking a look now at some of your thoughts. Many of you have e- mailed us about White House demands to abandon proposals for tough new measures against those who cross our borders illegally. An estimate of three million illegal aliens crossing our borders this year.

Frank Vital of Miami, Florida, "How can our president possibly ask Congress to disregard the 9/11 commission's recommendations on stricter immigration control? He is either out of touch with reality or has a total disregard for our safety."

Mickie West in Philadelphia, "It appears that it is not enough that the majority of jobs are being outsourced. Now the president wants lawmakers to drop any restrictions on illegal aliens. Why doesn't he just turn the country over to Mexico because it seems non- citizens will soon have more rights than citizens? They already have many of our jobs."

And Donald Morrison, Bloomfield, Connecticut, "Both Senator Kerry and President Bush should realize America's greatest threat is the outsourcing of our jobs to foreign countries. Not only are our jobs leaving the United States, but those remaining are being taken by illegal aliens."

We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at loudobbs@cnn.com. And please send us your name and address. Each of you whose e-mail is read on the broadcast each evening receives a free copy of my new book on the assault on the middle class, "Exporting America."

Still ahead here tonight, Congressman Tom Tancredo. He'll be here to tell us why he's outraged by White House demands to eliminate strict reforms on immigration.

And then, showdown in Ohio. The vice presidential candidates are preparing to face off in a state that both campaigns are desperate to win. I'll be talking with officials from both campaigns, Nicolle Devenish and Joe Lockhart.

And then, the biggest burst from Mount St. Helens since it came back to life a week ago. We'll have the dramatic pictures for you.

And then, a warning about the flu. Why there could be a major shortage of flu vaccine this fall, and, unfortunately, it is another story about this country's rising dependence on imports.

That and a great deal more still ahead here tonight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Congressman Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, says he is outraged by the White House demands to strip immigration reforms from the intelligence reform legislation. Congressman Tancredo says very simply that anyone who votes against the new limitations on illegal immigration jeopardizes our national security.

Congressman Tancredo joins me tonight from Capitol Hill.

Good to have you here, Congressman.

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: Likewise.

DOBBS: You have just heard Congressman Blunt, the majority whip, and Congresswoman Harman, basically with two different views, but you heard Congressman Blunt representing the leadership, take -- to me at least -- a surprising view that they're going to defy the White House and move forward with these strict provisions on -- at least stricter provisions on immigration within the intelligence reform bill. Are you surprised?

TANCREDO: Oh, yes! This is wonderful news. The extent to which the leadership in the House has gone out on a limb on this one is amazing. I mean, Lou, we have -- how many years have we been pushing this issue without an awful lot of support from that environment? And, all of a sudden, things are starting to fall into line. I don't know why, but I'm awfully happy.

DOBBS: The idea that there would be any debate over enforcement of border security...

TANCREDO: Oh, yes.

DOBBS: The "TIME" magazine report, now four week ago, its cover story, three million illegal aliens entering this country this year...

TANCREDO: Every year. That's right.

DOBBS: ... at a time we are supposed to be maintaining port and border security? It is -- it's inconceivable, frankly, to any rational person that there would not have to be some adjustment on immigration policy, and I'm saying that as an understatement. What do you think is going to happen to this legislation?

TANCREDO: Well, I think we're going to pass it in the House. Whether -- I mean, the Senate has got to be our focal point here. We really have to ask people to contact their senators because, I guarantee you, that's where it's going to come to a clash.

When we get into the conference committee, that's where I fear these things may be taken out. I hope they're not just being put in on the House side for the political advantage we may gain by having Democrats vote against it, but then take it all out in the conference committee. That's another little strategy that they might employ.

DOBBS: You heard Congresswoman Harman, you know, who is a highly respected member, say basically -- and I think I am not misconstruing in any way -- that there is a certain influence because so many of her constituents in her state of California are illegal aliens.

How much of this do you think will be a similar influence for other congressmen and women in their districts?

TANCREDO: It will be significant. Last night, we had a conference, a Republican conference, and we debated this issue, and it got pretty heated at a couple of points in time.

Other members, even of the Republican conference, are concerned about the way this may be portrayed and how we may be -- you know, how the Republicans may be spotlighted for the kind of attack ads that might occur, and I keep saying, look, we're talking about national security here.

Anybody has got to think about how it would look to the rest of the world. What about the rest of the Americans out there, the 75 percent of America who are saying defend our borders, do something about the national security? Are we just going to ignore them in order to satisfy these pressure groups? Well, this is going to be the debate that we will...

DOBBS: It's interesting to me, Congressman, the pressure groups that are being formed. You heard Congresswoman Harman, again, a member whom I personally respect, talk about this as anti-immigrant legislation. To be clear, it's not immigrant, it's illegal alien.

TANCREDO: And I think Roy Blunt was good in his response when he said...

DOBBS: That's what I was going to say. Absolutely.

TANCREDO: ...in his response he said, "Look, if you are here legally, you are just concerned about your safety and the safety of this nation than anyone else." They're on our side. It's this bizarre sort of commitment we have to the idea that if we say anything at all in opposition to immigration control, we end up being the bad guys.

DOBBS: Yeah, bad guys.

TANCREDO: Not true.

DOBBS: In the country that is the most racially, ethnic in terms of religion, the most diverse society in the face of the earth. It's astounding.

TANCREDO: It is amazing.

DOBBS: Our audience, just so you know Congressman Tancredo is demonstrated every night in the way they are reacting in the broadcast. Their e-mails, letters, and so forth, that there is a powerful consciousness about this issue now. And we as always appreciate you being here and especially one of those that have been work so diligently to raise that consciousness.

TANCREDO: Tell your folks, go after the Senate. Go after the Senate, Lou.

DOBBS: You tell them! You tell them, Congressman.

TANCREDO: Go after the Senate. That's the place. If you want to vent your anger and you want to get rid of your frustration, go after the Senate and tell them to hang in there with our bill.

DOBBS: Or slap a wall or something.

Congressman Tom Tancredo, thank you very much for being here.

TANCREDO: It's a pleasure, Lou. DOBBS: As we have reported extensively here, the presidential candidates are saying little about immigration reform in this campaign. But national security is expected to be a major issue in tonight's one and only vice presidential presentation. Joining me now for more of what we can all expect to hear on security, the economy and other issues are officials from both campaigns. I'm going to be talking with them separately. In a moment, I'll be talking with senior adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign, Joe Lockhart. But first my guest is Nicolle Devenish, she is the communication's director for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Good to have you with us, Nicolle.

NICOLLE DEVENISH, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, BUSH CAMPAIGN: Thanks for having me, Lou.

DOBBS: Given the closings of the polls. In one poll the president and the vice president maintain a five-point lead over Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards but in the others, a closing. How important is tonight's debate? How important is the vice president's performance in your judgment?

DEVENISH: Every day between tonight and November 2 is critically important really for both campaigns but the thing you have to remember for tonight is that John Edwards is actually the only person that's ever beaten John Kerry in a debate. So I think what we'll see tonight is the vice president trying to go head-to-head with all -- I am sorry, Lou?

DOBBS: So you're worried?

DEVENISH: Well, we are certainly going to work hard to hold our own against someone who is selected as the vice presidential nominee for his skills and his talents in a debate-like setting.

DOBBS: Well, doesn't your candidate, Vice President Dick Cheney, with his overwhelming experience in public service and Congress to several other administrations well before this one, doesn't it make him just an overwhelming favorite in this debate tonight?

DEVENISH: Well, when the measure is substance and a record to run on and a record to stand on and a vision for keeping this country safer that we know has worked for the last three and a half years, certainly the vice president, I think, has that resume. But the focus on the debate is on -- is on quips and rhetorical flourishes and I think that this vice president is going to be gimmicky and he isn't going to be funny and flashy but the American people are going to have to decide on November 2nd not just on the president but the vice president who can step in and lead this country during these extraordinary times.

DOBBS: Do you expect we will see a bit of the framing in tonight's debate to be a bit of Halliburton versus trial attorneys, as these two men engage one another?

DEVENISH: Well, I can't imagine they talk about anything other than Halliburton because they're not running on a record. You can't get them to say anything about the records that earned them the distinction of two of the Senate's most out of the mainstream members. So yes, I certainly expect political attacks on Halliburton but the vice president is not going to be here attacking his opponent, he's going to be talking about two very different records. And if I could just say real quick about the strategic importance of this debate and this week. This is the week, four weeks out from Election Day, when we really focus on the substance. The Kerry team can't answer this question, Lou. Was the removal of Saddam Hussein a mistake? I don't know the answer to that question and maybe we'll know at the end of the night. But if they don't clear it up, I think you'll have a hard time calling it a victory.

DOBBS: I think, as you put it, I infer that you mean you don't know whether Senator Kerry or Senator Edwards thinks it was a strong mistake. I have a strong feeling that you know whether or not it was a mistake in your judgment.

DEVENISH: Of course we think that the removal of Saddam Hussein makes America safer and most Americans do too.

DOBBS: Nicolle, the question today on everyone's mind, Paul Bremer's bombshell saying mistakes were in fact made in Iraq, going directly to the heart of the president's decision not to send more troops. Whether not requested or otherwise saying it is a mistake. The timing couldn't have been much worse for the administration, could it?

DEVENISH: Well, look, I think that Paul Bremer has cleared up his own comments and was referring to the situation that he saw when he arrived in Iraq but the president has been very clear. He has always and will always do whatever the generals on the ground ask for in terms of troop level. So that continues to be his strategy and I heard you talking at the top of the show about listening to the people on the ground because they're the ones who know.

DOBBS: Absolutely. They are usually the ones who best know.

DEVENISH: The best experts.

DOBBS: And one hopes their always -- their judgment is always considered with primacy. Nicolle Devenish, thank you very much, representing the Bush-Cheney campaign.

DEVENISH: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: Still ahead, I'll be talking with Joe Lockhart, the senior adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign about the importance of tonight's debate or presentation as we style it here and the issues that they at least believe will frame the remainder of this campaign. We'll be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Joining me now from the Kerry campaign, senior adviser Joe Lockhart, he's in Cleveland tonight as you might expect -- the scene of the vice presidential debate, or presentations as we style them here. Joe, good to have you here. How important is this debate following up on what most judge to be the success of Senator Kerry last week, closing in a number of the polls. The president had in one major poll by five points. How important is it?

JOE LOCKHART, KERRY CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, I think it's more important than I guess the average vice presidential debate, I think for two reasons. One is, I think clearly something happening in the electorate. We've seen people begin to make up their minds and moving in our direction and keeping that momentum going I think is important for us. I think the second thing is, is the Bush-Cheney team, Cheney tonight, have to come up with a formula for answering questions about their own record. That's what made President Bush so uncomfortable last Thursday night. He just didn't seem to like to be pressed about what's going on in Iraq. How can you justify this policy or that policy? And I think if the vice president doesn't come up with some way to do it tonight, they're in a lot of trouble.

DOBBS: Yet your assessment as I understand, Joe, was that it was basically a draw?

LOCKHART: That's the great world -- that's the great world of Matt Drudge and I think we will leave it just at that. I think I know who won that debate. And I think I found...

DOBBS: I was going to give you an opportunity to set the record straight, Joe.

LOCKHART: Listen, you know what, the record is moving so fast. I can't barely keep up with it.

DOBBS: Let me ask you this, you talked about the vice president's record. I asked Nicolle Devenish this same question. The vice president's overwhelming record, his just extraordinary wealth in record of experience and in public service. How does a man who is not even completed one term in the U.S. Senate compete against that?

LOCKHART: Listen, I think that John Edwards and everyone in our campaign celebrates public service. There's no higher calling in this country. But you have to look at what kind of experience and what it leads you to do. The vice president's been the architect, or a chief architect, of two main policies in this administration. The first is Iraq. He and the other neocons decided to go it alone, go in without a plan to win the peace, as Paul Bremer said very clearly today. That's been a real liability for this president. The other was on economic policy. The sort of tax cuts that are targeted to the most wealthy in this country and we're supposed to create six million new jobs. We're seven million off. We're at ground zero here of job loss in America. Outsourcing central in America. 237,000 jobs lost. Fully a quarter of the jobs lost in the U.S. under Bush-Cheney. Be very difficult for him tonight to sort of make the case that his experience has been a positive for this country.

DOBBS: Do you expect that we're going to see a certain amount of, at least, Halliburton issues versus trial attorney issues, what are perceived to be vulnerabilities of both candidates tonight?

LOCKHART: Yeah, well listen on Halliburton I do expect it, because I think a legitimate issue and I think it will come up. Trial lawyers, I hope it comes up. Because I think Dick Cheney, for all of his public service, does represent the sort of idea that special interests get special favors and they take care of their friends. And I hope John Edwards has the chance to talk about the people he represented, the families. The families who had their lives ripped apart who lost loved ones because companies and insurance companies didn't do the right thing and he gave power to the people who couldn't defend themselves and that's a good thing and I hope it comes out tonight.

DOBBS: Joe Lockhart, I think we have a sense of what he may say based on your response to that question. We thank you very much for being here. Joe Lockhart who tells me he's signed on for two months of sleepless nights as it turns out. We thank you very much for being here.

We'll have much more, head on tonight's vice presidential presentations. Both running mates hoping to build momentum for their campaigns. I'll be talking with three of the country's very best political journalists here, and also ahead, a flu drug crisis in the making. Why a production flaw in overseas factory could be putting our health at risk.

And American's privacy also in jeopardy. How the shipment of American jobs to cheap overseas labor markets is also sending some of our most private records overseas. We'll have a special report for you coming up next. Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The vice presidential candidates are now just more than two hours away from presenting their messages and vision for the next four years. One hopes vision. Joining me now for more on tonight's so-called debate, three of the country's top political journalists. From Washington, Ron Brownstein, national political correspondent for the "Los Angeles Times." Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent, "Time" magazine. And from the site of the debate tonight in Cleveland, a man who can't resist debates, Roger Simon, political editor of "US News & World Report." Good to have you here. Well, let me start with you, Roger. Excitement is building. Expecting a tough contest tonight?

ROGER SIMON, "US NEWS & WORLD REPORT": You can cut it with a knife. The tension is electric, Lou. No, the tension is building. Everyone is looking forward to a good discussion or even a debate. And they're looking forward to a continuation of what happened in Coral Gables. A tough exchange with two candidates who are frankly pretty good at this.

DOBBS: Pretty good at this, and yet Karen, we just heard representatives of both campaigns basically giving the nod to the other given their mental agility and their articulate agility. What do you think? Who has the advantage here tonight?

KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Well, we would expect them to do nothing else. Certainly if you look at format, it would seem to play to play to Dick Cheney's strengths and the last time we saw him in a one-on-one debate, a lot of people thought he basically he cleaned Joe Lieberman's clock but what we learned last week is that the format may not end up working as we think. John Edwards is a big wild card here. He's never been in a one-on-one debate in politics. We saw a lot of him in these nine candidate forums during the primary. He got off some pretty good lines but nobody really knows what he's going to look like in this sort of situation.

DOBBS: Ron, do you know.

RON BROWNSTEIN, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": No. I want to offer a radical thought here. I don't really think it matters who wins this debate in the sense of who scores more points against the other or whether Halliburton is raised more than trial lawyers. I don't think people in the end vote for vice presidents. I do think the debate matters to the extent one side over the other can use it to advance the basic message of the principal protagonists in this race. I think the Bush people clearly want to use this debate to begin a process that they hope to accelerate tomorrow with the president's speech and try to shift the focus back where it was last Thursday, on President Bush's record toward the Kerry and Edwards records. That was, I think, the big shift that happened at that first debate. We focus much more on the president's record than on Kerry's, you know, fitness to be commander-in-chief, which has been the focus since September- October. The Republicans want to shift it back. And I think that's the real goal tonight. Again, continuing tomorrow with the president's speech.

DOBBS: OK, let me ask you this, each of you, what is that essential question, then that will be framed here tonight in your best judgment. Karen?

TUMULTY: Well, I think it is going to be experience on the part of Vice President Cheney versus the country's desire for a new direction, which is what John Edwards is going to be arguing.

DOBBS: Roger?

SIMON: There's a trap here for John Edwards. I think Ron is absolutely right. If John Edwards spends a lot of time talking about Halliburton, then he's fallen into this trap. Beating the guy across the table is not the object tonight. Nobody cares about Dick Cheney. Nobody really cares about John Edwards. John Edwards has to make this debate about George Bush. Dick Cheney has to make this debate about John Edwards. They have to make it a continuation of Coral Gables and a prelude to St. Louis.

DOBBS: And given that, Ron, then, what in your judgment is the essential question that has to be framed?

BROWNSTEIN: I think it will be national security, for two reasons. One, because Dick Cheney is more identified-- is as identified with the Iraq war as any figure in the administration.

DOBBS: Sure. BROWNSTEIN: He made the most dramatic claims before the war of links, of threats of weapons of mass destruction. Links with al Qaeda and so forth. And in many ways he may have the toughest time defending those, and conversely I think Cheney's views his long experience in national security versus Edwards not being in the Senate for a full term as the embodiment in the contrast they're trying to draw in this campaign. So I think that's the terrain where we will see this most sharply fought out and again where we will see, which side can advance the basic message they tried to put forward last week in Florida.

DOBBS: Let me ask you again, all three of you. Could it be as straightforward as what Nicolle Devenish, the representative from the Bush-Cheney campaign here just articulated? Is the United States, is the world better off without Saddam Hussein, Karen?

TUMULTY: I don't think it's going to be that straightforward because there's a lot of dissonance today in the system, whether it's Bremer's comments that they should have had more troops. Whether it is Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld saying that there was no link with al Qaeda. Even going back to last week with Secretary Powell saying it's not getting better there. There's a lot of dissonance in the system that Dick Cheney is going to have to explain.

DOBBS: And Roger, your view?

SIMON: The world would be better off without a lot of dictators, Lou. Including one 90 miles from our shores. But that doesn't mean we can invade countries for that purpose. And in fact, that was not the stated purpose of our invasion, as Cheney...

DOBBS: No, no, no. I understand.

SIMON: ...as John Kerry always said.

DOBBS: I understand, but do you think that is what the administration will try to frame as the principle question, counting on the response from the public at large?

SIMON: Of course. They'll continue their same theme, which is, if you elect John Edwards and John Kerry, these are two naive men who don't understand terrorism. If you elect them, terrorists will come to our shores and kill us. That is the theme of the Republicans.

DOBBS: Ron, let me ask you, then, what will in your -- again, your best judgment, your assessment of what will be determined in the outcome tonight of this election assuming that there will be a clear winner or a clear loser?

BROWNSTEIN: I don't know if there will be, Lou. But I think the message from last week, what I felt very strongly after that debate was, whoever is in the spotlight of this race, tends to wilt a little bit. August and September was largely about John Kerry. The doubts raised by the swift boat attacks and then, of course, at that Republican convention. Is he up to being commander-in-chief? George Bush opened a lead through that period, even though polls showed a lot of doubt about the course he has set especially in Iraq. Last Thursday, John Kerry was carefully shifting the focus to George Bush. I think the efforts of the Democrats tonight will be to continue that. I don't know if George Bush loses a race that is focused on his record but I can tell you, it's a lot closer and tougher than the race we had in September and August. And I think the tug-of-war here is where the spotlight is. The Republicans want to put it back on Kerry and Edwards. And the Democrats desperately want to keep it on Bush's choices and decisions, especially in the light of some of the comments that Karen cited.

DOBBS: Karen, since you were most recently cited, what do you think will be determined tonight? We've got just a little less than a minute.

TUMULTY: Well, you know, it's impossible to predict but I do think a lot of pressure on John Edwards in particular to show that he can both argue for a change of direction and argue that he and John Kerry have the competence and have the commitment and have the judgment.

DOBBS: All right. Roger Simon, can you give us a quick summation, determinate element tonight?

SIMON: Sure. John Edwards has to make this debate tonight about the decisions of George Bush and Iraq. And secondarily about the economy. Did George Bush miscalculate and mislead the American public and has he led us into a quagmire?

DOBBS: Roger Simon "US News & World Report." Karen Tumulty, "Time" magazine. Ron Brownstein, "Los Angeles Times." As always, we thank the triumvirate for joining us here tonight.

Still ahead, at risk tonight your most confidential information. Why some American companies have chosen to send your personal data and private records overseas. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: A spectacular site as Mount St. Helens continues to have steam eruptions. Today the volcano sent its largest plume of steam and ash into the sky. The largest in days, thousands of feet into the air, today. This just the latest indication that in the opinion of geophysicists that a much bigger eruption could happen at any time, whether imminent or days or months away. Mount St. Helens has been spewing steam and ash since Friday prompting the National Weather Service to issue an ash fall advisory. Today's eruption scattered ash and dust over a small town about 25 miles away from the volcano.

A dramatic illustration tonight on the dangers of relying upon foreign supplies of critical medicine. The national supply of flu vaccine has been cut in half after British regulators suspended one of its major suppliers, in this case, sending flu vaccine to the United States. Inspectors found a flaw in production at the Liverpool, England plant of vaccine maker Chiron. Chiron had been expected to supply as many as 48 million flu shots, nearly half the U.S. intended supply this year. Public health officials are now asking healthy adults not to have their flu shots this year so that doctors may give priority to more vulnerable patients, the elderly, the young and the infirm.

In "Exporting America" tonight, a disturbing trend is on the rise and it threatens your privacy. Your personal data, your most private medical and financial records, even your social security numbers are at risk. That's because your confidential information, in many cases is being sent overseas along with cheap -- along with American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Jeff Koinange reports from Ghana.

(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you for calling. My name is Diane...

JEFF KOINANGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Diane Tete (ph) takes an order over the phone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: May I please have your phone number with the area code, please?

KOINANGE: A few feet away, Kwakoo Dansu (ph) reroutes the call to a far away destination. At first glance, your typical call center telemarketing operation. Except that the operators taking the calls are in Africa. And the calls are coming from 10,000 miles away in the United States. Outsourcing makes sense in Africa, where unemployed university graduates are in plentiful supply and the labor force is willing to work for a tiny fraction of what their U.S. counterparts earn.

(on camera) Ghana is a West African nation, the size of Rhode Island with a population of about 20 million. A former British colony where English is widely spoken. It's also politically stable, a distinct advantage for firms that outsource. This is a typical call center floor operated by Supra Telecom Ghana agency (ph) are taking calls mainly from the U.S. state of Florida. On a typical day, each of these agents will take in a minimum of about 40 calls. Multiply that by about 200 staff and that's a whole lot of calls.

(voice-over) The company, barely a year old, is already serving a client base of a quarter of a million Americans, handling everything from data processing services, to Internet trouble-shooting.

ANDREW ESEMEZIL, SUPRA TELECOM: The bottom line is to provide service to the customer. Keep promises to the customer. It doesn't really matter where you are.

KOINANGE: But despite the obvious advantage, cheap labor, an unlimited work force, no unions, outsourcing threatens the privacy of consumers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Information, especially on health and also on legal issues are very confidential, and that that -- this information can be easily be leaked through the outsourcing procedures.

KOINANGE: As for the customer's reaction when they realize they're speaking to an agent thousands of miles away... ESEMEZIL: Wait a minute. You mean I'm talking to someone in Africa? And the reaction's been great.

KOINANGE: Outsourcing has created political controversy and economic distress in the United States. But there seems to be no downside for its latest beneficiary. Africans are only too happy to cash in on the phenomenon.

Jeff Koinange, CNN, Accra, Ghana.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: And still ahead here, the results of our poll tonight and a preview of what is ahead tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Results of our poll, 96 percent of you do not believe homeland security is possible without control over our borders. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us tomorrow. Our face- off on the United Nations. Is it relevant? A debate.

And exporting some of our most creative, specialized jobs to South Korea. Please be with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. Vice presidential debates coming up, the coverage begins with "ANDERSON COOPER 360." He's 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