Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
A look at Steriods and Baseball; Interview with George Perkovich on Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
Aired March 17, 2005 - 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.
KITTY PILGRIM, GUEST HOST: You are watching CNN's coverage of hearings on Capitol Hill on steroid use in baseball. We'll continue to monitor the hearings for new developments, LOU DOBBS TONIGHT starts right now.
Tonight, steroids and sluggers: extraordinary testimony on Capitol Hill. Top baseball stars testify about steroid use in Major League Baseball.
Trade politics: President Bush selects an outspoken supporter of free trade to be our next trade representatives, but critics say it's a sellout.
And nuclear showdown: the CIA director blasts Iran's nuclear program. And tonight, I'll talk with an expert who's just returned from Iran. --
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS -- for news, debate and opinion -- TONIGHT. Sitting in for Loud Dobbs, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: Good evening. Also tonight, selling out our national security to India: a critical part of the world's communications network on the auction block.
Selling out U.S. workers: one of this country's most respected business groups wants millions of illegal aliens to have legal status.
And "Exporting America:" the battle to end tax breaks for companies that ship U.S. jobs overseas. I'll talk with a senator who's leading the fight.
Well, a day of astonishing testimony on Capitol Hill about steroids and baseball. Six current and former baseball stars gave unprecedented testimony to the House Government Reform Committee. At issue is whether baseball stars cheat by taking steroids. Congressional correspondent Ed Henry reports -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Dramatic testimony, mostly involving Mark McGwire, the former home run king in Major League Baseball, looking much thinner. He's retired now, and he's looking much thinner than he did in his playing days.
There's been a lot of allegations out there, primarily in Jose Canseco's new book, suggesting that McGwire used steroids. This was an opportunity for him to respond. He was sitting just four seats away from Jose Canseco at the witness table. Shot back at Canseco. Said he believes that people should consider the source when they read this book. But he would not directly answer questions about whether or not he did use steroids.
Mark McGwire asked by Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland whether or not he had used steroids. He wouldn't answer it. Then he was asked, are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Again, McGwire did not want to answer even that.
Finally McGwire kept going back on and on to the fact that he said he did not want to talk about his past, he only wanted to talk about his future. Here's Mark McGwire.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK MCGWIRE, FORMER MLB PLAYER: Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem. If a player answers no, he simply will not be believed. If he answers yes, he risks public scorn and endless government investigations. My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Rafael Palmeiro, another baseball player, who in Canseco's book is accused of using steroids was also attacked -- also attacked Canseco, at this hearing. Palmeiro on the record, unlike McGwire, decided to go under oath and say he never used steroids.
Curt Schilling also saying that taking some shots at the Canseco book. And Curt Schilling today, the Boston Red Sox pitcher, announced at the beginning he is joining a taskforce being created by this House committee to get other Major Leaguers to speak out against steroid abuse. Here is Curt Schilling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CURT SCHILLING, BOSTON RED SOX: I believe -- and I have always believed -- that the 90-plus percentile of players that test clean want to make sure that the ones that don't are found out. And I think that given what I've heard from the commissioner and from the people and player representatives, that's going to happen now. And I think that fear of public embarrassment, humiliation upon being caught is going to be greater than any player ever imagined.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Now Curt Schilling referenced the commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig. He is expected to take the hot seat in a short while. A lot of lawmakers frustrated. They believe Bug Selig and other baseball officials misled Congress and the public when they promised last year they were going to clean up and institute a tough new steroid testing and punishment police.
Some dramatic testimony earlier today from Senator Jim Bunning. He was the first witness. And he said that as a Republican Senator, it's his instinct to not want Congress to get involved in all of this, but he said that he believes that baseball has only taken baby steps on steroids. And he thinks if they don't clean up their act, Congress will step in with legislation -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Ed Henry.
Well, later in the broadcast, I'll talk to a Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist who says baseball deserves to be embarrassed. New York Times sports writer Dave Anderson will give his perspective on today's hearings in Capitol Hill.
In other news from Capitol Hill, CIA Director Porter Goss today blasted Iran. He accused Iran of meddling in Iraq and failing to be candid about its nuclear program. Goss also responded to criticism about the way CIA treats suspected terrorists. National security correspondent David Ensor reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The CIA director defended U.S. interrogation techniques and the practice, called rendition, of sending certain suspected terrorists to third countries, where critics charge some have been tortured.
Said Porter Goss, "we don't use, or condone torture."
PORTER GOSS, DIRECTOR OF CIA: We run the risk if we persist in allegations that are unfounded -- because it's becoming a feeding frenzy or the subject of talk shows that need time to fill air, or something like that -- I think we do run the risk of doing ourselves damage.
ENSOR: But the CIA has flown over 100 suspected terrorists from one foreign country to another since the 9/11 attacks, knowledgeable former officials say, under a blanket authorization from President Bush.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In a post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack. That was the charge we have been given. And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured.
ENSOR: Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian picked up at JFK Airport in New York was flown to Syria where he claims he was imprisoned and beaten.
Mondu Habib (ph), an Egyptian-born Australian was picked up in Pakistan and shipped by Americans, he says, to Egypt and then Afghanistan where she was shocked, beaten and almost drowned.
SEN. CARL LEVIN, (D-MI) SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Where there is evidence or claims of torture, do we follow up with the countries that have represented to us that they would not torture individuals to whom we sent to those countries? GOSS: I can assure you that I know of no instances where the intelligence community is outside the law on this, where they have complied. As I've said publicly before, and I know for a fact, that torture is not -- it's not productive.
ENSOR: On this, and many other subjects, though, the new CIA director chose to be even less forthcoming in public than his predecessor.
GOSS: There is nothing that I can tell you in open session about that, sir.
That's a subject for closed session.
I would be happy to give you the community's views in closed session.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: Goss said the CIA inspector general is looking into several charges of prisoner mistreatment by Americans or by others to whom they were sent, and that any violations of law or policy will face consequences. The system, he argued, in other words, works -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much, David Ensor.
Well, dramatic testimony on Capitol Hill today about the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal. A former U.N. Employee testified that the program had, quote, "gaping holes." He said the U.N. ignored repeated warnings about the program, and he was eventually fired.
Senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth is here with the story -- Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kitty, he was a numbers cruncher who dreamed of working for the United Nations. Rehan Mullik, a Pakistani by birth, now an American, instead arrived in Iraq and soon saw flagrant discrepancies with the oil-for-food program. Today he was an unlikely star witness before yet another U.S. congressional subcommittee investigating oil-for-food.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH (voice-over): Rehan Mullik says he personally observed abuses while monitoring the oil-for-food program in Iraq.
REHAN MULLICK, FORMER U.N. EMPLOYEE: Soon after I started my job, it became amply evident to me that a significant percentage of supplies were never distributed as the program intended. That many of the supplies such as trucks, pick-ups, 4x4's meant for humanitarian purposes were diverted to Iraqi security and the military. And that the program had been infiltrated by many Saddam loyalists.
ROTH: The whistle-blower witness said 22 percent of humanitarian goods never got to the people -- a billion dollars a year stolen by the Iraqis. For two years, Mullick says he recommended suggestions to U.N. higherups.
MULLICK: Each succession resulted my supervisor's reducing my job responsibilities.
ROTHER: Mullick described a mafia-style U.N. administration that allowed oil-for-food inefficiencies go unchecked.
MULLICK: It's sad that the U.N. administration in Iraq was allowing it to happen. But what's even more discouraging is the fact that when the issues are brought to light, the U.N. administration in New York not only systematically silenced my findings, they fired me.
ROTH: The committee chairman said Mullick's story proves the need for U.N. reform.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Let me just note from what the -- what our witness is saying is we had is blatant corruption, blatant and visible corruption that was ignored by the U.N. officials on the scene. Even worse, was covered up.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH: Tonight, the United Nations had no official comment on what the witness had to say -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Richard, where do we stand on the Paul Volcker investigation in the oil-for-food scandal?
ROTH: Well, Paul Volcker is going to have another report, and it will deal with Kojo Annan, and his father, the secretary-general, Kofi Annan. And it's coming up faster than people thought, March 29 or March 30 at this time.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much, Richard Roth.
Well, President Bush today nominated an outspoken supporter of free trade to be our next trade representative. The president selected Congressman Rob Portman. Well, critics immediately blasted the president's nomination. One critic described the congressman as a "dedicated outsourcer."
Senior White House correspondent John King reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president is turning to a trusted ally in Congress for a job at the center of the highly emotional debates over outsourcing and whether free trade creates or kills more jobs here at home.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To keep our economy growing and creating jobs, we need to continue opening foreign markets to American products.
KING: Rob Portman has represented a Cincinnati district in Congress for a dozen years, worked on the first Bush White House on the domestic policy team, and went out of government in the mid '80s, worked as an international trade lawyer.
ROB PORTMAN (R-OH), USTR NOMINEE: Through expanded trade, the roots of democracy and freedom are deepened. And here at home, trade policy opens markets to create jobs, a higher standard of living and greater economic growth.
KING: Organized labor is among those who forcefully disagree, blaming the North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade deals for the loss of thousands of domestic manufacturing and textile jobs.
THEA LEE, CHIEF ECONOMIST, AFL-CIO: It costs us hundreds of thousands of jobs and it doesn't appear that Congressman Portman understands that the past trade agreements haven't worked.
KING: Portman's challenges will be many. The United States ran a record $666 billion trade deficit last year, including a record $162 billion trade gap with China.
The administration also is trying to create a hemisphere-wide free trade area of the America's and to negotiate at least a half- dozen new bilateral trade deals. And a major immediate challenge is selling Congress on a new Central American free trade pact. Some lawmakers representing textile and sugar makers don't like it. Others complain it lacks labor and environmental standards.
LEE: And that's going to be a real heavy lift to get that through Congress, because it's very unpopular right now and they really don't have the votes.
KING: Portman's cordial relations with both parties in Congress are viewed as a major plus.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: And the president today called Congressman Portman a friend and skilled negotiator. Congressman Portman was joking. He says, when he told his 10-year-old daughter about his new job, she said, she had never heard of the United States trade representative, but it sounds like a rally neat job.
Humor today, Kitty. Bruising challenges, tough political fights ahead.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, John King.
KING: Thank you.
PILGRIM: Still to come, selling out U.S. workers: how one of the country's top business organizations wants to help millions of illegal aliens.
And selling out our national security: a critical part of the world communication network is on the verge of being sold to an Indian company.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PILGRIM: We reported extensively here on President Bush's plan to give millions of illegal aliens in this country a legal status. Well, today supporters of that controversial plan held a news conference to endorse it. And among those present was a group that criticizes -- or -- critics charge is supporting the plan only to sell out American workers.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Politics do make for strange bedfellows. In a room for supporters for immigration reform and guest worker programs, you might not be surprised to see religious leaders or immigration activists. But you might be caught off-guard to see the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber was there to call for Congress to enact immigration reform because of what it calls a shortage of American workers.
BRUCE JOSTEN, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: With continued job growth in many sectors, including the low-skilled sectors, and the Bureau of Labor statistics telling us already by 2010 we will have a shortage of 3.5 million workers, Congress needs to get ahead of the curve and provide a workable mechanism for employers to fill these jobs when Americans again are not available.
TUCKER: Tell that to the eight million unemployed Americans currently looking for work. The purpose of the gathering, according to the organizers, was to present a united and diverse group in support of immigration reform. Others saw a sad irony of contradictory purpose.
ROY BECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NUMBERUSA: In some ways what's really surprising is that groups that purport to stand for the benefit of immigrants would stand alongside the Chamber of Commerce, whose main reason for being part of this is to get cheap labor.
TUCKER: Organized labor, which is supposed to represent American workers, was unable to attend. But a statement read on their behalf called for an amnesty program for those already illegally in the country, the union hoping to expand their membership roles with those workers.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Now, it was a diverse group. And outside of the religious leaders, the immigration attorneys, the labor representatives, business, they all have one thing in common, Kitty. They all make money off of immigration in one form or another.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Bill Tucker.
Well, President Bush marked St. Patrick's Day with a visit from Irish Prime Minister Bernie Ahern. The prime minister gave President Bush a bowl of shamrocks and he thanked him for the U.S. commitment to the Northern Ireland peace process. President Bush vowed to stand by the Irish people as they worked toward peace.
Coming up, selling out national security: why the government wants to speed up a deal that critics say will only jeopardizes our national security.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: The U.S. government has agreed to fast-track the sale of some of our nation's most critical telecom infrastructure to an Indian company. Now, this deal follows China's purchase of IBM's personal computer business. Now some are questioning these sales pose to our economic and national security.
Christine Romans reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A very controversial deal received fast-track status today at the Federal Communications Commission. VSNL, an Indian telecom firm, wants to buy Tyco's undersea cable system. And that deal could be approved in as little as 45 days, a deal that some feel could threaten America's national security. VSNL is owned by Tata, an Indian conglomerate with close ties to India's military, and VSNL is 26 percent owned by the government of India.
SUZANNE SPAULDING, HARBOUR GROUP: This transaction involves the sale of the last remaining global network in U.S. hands to a foreign entity. If the transaction goes through, we lose our ability to ensure safe, reliable, secure and affordable telecommunications that are essential to the military in a time of crisis and the lifeblood of American business on a day-to-day basis.
ROMANS: The hard rush to push this deal through comes only days after the government secretly okayed another controversial deal, China's purchase of IBM's PC business. The super-secret national security review of that deal by the Bush administration is raising hackles on Capitol Hill.
REP. DONALD MANZULLO (R-IL), SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE: Maybe at this point I just might object to every sale that comes anywhere near national security just to force the issue that there has to be more oversight and more review, and possibly a change in law.
ROMANS: Congressman Manzullo wants to expand the review of deals to include economic security. And he wants to lift the shroud of secrecy over the process.
MICHAEL WESSEL, U.S.-CHINA COMMISSION: Basically, the government doesn't want anyone to know what's going on. And the American people should be standing up and saying, enough is enough, this is our security -- not only or national security, but our economic security, and we want to know what's going on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: Now, the China deal with IBM was approved in secret. And there's no way to know if our government is reviewing this Indian deal at any greater depth than this fast-track 45-day review at FCC -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Christine, it seems amazing that something like this could go through in 45 days. I mean, some people take more than 45 days to pick out a new car.
ROMANS: Absolutely. And this is an important piece of American- built telecom infrastructure. If this deal gets done, as we've been hearing over and over again, that would put the center of the global telecommunication grid somewhere between Mumbai and Singapore.
It's really important that the United States government take a very hard, long look at what this means. And Congressman Manzullo and many others are concerned that these things are getting done much too quickly, and the actual Committee on Foreign Investments, the body that reviews for national security, maybe isn't doing its job.
Maybe it's rubberstamping -- and in some cases, invisible rubberstamping -- these deals. Because we don't even know what the process is like for approving them.
PILGRIM: Fascinating. Thanks very much. Christine Romans.
Well, up next, baseball and steroids: a noted sportswriter says today's hearings are just the beginning. He says Major League Baseball deserves to be embarrassed.
And Iran's nuclear ambitions: a leading nuclear expert who just returned from Tehran will join us next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Well, in a moment, some big names in baseball head to Capitol Hill to take on the issue of steroids. We'll bring the very latest on that, and I'll talk with a Pulitzer Prize-winning sportswriter for "The New York Times."
But now here are some of the other important stories we're following tonight.
Lawyers for Martha Stewart appealed her conviction in a New York court today, even though Stewart has already served half her sentence. The court is not expected to rule for a few months.
Police in Georgia have arrested the "person of interest" named last night in the case of a missing 9-year-old Florida girl. John Evander Couey, a convicted sex offender, was arrested on unrelated charges today. Jessica Marie Lunsford has been missing since the end of February. And police in New Jersey struggle to capture a man who allegedly carjacked a Department of Corrections vehicle. The man used a gun to force five inmates and a corrections officer out of the van, and then he then led police on a 73-mile chase, eventually overturning the van. He is now in police custody.
More now on our top story.
Now, some of baseball's biggest names testified today on Capitol Hill about steroid abuse. The hearing is still under way, and these are live pictures from Capitol Hill, where Commissioner Bud Selig is now testifying.
I'm joined now by a sportswriter who says baseball deserves to be embarrassed about the steroid mess. Dave Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for "The New York Times."
And thank you very much for being here today.
DAVE ANDERSON, "NEW YORK TIMES": Kitty, nice to be here.
PILGRIM: They deserve to be embarrassed. Do you think they were properly embarrassed today?
ANDERSON: Well, I think they might even be embarrassed a little more by the time Bud Selig is through testifying today. You know, they put off this -- they just -- they never got serious about steroids long after pro football did, and long after the Olympics did. They just kind of tolerated it or looked the other way, and now it's coming back to haunt them in a big way.
PILGRIM: A lot of this came into the public consciousness with the book written by Jose Canseco. What did we learn today that wasn't in the book, that was the same as the book? Where's the correlation?
ANDERSON: Well, one thing we learned is that Jose suddenly is very -- you know, he's changed his tune, let's say, whereas when they asked him about why he was talking so differently today about how this could be cleaned up and all that, in his book he said that, you know, I think steroids -- that people should be taught about steroids, because it really helps you, and all that. And now suddenly he's very penitent about it.
PILGRIM: I am no expert, and you are, but it seems the tone of the hearing is very nervous, doesn't it?
ANDERSON: Well, it's nervous in the sense that -- I'd say tense more than nervous. And brightly so.
I mean, baseball has deserved and let itself be put on this spot. And even before today, just yesterday, we learned that the drug policy that had -- that the Congress had to subpoena after asking for it and being rebuffed, and after a letter and being ignored, now, they finally had to subpoena the drug policy, and found out the drug policy that really is the drug policy is a little different than what everybody thought it was. For example, the first offense of a player, he can be suspended for ten days or -- or fined up to $10,000.
PILGRIM: And why are those fines...
ANDERSON:: The money, first of all, is a joke, but also, without being publicly identified. Well, that's nothing. The $10,000 is like tip money, so...
PILGRIM: Do you think that Congress should be involved?
ANDERSON: Yes, because -- I think it's great, because this has been there for so long, with nobody -- with baseball, meaning, both the owners, the commissioners, and especially the union, which resisted it more than the commissioner's office did. The union resisted it for so long until it was embarrassed, and Ken Caminiti came out in 2002. Even Canseco said something then, and then with the BALCO investigation in California involving Barry Bonds, they were even more embarrassed, and that's why they changed to a drug policy they only put in a year ago, they changed it and made it -- put some more teeth in it since then.
PILGRIM: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the NFL have a drug-testing, steroid-testing policy since 1987?
ANDERSON: 1987. Absolutely.
PILGRIM: So, why not -- well, I guess that's the question, Why not?
ANDERSON: Exactly. So the Olympics. Ben Johnson was banned from the Olympics for life in 1988.
PILGRIM: Why was Barry Bonds not among those testifying?
ANDERSON: Well, it turns out now -- at the time they said that he wasn't -- and I did a column about this last week -- because without Bonds, it really lost a lot of its credibility, and still has lost a lot of its credibility without Bonds there, but their reasoning is, as it was for Jason Giambi, that since they're involved in the criminal investigation in San Francisco with the BALCO situation, that they didn't want to compromise his involvement in what could be a criminal trial later on, with today.
PILGRIM: Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas were named to the advisory panel. Do you think that that is key?
ANDERSON: Well, they were friends of the courts, so to speak, today, and you know, I think they were very helpful.
PILGRIM: What's your just general overview feeling about these hearings? Very helpful, or damaging to the sport? What's your overview?
ANDERSON: Well, damaging in a positive way, because it's got to clean it up and -- presumably clean it up -- and straighten it out so that when players hit 40 home runs, we'll know they hit them on their God-given ability, not on a chemical. PILGRIM: Should the players be questioned about their steroid use?
ANDERSON: Should which players, now? The ones on the panel?
PILGRIM: Their records.
ANDERSON: Today?
PILGRIM: Yes.
ANDERSON: No. The committee has said all along that was not the object of the hearing, but you'll notice that Jose Canseco, because he's on probation for some -- whatever it is in Florida, he's had various infractions of the law, he admitted he would not speak openly about it. He would take the Fifth Amendment rather than -- and then Mark McGwire, while never saying he would take the Fifth Amendment, did indicate he was not going to talk about the past and he would not identify him himself or players or anybody else involving steroids, and then whenever he was asked about, really a telling question, he would say I'm not going to talk about the past. So, while he may have not acknowledged that he took steroids, it appears that he did.
PILGRIM: Thanks for sorting this out with us, with your considerable insight on the subject. David Anderson.
ANDERSON: Thank you.
PILGRIM: That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll: who do you believe should be responsible for cracking down on steroids and baseball? Major League Baseball, the players' union, or Congress? Cast your vote at loudobbsCNN.com and we'll bring you the results a little bit later in the show.
Well, in California, the only Great White shark in captivity is giving his keepers a taste of the wild. The shark has bitten two other sharks -- Soupfins -- at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Both of them died. Now, the scientists are split on whether it was hostile or whether the shark accidentally bumped into the victims and attacked them in reflex. The aquarium removed the other Soupfins from the tank. The Great White has been on display since September.
Coming up next, nuclear showdown with Iran, one nuclear expert who just returned from Iran will share what he discovered about its nuclear program. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
President Bush is urging patience with diplomatic efforts to end Iran's nuclear program.
My next guest has just returned from a conference in Iran, where Tehran tried to explain its nuclear ambitions. George Perkovich is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International World Peace and he is coauthor of "Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security." He joins us from Charlottesville, Virginia. Thanks very much for joining us, George. You -- this is your third trip to Iran, I understand. What did you hear and see this time that was most alarming?
GEORGE PERKOVICH, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT AND AUTHOR: Well, actually it wasn't alarming, and that was the point, I think. The organizers of the conference wanted to make very clear that they're going to play by the rules, they have nuclear technology, they're going to acquire or want to acquire more, but they want it for peaceful purposes, much like Japan has it, and they're trying to get people to accept that and treat them like Japan.
PILGRIM: Right. The great question, though -- sorry to interrupt you -- is why would Iran need nuclear power for power purposes when they have that much oil? That's the great underlying question of this debate, is it not?
PERKOVICH: Well, I think that's right, and I think, by the way, their approach and their explanations are shifting over time, as they got caught in a number of violations that are very difficult to explain, but it's possible that they're shifting their explanation.
Ayatollah Rafsanjani, to answer your questions, said -- and I hadn't heard this before -- said, yes, we have lots of oil, but everybody knows it's going to run out, and then everyone's going to need nuclear technology, and in fact the Americans don't want us to have nuclear technology because this is payback for their dependence on our oil. Now, it's kind of funny, but I -- he was making this argument for his people to understand.
PILGRIM: Is this credible or this just for domestic consumption in Iran?
PERKOVICH: I think it reveals an attitude. I don't think it's a credible argument, really, but I think it reveals an attitude, which is to say, We're not going to back down, we have a right, we're going to play by the rules now. We screwed up in the past, we didn't play by the rules, we got caught, we're coming clean, now we want to play by the rules, and people have to let us.
PILGRIM: Let me push you a little bit on this. Playing by the rules, you can go all the way up to the very threshold before you turn your nuclear power into a nuclear weapon. You can be in compliance all the way up to a threshold and then quickly step over the threshold, and that's the great worry here, isn't it?
PERKOVICH: You got it, and that's what the president has noticed and wants to correct. It's what we in our universal compliance report want to also correct, agreeing with the president. We have to change the rule. Now, the problem is or the challenge is it's difficult to change rules unilaterally, and especially when the rules were part of a bargain, you have to give people incentives and make tradeoffs if you're going to tighten existing rules. And that's the challenge we face now.
PILGRIM: Some people were alarmed by Iran's posture, say that Iran should be the exception to this very broad rule, because they have cheated so much in the past. What do you say to that?
PERKOVICH: I'm sympathetic to the argument that, A, we can't let Iran acquire the capability to make nuclear weapons. B, it is true that they had cheated. I have no problem in principle trying to make them an exception, it's just very hard to do in practice. The U.S. can't solve this problem alone, either by force or by sanctioning. We need other people to work with us if we're going to try to isolate Iran. Now, to do that, you're going to have to do it diplomatically and provide incentives.
PILGRIM: The incentives we can offer Iran's oil infrastructure is in abysmal condition. Do you think that offering them the sort of financial support for that, would be enough to have them back away from their nuclear posture?
PERKOVICH: I don't know what's enough. And I have a feeling neither the Iranian government nor the U.S. has an idea of what's enough. So, this would be a process, a bargaining process. One place to start, by the way, is -- came up with Dr. Rice's trip. India and Pakistan, who are nuclear adversaries, want to import natural gas from Iran, to build a pipeline from Iran. This would be a great thing from the standpoint of global warming, development of India's economy, harmonization of the relations between India and Pakistan. We ought to, at least, not object to that, because I think it would be a positive incentive for Iran, but also serve very important global and U.S. interests in South Asia. So that's a starter.
PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, George Perkovich. Thanks for being with us tonight, sir.
PERKOVICH: Thank you.
PILGRIM: Well, Tonight's Thought" is on protecting America and here it is.
"We cannot and must not hide our concern for grave world dangers, and while, at the same time, we cannot build walls around ourselves and hide our heads in the sand. We must go forward with all our strength to stress and to strive for international peace. In this effort America must and will protect herself."
Well, we continue our series now on some of the most inspiring young people, "America's Bright Future."
And tonight the story of one high school student who has launched a business using her success in math to help others.
Lisa Sylvester has her story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Raynece Leader Thompson, has always been a good math student. She took pre-algebra in sixth grade, algebra in seventh grade, and by eighth grade she created her own math game, Mathamania (ph) and launched a business called Math Workz. RAYNECE LEADER THOMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT, MATH WORKZ LLC: It's made for students who need help with math or students who don't under math, students who think math is horrible, and just adults who need a refresher work.
SYLVESTER (on camera): Math Workz started as a school project. Raynece submitted the idea to an invention convention. She didn't win, but was on her way to starting her own business.
(voice-over): Teachers at local schools heard about the game that makes basics math, multiplication, and division, fun.
JOHNECE THOMPSON, RAYNECE'S MOTHER: I got a couple calls from teachers, and they said, we came -- we came in contact with a game, and I was told that your daughter invented the game. And we played the game with our students, and they loved it. How can we get a copy of it?
SYLVESTER: Raynece is now 16 years old and the vice president of Math Workz. She has a staff of eight high school students. Today's meeting focuses on ongoing discussions with the QVC Shopping Network. The game is already sold in five states and online. To keep up with the changing world of business, she's taking E-commerce and marketing at a vocational high school, in addition to her high school classes. She's also a mentor in Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program. And she returns to her middle school to help inspire other young inventors.
R. THOMPSON: It takes a lot of work and a lot of patience.
DEB PETTUS, RAYNECE'S FORMER TEACHER: I think it's inspiration for them. And even to maybe know that they have an idea that may someday really be a product, and that they could do the same thing if they chose to.
SYLVESTER: Raynece takes her accomplishments in stride. She's just happy she created a product that helps other students share her love for math.
Lisa Sylvester, CNN, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Coming up, one senator's fight to stop rewards for American companies that export American jobs overseas.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: American companies that export manufacturing jobs to cheap overseas labor markets are actually rewarded with tax breaks under our laws.
Well, Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota introduced an amendment today that would repeal those tax breaks. The Senate defeated that amendment, 59 to 40. And Senator Byron Dorgan joins me tonight from Capitol Hill. Thanks for being here, sir.
SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D), NORTH DAKOTA: I'm glad to do it.
PILGRIM: What do we do after the defeat? Where do you go from here?
DORGAN: Well, I'll have another shot at this. But it's really shocking when you think about it. We have this really bizarre tax code that says if you shut your American plant, fire your workers, move the jobs overseas, manufacturing the product and ship it back to the United States, we'll give you a tax cut for doing it. I mean, that's unbelievable to me. And it's also unbelievable that 59 members of the United States Senate think that should continue.
PILGRIM: Now, you're saying this is not normal global trade, because you're actually moving the manufacturing offshore and not selling it overseas; you're bringing the product back.
DORGAN: My amendment was about the companies that move overseas to sell back into our country. Lets say, you've got two companies side by side, they make garage door openers. One of them fires the workers, moves though China, ships the garage door opener back to here. The company that stayed is at a huge disadvantage, because they are going to end up paying higher taxes.
Why -- because we subsidize the company that moved overseas. It's unbelievable that we should keep that in the tax code. With all this concern about outsourcing the jobs, where on earth are the votes in the Senate to stand up when it really counts?
PILGRIM: Well, the way global trade works well, is when a company can build a plant overseas and sell its product overseas and then repatriate the profits. Let's talk about the loss of jobs; this is outsourced jobs in its most classic sense.
Do you see your measure bringing jobs back into the country?
DORGAN: Well, first I have to get this passed. And of course, the United States Senate with only 40 senators willing to stand up for American jobs, and stand up for fairness here, it's an uphill fight. But we're going to vote on it again and again this year, because I think the American people deserve to have a tax code that doesn't reward those who fire American workers, and move the jobs overseas to ship the products back here. So, you know, I'm not going to quit this fight. I think this outsourcing of jobs is a very serious problem. And I think having a pernicious tax cut for those that do is an outrage and we need to stop it.
PILGRIM: Senator Dorgan, if you repeal this tax cut, how much money are we talking about it?
DORGAN: Well, it's not very large in terms of the budget. I mean, it's about nearly $3 billion over a 10-year period, so it's not a huge issue. But it's huge in terms of the incentive for jobs to be moving out of this country, which is a very serious problem. It's relentless, it's going on day after day, and the taxpayers are actually subsidizing it, and we ought to stop it and we ought to stop it now. PILGRIM: Do you think there's the political will to do this?
DORGAN: I hope so. I mean, what on earth -- what kind of a political will is there, if there's not a will to stand up for American jobs, and stand up for our economy, and stand up for fairness for companies that stay here and employ people here and produce products here?
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks so much for being with us tonight, Senator Byron Dorgan.
DORGAN: Thanks a lot.
PILGRIM: Let's look at some of your thoughts.
Curt Wright of Tucson, Arizona, writes, "Would anyone crossing our border illegally and snubbing their noses at our immigration laws possibly have any respect for any of our other laws?"
Richard Atkey from Alberta, Canada, writes, "As a Canadian I wondered if I should comment on what is happening in the United States. But then again, if the assault on the middle class down there is successful, we may have to soon beef up our own border patrols to keep Americans from crossing over illegally.
And Bruce Knapp of California writes, "The situation on the Mexican border had been, for many years, and continues to be, a national disgrace. The border is by all accounts totally porous to illegal immigrants, drugs, and other contraband. Therefore, it is also the perfect conveyance for any terrorist organization that wishes this country harm."
We absolutely love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at loudobbs@CNN.com, and each of you whose e-mail is read on this broadcast will receive a copy of Lou's book, "Exporting America."
Well, in "Grange on Point" tonight, the continuing stress on our military from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The number will go down to 138,000 when the current troop rotation is complete. Now, further reductions will depend on the buildup of Iraqi forces, and another issue is whether more coalition countries will withdraw their troops.
In Afghanistan, our military has about 17,000 troops. NATO troops are building up their forces outside the capital, Kabul, but American troops are still on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.
Well, joining me now from Chicago is General David Grange, and thanks for being with us.
Let's first talk about Italy withdrawing its 3,000 troops, I believe by September. What kind of a loss is that for the coalition of the willing?
GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, the Italians provide very good troops to the coalition forces, 3,000 or so. It will be a gap. It'll be very similar to when the Dutch left and the British soldiers had to fill their gap, their area of operations. So, someone has to take up the slack, and it's very critical now while we're going through the training of the Iraqi military and police, that coalition forces hang in there until those things take place.
PILGRIM: Do you think that there will be a real security issue, because it's not been stable quite yet?
GRANGE: Well, it's not going to be stable the way everybody expects it to be for quite some time, and so all the coalition members are very important to the team, regardless of the size, force, they bring to the effort. And it's going to take some time to train this credible Iraqi military and police force, and so -- it does hurt somewhat to have a robust coalition force pull out, if in fact they do. I don't think they will.
PILGRIM: Let's move on to Afghanistan, and there's been a good number of political successes. We have about 17,000 U.S. troops there. Any talk of withdrawal? And where does that leave that country?
GRANGE: Well, there's been some talk about it, but I think this is the wrong time. You know, it's been a very slow go, and a cautious approach in Afghanistan, and it is a success story. They didn't push the warlords very hard until just recently they started convincing warlords to turn over their weapons, disband their militias, and join the central government and get involved in the Afghanistan National Army.
So that's been very successful. And it takes time, and it takes enough force there to keep others from taking advantage of a situation where there may not be a deterrence in place, like the American or NATO forces.
Soon they'll take on the issue of opium, the farmers using that as a major source of income, and until alternate sources are established, security has to be provided during that transition period, or violence can then come about. So, it's time now to keep the forces where they are, to make this thing stay on track.
PILGRIM: Are U.S. forces critical to the hunt for Osama bin Laden?
GRANGE: Very critical. Now, can other NATO forces do what American forces are doing over there? Some can, some not so well.
You need to have not only a force that can provide security around Kabul, like many of the NATO forces can do, but you need forces that know how to patrol, how to handle themselves in tough terrain in these mountains, which swallows up foot soldiers, and you need people trained to the level and quality of the American soldiers to do that properly.
If there's any gap there, if Taliban or al Qaeda smells a crack, a seam, a gap in the security, they'll take advantage of it, there's no doubt about it. So, like what General Olson, the number two man in Afghanistan stated, it's go a while to go, five, ten years. And he's a good soldier, knows what he's talking about. He's absolutely correct.
PILGRIM: I hate to play such a hard-headed numbers game with you, but if you can't reduce it in Iraq, you can't reduce it in Afghanistan, are we overstretched?
GRANGE: Oh, the military's much too small for the commitments today, and what may come about, whether there's an issue with North Korea, in Iran, or let's say Syria snubs their nose at the United States, or the United Nations who said, get out. If that doesn't happen, what are you going to do? Are you going to walk your talk? Are you going to ignore it? Or are you going to do something about it.
And so -- there's some tenuous situations going on around the globe, and, it requires, quite often -- if diplomacy doesn't work -- a strong military to make it happen. And so that's where there's some danger that we must be cognizant of when we're looking at strength levels around the world.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, General David Grange.
Next the results of tonight's poll, a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Now, the results of tonight's poll: 71 percent of you believe Major League Baseball should be responsible for cracking down on steroids in baseball; 10 percent says the Players' Union; 19 percent said Congress.
Thanks for being with us tonight; please join us tomorrow. Former director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Bobby Inman, joins us to discuss the latest threats to our national security.
For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is 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 March 17, 2005 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KITTY PILGRIM, GUEST HOST: You are watching CNN's coverage of hearings on Capitol Hill on steroid use in baseball. We'll continue to monitor the hearings for new developments, LOU DOBBS TONIGHT starts right now.
Tonight, steroids and sluggers: extraordinary testimony on Capitol Hill. Top baseball stars testify about steroid use in Major League Baseball.
Trade politics: President Bush selects an outspoken supporter of free trade to be our next trade representatives, but critics say it's a sellout.
And nuclear showdown: the CIA director blasts Iran's nuclear program. And tonight, I'll talk with an expert who's just returned from Iran. --
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS -- for news, debate and opinion -- TONIGHT. Sitting in for Loud Dobbs, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: Good evening. Also tonight, selling out our national security to India: a critical part of the world's communications network on the auction block.
Selling out U.S. workers: one of this country's most respected business groups wants millions of illegal aliens to have legal status.
And "Exporting America:" the battle to end tax breaks for companies that ship U.S. jobs overseas. I'll talk with a senator who's leading the fight.
Well, a day of astonishing testimony on Capitol Hill about steroids and baseball. Six current and former baseball stars gave unprecedented testimony to the House Government Reform Committee. At issue is whether baseball stars cheat by taking steroids. Congressional correspondent Ed Henry reports -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Dramatic testimony, mostly involving Mark McGwire, the former home run king in Major League Baseball, looking much thinner. He's retired now, and he's looking much thinner than he did in his playing days.
There's been a lot of allegations out there, primarily in Jose Canseco's new book, suggesting that McGwire used steroids. This was an opportunity for him to respond. He was sitting just four seats away from Jose Canseco at the witness table. Shot back at Canseco. Said he believes that people should consider the source when they read this book. But he would not directly answer questions about whether or not he did use steroids.
Mark McGwire asked by Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland whether or not he had used steroids. He wouldn't answer it. Then he was asked, are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Again, McGwire did not want to answer even that.
Finally McGwire kept going back on and on to the fact that he said he did not want to talk about his past, he only wanted to talk about his future. Here's Mark McGwire.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK MCGWIRE, FORMER MLB PLAYER: Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem. If a player answers no, he simply will not be believed. If he answers yes, he risks public scorn and endless government investigations. My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Rafael Palmeiro, another baseball player, who in Canseco's book is accused of using steroids was also attacked -- also attacked Canseco, at this hearing. Palmeiro on the record, unlike McGwire, decided to go under oath and say he never used steroids.
Curt Schilling also saying that taking some shots at the Canseco book. And Curt Schilling today, the Boston Red Sox pitcher, announced at the beginning he is joining a taskforce being created by this House committee to get other Major Leaguers to speak out against steroid abuse. Here is Curt Schilling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CURT SCHILLING, BOSTON RED SOX: I believe -- and I have always believed -- that the 90-plus percentile of players that test clean want to make sure that the ones that don't are found out. And I think that given what I've heard from the commissioner and from the people and player representatives, that's going to happen now. And I think that fear of public embarrassment, humiliation upon being caught is going to be greater than any player ever imagined.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Now Curt Schilling referenced the commissioner of baseball, Bud Selig. He is expected to take the hot seat in a short while. A lot of lawmakers frustrated. They believe Bug Selig and other baseball officials misled Congress and the public when they promised last year they were going to clean up and institute a tough new steroid testing and punishment police.
Some dramatic testimony earlier today from Senator Jim Bunning. He was the first witness. And he said that as a Republican Senator, it's his instinct to not want Congress to get involved in all of this, but he said that he believes that baseball has only taken baby steps on steroids. And he thinks if they don't clean up their act, Congress will step in with legislation -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Ed Henry.
Well, later in the broadcast, I'll talk to a Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist who says baseball deserves to be embarrassed. New York Times sports writer Dave Anderson will give his perspective on today's hearings in Capitol Hill.
In other news from Capitol Hill, CIA Director Porter Goss today blasted Iran. He accused Iran of meddling in Iraq and failing to be candid about its nuclear program. Goss also responded to criticism about the way CIA treats suspected terrorists. National security correspondent David Ensor reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The CIA director defended U.S. interrogation techniques and the practice, called rendition, of sending certain suspected terrorists to third countries, where critics charge some have been tortured.
Said Porter Goss, "we don't use, or condone torture."
PORTER GOSS, DIRECTOR OF CIA: We run the risk if we persist in allegations that are unfounded -- because it's becoming a feeding frenzy or the subject of talk shows that need time to fill air, or something like that -- I think we do run the risk of doing ourselves damage.
ENSOR: But the CIA has flown over 100 suspected terrorists from one foreign country to another since the 9/11 attacks, knowledgeable former officials say, under a blanket authorization from President Bush.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In a post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack. That was the charge we have been given. And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured.
ENSOR: Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian picked up at JFK Airport in New York was flown to Syria where he claims he was imprisoned and beaten.
Mondu Habib (ph), an Egyptian-born Australian was picked up in Pakistan and shipped by Americans, he says, to Egypt and then Afghanistan where she was shocked, beaten and almost drowned.
SEN. CARL LEVIN, (D-MI) SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Where there is evidence or claims of torture, do we follow up with the countries that have represented to us that they would not torture individuals to whom we sent to those countries? GOSS: I can assure you that I know of no instances where the intelligence community is outside the law on this, where they have complied. As I've said publicly before, and I know for a fact, that torture is not -- it's not productive.
ENSOR: On this, and many other subjects, though, the new CIA director chose to be even less forthcoming in public than his predecessor.
GOSS: There is nothing that I can tell you in open session about that, sir.
That's a subject for closed session.
I would be happy to give you the community's views in closed session.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: Goss said the CIA inspector general is looking into several charges of prisoner mistreatment by Americans or by others to whom they were sent, and that any violations of law or policy will face consequences. The system, he argued, in other words, works -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much, David Ensor.
Well, dramatic testimony on Capitol Hill today about the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal. A former U.N. Employee testified that the program had, quote, "gaping holes." He said the U.N. ignored repeated warnings about the program, and he was eventually fired.
Senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth is here with the story -- Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kitty, he was a numbers cruncher who dreamed of working for the United Nations. Rehan Mullik, a Pakistani by birth, now an American, instead arrived in Iraq and soon saw flagrant discrepancies with the oil-for-food program. Today he was an unlikely star witness before yet another U.S. congressional subcommittee investigating oil-for-food.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH (voice-over): Rehan Mullik says he personally observed abuses while monitoring the oil-for-food program in Iraq.
REHAN MULLICK, FORMER U.N. EMPLOYEE: Soon after I started my job, it became amply evident to me that a significant percentage of supplies were never distributed as the program intended. That many of the supplies such as trucks, pick-ups, 4x4's meant for humanitarian purposes were diverted to Iraqi security and the military. And that the program had been infiltrated by many Saddam loyalists.
ROTH: The whistle-blower witness said 22 percent of humanitarian goods never got to the people -- a billion dollars a year stolen by the Iraqis. For two years, Mullick says he recommended suggestions to U.N. higherups.
MULLICK: Each succession resulted my supervisor's reducing my job responsibilities.
ROTHER: Mullick described a mafia-style U.N. administration that allowed oil-for-food inefficiencies go unchecked.
MULLICK: It's sad that the U.N. administration in Iraq was allowing it to happen. But what's even more discouraging is the fact that when the issues are brought to light, the U.N. administration in New York not only systematically silenced my findings, they fired me.
ROTH: The committee chairman said Mullick's story proves the need for U.N. reform.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Let me just note from what the -- what our witness is saying is we had is blatant corruption, blatant and visible corruption that was ignored by the U.N. officials on the scene. Even worse, was covered up.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH: Tonight, the United Nations had no official comment on what the witness had to say -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Richard, where do we stand on the Paul Volcker investigation in the oil-for-food scandal?
ROTH: Well, Paul Volcker is going to have another report, and it will deal with Kojo Annan, and his father, the secretary-general, Kofi Annan. And it's coming up faster than people thought, March 29 or March 30 at this time.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much, Richard Roth.
Well, President Bush today nominated an outspoken supporter of free trade to be our next trade representative. The president selected Congressman Rob Portman. Well, critics immediately blasted the president's nomination. One critic described the congressman as a "dedicated outsourcer."
Senior White House correspondent John King reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president is turning to a trusted ally in Congress for a job at the center of the highly emotional debates over outsourcing and whether free trade creates or kills more jobs here at home.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To keep our economy growing and creating jobs, we need to continue opening foreign markets to American products.
KING: Rob Portman has represented a Cincinnati district in Congress for a dozen years, worked on the first Bush White House on the domestic policy team, and went out of government in the mid '80s, worked as an international trade lawyer.
ROB PORTMAN (R-OH), USTR NOMINEE: Through expanded trade, the roots of democracy and freedom are deepened. And here at home, trade policy opens markets to create jobs, a higher standard of living and greater economic growth.
KING: Organized labor is among those who forcefully disagree, blaming the North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade deals for the loss of thousands of domestic manufacturing and textile jobs.
THEA LEE, CHIEF ECONOMIST, AFL-CIO: It costs us hundreds of thousands of jobs and it doesn't appear that Congressman Portman understands that the past trade agreements haven't worked.
KING: Portman's challenges will be many. The United States ran a record $666 billion trade deficit last year, including a record $162 billion trade gap with China.
The administration also is trying to create a hemisphere-wide free trade area of the America's and to negotiate at least a half- dozen new bilateral trade deals. And a major immediate challenge is selling Congress on a new Central American free trade pact. Some lawmakers representing textile and sugar makers don't like it. Others complain it lacks labor and environmental standards.
LEE: And that's going to be a real heavy lift to get that through Congress, because it's very unpopular right now and they really don't have the votes.
KING: Portman's cordial relations with both parties in Congress are viewed as a major plus.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: And the president today called Congressman Portman a friend and skilled negotiator. Congressman Portman was joking. He says, when he told his 10-year-old daughter about his new job, she said, she had never heard of the United States trade representative, but it sounds like a rally neat job.
Humor today, Kitty. Bruising challenges, tough political fights ahead.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, John King.
KING: Thank you.
PILGRIM: Still to come, selling out U.S. workers: how one of the country's top business organizations wants to help millions of illegal aliens.
And selling out our national security: a critical part of the world communication network is on the verge of being sold to an Indian company.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PILGRIM: We reported extensively here on President Bush's plan to give millions of illegal aliens in this country a legal status. Well, today supporters of that controversial plan held a news conference to endorse it. And among those present was a group that criticizes -- or -- critics charge is supporting the plan only to sell out American workers.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Politics do make for strange bedfellows. In a room for supporters for immigration reform and guest worker programs, you might not be surprised to see religious leaders or immigration activists. But you might be caught off-guard to see the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber was there to call for Congress to enact immigration reform because of what it calls a shortage of American workers.
BRUCE JOSTEN, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: With continued job growth in many sectors, including the low-skilled sectors, and the Bureau of Labor statistics telling us already by 2010 we will have a shortage of 3.5 million workers, Congress needs to get ahead of the curve and provide a workable mechanism for employers to fill these jobs when Americans again are not available.
TUCKER: Tell that to the eight million unemployed Americans currently looking for work. The purpose of the gathering, according to the organizers, was to present a united and diverse group in support of immigration reform. Others saw a sad irony of contradictory purpose.
ROY BECK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NUMBERUSA: In some ways what's really surprising is that groups that purport to stand for the benefit of immigrants would stand alongside the Chamber of Commerce, whose main reason for being part of this is to get cheap labor.
TUCKER: Organized labor, which is supposed to represent American workers, was unable to attend. But a statement read on their behalf called for an amnesty program for those already illegally in the country, the union hoping to expand their membership roles with those workers.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: Now, it was a diverse group. And outside of the religious leaders, the immigration attorneys, the labor representatives, business, they all have one thing in common, Kitty. They all make money off of immigration in one form or another.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much. Bill Tucker.
Well, President Bush marked St. Patrick's Day with a visit from Irish Prime Minister Bernie Ahern. The prime minister gave President Bush a bowl of shamrocks and he thanked him for the U.S. commitment to the Northern Ireland peace process. President Bush vowed to stand by the Irish people as they worked toward peace.
Coming up, selling out national security: why the government wants to speed up a deal that critics say will only jeopardizes our national security.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: The U.S. government has agreed to fast-track the sale of some of our nation's most critical telecom infrastructure to an Indian company. Now, this deal follows China's purchase of IBM's personal computer business. Now some are questioning these sales pose to our economic and national security.
Christine Romans reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A very controversial deal received fast-track status today at the Federal Communications Commission. VSNL, an Indian telecom firm, wants to buy Tyco's undersea cable system. And that deal could be approved in as little as 45 days, a deal that some feel could threaten America's national security. VSNL is owned by Tata, an Indian conglomerate with close ties to India's military, and VSNL is 26 percent owned by the government of India.
SUZANNE SPAULDING, HARBOUR GROUP: This transaction involves the sale of the last remaining global network in U.S. hands to a foreign entity. If the transaction goes through, we lose our ability to ensure safe, reliable, secure and affordable telecommunications that are essential to the military in a time of crisis and the lifeblood of American business on a day-to-day basis.
ROMANS: The hard rush to push this deal through comes only days after the government secretly okayed another controversial deal, China's purchase of IBM's PC business. The super-secret national security review of that deal by the Bush administration is raising hackles on Capitol Hill.
REP. DONALD MANZULLO (R-IL), SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE: Maybe at this point I just might object to every sale that comes anywhere near national security just to force the issue that there has to be more oversight and more review, and possibly a change in law.
ROMANS: Congressman Manzullo wants to expand the review of deals to include economic security. And he wants to lift the shroud of secrecy over the process.
MICHAEL WESSEL, U.S.-CHINA COMMISSION: Basically, the government doesn't want anyone to know what's going on. And the American people should be standing up and saying, enough is enough, this is our security -- not only or national security, but our economic security, and we want to know what's going on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: Now, the China deal with IBM was approved in secret. And there's no way to know if our government is reviewing this Indian deal at any greater depth than this fast-track 45-day review at FCC -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Christine, it seems amazing that something like this could go through in 45 days. I mean, some people take more than 45 days to pick out a new car.
ROMANS: Absolutely. And this is an important piece of American- built telecom infrastructure. If this deal gets done, as we've been hearing over and over again, that would put the center of the global telecommunication grid somewhere between Mumbai and Singapore.
It's really important that the United States government take a very hard, long look at what this means. And Congressman Manzullo and many others are concerned that these things are getting done much too quickly, and the actual Committee on Foreign Investments, the body that reviews for national security, maybe isn't doing its job.
Maybe it's rubberstamping -- and in some cases, invisible rubberstamping -- these deals. Because we don't even know what the process is like for approving them.
PILGRIM: Fascinating. Thanks very much. Christine Romans.
Well, up next, baseball and steroids: a noted sportswriter says today's hearings are just the beginning. He says Major League Baseball deserves to be embarrassed.
And Iran's nuclear ambitions: a leading nuclear expert who just returned from Tehran will join us next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Well, in a moment, some big names in baseball head to Capitol Hill to take on the issue of steroids. We'll bring the very latest on that, and I'll talk with a Pulitzer Prize-winning sportswriter for "The New York Times."
But now here are some of the other important stories we're following tonight.
Lawyers for Martha Stewart appealed her conviction in a New York court today, even though Stewart has already served half her sentence. The court is not expected to rule for a few months.
Police in Georgia have arrested the "person of interest" named last night in the case of a missing 9-year-old Florida girl. John Evander Couey, a convicted sex offender, was arrested on unrelated charges today. Jessica Marie Lunsford has been missing since the end of February. And police in New Jersey struggle to capture a man who allegedly carjacked a Department of Corrections vehicle. The man used a gun to force five inmates and a corrections officer out of the van, and then he then led police on a 73-mile chase, eventually overturning the van. He is now in police custody.
More now on our top story.
Now, some of baseball's biggest names testified today on Capitol Hill about steroid abuse. The hearing is still under way, and these are live pictures from Capitol Hill, where Commissioner Bud Selig is now testifying.
I'm joined now by a sportswriter who says baseball deserves to be embarrassed about the steroid mess. Dave Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for "The New York Times."
And thank you very much for being here today.
DAVE ANDERSON, "NEW YORK TIMES": Kitty, nice to be here.
PILGRIM: They deserve to be embarrassed. Do you think they were properly embarrassed today?
ANDERSON: Well, I think they might even be embarrassed a little more by the time Bud Selig is through testifying today. You know, they put off this -- they just -- they never got serious about steroids long after pro football did, and long after the Olympics did. They just kind of tolerated it or looked the other way, and now it's coming back to haunt them in a big way.
PILGRIM: A lot of this came into the public consciousness with the book written by Jose Canseco. What did we learn today that wasn't in the book, that was the same as the book? Where's the correlation?
ANDERSON: Well, one thing we learned is that Jose suddenly is very -- you know, he's changed his tune, let's say, whereas when they asked him about why he was talking so differently today about how this could be cleaned up and all that, in his book he said that, you know, I think steroids -- that people should be taught about steroids, because it really helps you, and all that. And now suddenly he's very penitent about it.
PILGRIM: I am no expert, and you are, but it seems the tone of the hearing is very nervous, doesn't it?
ANDERSON: Well, it's nervous in the sense that -- I'd say tense more than nervous. And brightly so.
I mean, baseball has deserved and let itself be put on this spot. And even before today, just yesterday, we learned that the drug policy that had -- that the Congress had to subpoena after asking for it and being rebuffed, and after a letter and being ignored, now, they finally had to subpoena the drug policy, and found out the drug policy that really is the drug policy is a little different than what everybody thought it was. For example, the first offense of a player, he can be suspended for ten days or -- or fined up to $10,000.
PILGRIM: And why are those fines...
ANDERSON:: The money, first of all, is a joke, but also, without being publicly identified. Well, that's nothing. The $10,000 is like tip money, so...
PILGRIM: Do you think that Congress should be involved?
ANDERSON: Yes, because -- I think it's great, because this has been there for so long, with nobody -- with baseball, meaning, both the owners, the commissioners, and especially the union, which resisted it more than the commissioner's office did. The union resisted it for so long until it was embarrassed, and Ken Caminiti came out in 2002. Even Canseco said something then, and then with the BALCO investigation in California involving Barry Bonds, they were even more embarrassed, and that's why they changed to a drug policy they only put in a year ago, they changed it and made it -- put some more teeth in it since then.
PILGRIM: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the NFL have a drug-testing, steroid-testing policy since 1987?
ANDERSON: 1987. Absolutely.
PILGRIM: So, why not -- well, I guess that's the question, Why not?
ANDERSON: Exactly. So the Olympics. Ben Johnson was banned from the Olympics for life in 1988.
PILGRIM: Why was Barry Bonds not among those testifying?
ANDERSON: Well, it turns out now -- at the time they said that he wasn't -- and I did a column about this last week -- because without Bonds, it really lost a lot of its credibility, and still has lost a lot of its credibility without Bonds there, but their reasoning is, as it was for Jason Giambi, that since they're involved in the criminal investigation in San Francisco with the BALCO situation, that they didn't want to compromise his involvement in what could be a criminal trial later on, with today.
PILGRIM: Curt Schilling and Frank Thomas were named to the advisory panel. Do you think that that is key?
ANDERSON: Well, they were friends of the courts, so to speak, today, and you know, I think they were very helpful.
PILGRIM: What's your just general overview feeling about these hearings? Very helpful, or damaging to the sport? What's your overview?
ANDERSON: Well, damaging in a positive way, because it's got to clean it up and -- presumably clean it up -- and straighten it out so that when players hit 40 home runs, we'll know they hit them on their God-given ability, not on a chemical. PILGRIM: Should the players be questioned about their steroid use?
ANDERSON: Should which players, now? The ones on the panel?
PILGRIM: Their records.
ANDERSON: Today?
PILGRIM: Yes.
ANDERSON: No. The committee has said all along that was not the object of the hearing, but you'll notice that Jose Canseco, because he's on probation for some -- whatever it is in Florida, he's had various infractions of the law, he admitted he would not speak openly about it. He would take the Fifth Amendment rather than -- and then Mark McGwire, while never saying he would take the Fifth Amendment, did indicate he was not going to talk about the past and he would not identify him himself or players or anybody else involving steroids, and then whenever he was asked about, really a telling question, he would say I'm not going to talk about the past. So, while he may have not acknowledged that he took steroids, it appears that he did.
PILGRIM: Thanks for sorting this out with us, with your considerable insight on the subject. David Anderson.
ANDERSON: Thank you.
PILGRIM: That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll: who do you believe should be responsible for cracking down on steroids and baseball? Major League Baseball, the players' union, or Congress? Cast your vote at loudobbsCNN.com and we'll bring you the results a little bit later in the show.
Well, in California, the only Great White shark in captivity is giving his keepers a taste of the wild. The shark has bitten two other sharks -- Soupfins -- at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Both of them died. Now, the scientists are split on whether it was hostile or whether the shark accidentally bumped into the victims and attacked them in reflex. The aquarium removed the other Soupfins from the tank. The Great White has been on display since September.
Coming up next, nuclear showdown with Iran, one nuclear expert who just returned from Iran will share what he discovered about its nuclear program. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
President Bush is urging patience with diplomatic efforts to end Iran's nuclear program.
My next guest has just returned from a conference in Iran, where Tehran tried to explain its nuclear ambitions. George Perkovich is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International World Peace and he is coauthor of "Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security." He joins us from Charlottesville, Virginia. Thanks very much for joining us, George. You -- this is your third trip to Iran, I understand. What did you hear and see this time that was most alarming?
GEORGE PERKOVICH, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT AND AUTHOR: Well, actually it wasn't alarming, and that was the point, I think. The organizers of the conference wanted to make very clear that they're going to play by the rules, they have nuclear technology, they're going to acquire or want to acquire more, but they want it for peaceful purposes, much like Japan has it, and they're trying to get people to accept that and treat them like Japan.
PILGRIM: Right. The great question, though -- sorry to interrupt you -- is why would Iran need nuclear power for power purposes when they have that much oil? That's the great underlying question of this debate, is it not?
PERKOVICH: Well, I think that's right, and I think, by the way, their approach and their explanations are shifting over time, as they got caught in a number of violations that are very difficult to explain, but it's possible that they're shifting their explanation.
Ayatollah Rafsanjani, to answer your questions, said -- and I hadn't heard this before -- said, yes, we have lots of oil, but everybody knows it's going to run out, and then everyone's going to need nuclear technology, and in fact the Americans don't want us to have nuclear technology because this is payback for their dependence on our oil. Now, it's kind of funny, but I -- he was making this argument for his people to understand.
PILGRIM: Is this credible or this just for domestic consumption in Iran?
PERKOVICH: I think it reveals an attitude. I don't think it's a credible argument, really, but I think it reveals an attitude, which is to say, We're not going to back down, we have a right, we're going to play by the rules now. We screwed up in the past, we didn't play by the rules, we got caught, we're coming clean, now we want to play by the rules, and people have to let us.
PILGRIM: Let me push you a little bit on this. Playing by the rules, you can go all the way up to the very threshold before you turn your nuclear power into a nuclear weapon. You can be in compliance all the way up to a threshold and then quickly step over the threshold, and that's the great worry here, isn't it?
PERKOVICH: You got it, and that's what the president has noticed and wants to correct. It's what we in our universal compliance report want to also correct, agreeing with the president. We have to change the rule. Now, the problem is or the challenge is it's difficult to change rules unilaterally, and especially when the rules were part of a bargain, you have to give people incentives and make tradeoffs if you're going to tighten existing rules. And that's the challenge we face now.
PILGRIM: Some people were alarmed by Iran's posture, say that Iran should be the exception to this very broad rule, because they have cheated so much in the past. What do you say to that?
PERKOVICH: I'm sympathetic to the argument that, A, we can't let Iran acquire the capability to make nuclear weapons. B, it is true that they had cheated. I have no problem in principle trying to make them an exception, it's just very hard to do in practice. The U.S. can't solve this problem alone, either by force or by sanctioning. We need other people to work with us if we're going to try to isolate Iran. Now, to do that, you're going to have to do it diplomatically and provide incentives.
PILGRIM: The incentives we can offer Iran's oil infrastructure is in abysmal condition. Do you think that offering them the sort of financial support for that, would be enough to have them back away from their nuclear posture?
PERKOVICH: I don't know what's enough. And I have a feeling neither the Iranian government nor the U.S. has an idea of what's enough. So, this would be a process, a bargaining process. One place to start, by the way, is -- came up with Dr. Rice's trip. India and Pakistan, who are nuclear adversaries, want to import natural gas from Iran, to build a pipeline from Iran. This would be a great thing from the standpoint of global warming, development of India's economy, harmonization of the relations between India and Pakistan. We ought to, at least, not object to that, because I think it would be a positive incentive for Iran, but also serve very important global and U.S. interests in South Asia. So that's a starter.
PILGRIM: All right, thanks very much, George Perkovich. Thanks for being with us tonight, sir.
PERKOVICH: Thank you.
PILGRIM: Well, Tonight's Thought" is on protecting America and here it is.
"We cannot and must not hide our concern for grave world dangers, and while, at the same time, we cannot build walls around ourselves and hide our heads in the sand. We must go forward with all our strength to stress and to strive for international peace. In this effort America must and will protect herself."
Well, we continue our series now on some of the most inspiring young people, "America's Bright Future."
And tonight the story of one high school student who has launched a business using her success in math to help others.
Lisa Sylvester has her story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Raynece Leader Thompson, has always been a good math student. She took pre-algebra in sixth grade, algebra in seventh grade, and by eighth grade she created her own math game, Mathamania (ph) and launched a business called Math Workz. RAYNECE LEADER THOMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT, MATH WORKZ LLC: It's made for students who need help with math or students who don't under math, students who think math is horrible, and just adults who need a refresher work.
SYLVESTER (on camera): Math Workz started as a school project. Raynece submitted the idea to an invention convention. She didn't win, but was on her way to starting her own business.
(voice-over): Teachers at local schools heard about the game that makes basics math, multiplication, and division, fun.
JOHNECE THOMPSON, RAYNECE'S MOTHER: I got a couple calls from teachers, and they said, we came -- we came in contact with a game, and I was told that your daughter invented the game. And we played the game with our students, and they loved it. How can we get a copy of it?
SYLVESTER: Raynece is now 16 years old and the vice president of Math Workz. She has a staff of eight high school students. Today's meeting focuses on ongoing discussions with the QVC Shopping Network. The game is already sold in five states and online. To keep up with the changing world of business, she's taking E-commerce and marketing at a vocational high school, in addition to her high school classes. She's also a mentor in Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program. And she returns to her middle school to help inspire other young inventors.
R. THOMPSON: It takes a lot of work and a lot of patience.
DEB PETTUS, RAYNECE'S FORMER TEACHER: I think it's inspiration for them. And even to maybe know that they have an idea that may someday really be a product, and that they could do the same thing if they chose to.
SYLVESTER: Raynece takes her accomplishments in stride. She's just happy she created a product that helps other students share her love for math.
Lisa Sylvester, CNN, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Coming up, one senator's fight to stop rewards for American companies that export American jobs overseas.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: American companies that export manufacturing jobs to cheap overseas labor markets are actually rewarded with tax breaks under our laws.
Well, Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota introduced an amendment today that would repeal those tax breaks. The Senate defeated that amendment, 59 to 40. And Senator Byron Dorgan joins me tonight from Capitol Hill. Thanks for being here, sir.
SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D), NORTH DAKOTA: I'm glad to do it.
PILGRIM: What do we do after the defeat? Where do you go from here?
DORGAN: Well, I'll have another shot at this. But it's really shocking when you think about it. We have this really bizarre tax code that says if you shut your American plant, fire your workers, move the jobs overseas, manufacturing the product and ship it back to the United States, we'll give you a tax cut for doing it. I mean, that's unbelievable to me. And it's also unbelievable that 59 members of the United States Senate think that should continue.
PILGRIM: Now, you're saying this is not normal global trade, because you're actually moving the manufacturing offshore and not selling it overseas; you're bringing the product back.
DORGAN: My amendment was about the companies that move overseas to sell back into our country. Lets say, you've got two companies side by side, they make garage door openers. One of them fires the workers, moves though China, ships the garage door opener back to here. The company that stayed is at a huge disadvantage, because they are going to end up paying higher taxes.
Why -- because we subsidize the company that moved overseas. It's unbelievable that we should keep that in the tax code. With all this concern about outsourcing the jobs, where on earth are the votes in the Senate to stand up when it really counts?
PILGRIM: Well, the way global trade works well, is when a company can build a plant overseas and sell its product overseas and then repatriate the profits. Let's talk about the loss of jobs; this is outsourced jobs in its most classic sense.
Do you see your measure bringing jobs back into the country?
DORGAN: Well, first I have to get this passed. And of course, the United States Senate with only 40 senators willing to stand up for American jobs, and stand up for fairness here, it's an uphill fight. But we're going to vote on it again and again this year, because I think the American people deserve to have a tax code that doesn't reward those who fire American workers, and move the jobs overseas to ship the products back here. So, you know, I'm not going to quit this fight. I think this outsourcing of jobs is a very serious problem. And I think having a pernicious tax cut for those that do is an outrage and we need to stop it.
PILGRIM: Senator Dorgan, if you repeal this tax cut, how much money are we talking about it?
DORGAN: Well, it's not very large in terms of the budget. I mean, it's about nearly $3 billion over a 10-year period, so it's not a huge issue. But it's huge in terms of the incentive for jobs to be moving out of this country, which is a very serious problem. It's relentless, it's going on day after day, and the taxpayers are actually subsidizing it, and we ought to stop it and we ought to stop it now. PILGRIM: Do you think there's the political will to do this?
DORGAN: I hope so. I mean, what on earth -- what kind of a political will is there, if there's not a will to stand up for American jobs, and stand up for our economy, and stand up for fairness for companies that stay here and employ people here and produce products here?
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks so much for being with us tonight, Senator Byron Dorgan.
DORGAN: Thanks a lot.
PILGRIM: Let's look at some of your thoughts.
Curt Wright of Tucson, Arizona, writes, "Would anyone crossing our border illegally and snubbing their noses at our immigration laws possibly have any respect for any of our other laws?"
Richard Atkey from Alberta, Canada, writes, "As a Canadian I wondered if I should comment on what is happening in the United States. But then again, if the assault on the middle class down there is successful, we may have to soon beef up our own border patrols to keep Americans from crossing over illegally.
And Bruce Knapp of California writes, "The situation on the Mexican border had been, for many years, and continues to be, a national disgrace. The border is by all accounts totally porous to illegal immigrants, drugs, and other contraband. Therefore, it is also the perfect conveyance for any terrorist organization that wishes this country harm."
We absolutely love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at loudobbs@CNN.com, and each of you whose e-mail is read on this broadcast will receive a copy of Lou's book, "Exporting America."
Well, in "Grange on Point" tonight, the continuing stress on our military from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The number will go down to 138,000 when the current troop rotation is complete. Now, further reductions will depend on the buildup of Iraqi forces, and another issue is whether more coalition countries will withdraw their troops.
In Afghanistan, our military has about 17,000 troops. NATO troops are building up their forces outside the capital, Kabul, but American troops are still on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders.
Well, joining me now from Chicago is General David Grange, and thanks for being with us.
Let's first talk about Italy withdrawing its 3,000 troops, I believe by September. What kind of a loss is that for the coalition of the willing?
GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Well, the Italians provide very good troops to the coalition forces, 3,000 or so. It will be a gap. It'll be very similar to when the Dutch left and the British soldiers had to fill their gap, their area of operations. So, someone has to take up the slack, and it's very critical now while we're going through the training of the Iraqi military and police, that coalition forces hang in there until those things take place.
PILGRIM: Do you think that there will be a real security issue, because it's not been stable quite yet?
GRANGE: Well, it's not going to be stable the way everybody expects it to be for quite some time, and so all the coalition members are very important to the team, regardless of the size, force, they bring to the effort. And it's going to take some time to train this credible Iraqi military and police force, and so -- it does hurt somewhat to have a robust coalition force pull out, if in fact they do. I don't think they will.
PILGRIM: Let's move on to Afghanistan, and there's been a good number of political successes. We have about 17,000 U.S. troops there. Any talk of withdrawal? And where does that leave that country?
GRANGE: Well, there's been some talk about it, but I think this is the wrong time. You know, it's been a very slow go, and a cautious approach in Afghanistan, and it is a success story. They didn't push the warlords very hard until just recently they started convincing warlords to turn over their weapons, disband their militias, and join the central government and get involved in the Afghanistan National Army.
So that's been very successful. And it takes time, and it takes enough force there to keep others from taking advantage of a situation where there may not be a deterrence in place, like the American or NATO forces.
Soon they'll take on the issue of opium, the farmers using that as a major source of income, and until alternate sources are established, security has to be provided during that transition period, or violence can then come about. So, it's time now to keep the forces where they are, to make this thing stay on track.
PILGRIM: Are U.S. forces critical to the hunt for Osama bin Laden?
GRANGE: Very critical. Now, can other NATO forces do what American forces are doing over there? Some can, some not so well.
You need to have not only a force that can provide security around Kabul, like many of the NATO forces can do, but you need forces that know how to patrol, how to handle themselves in tough terrain in these mountains, which swallows up foot soldiers, and you need people trained to the level and quality of the American soldiers to do that properly.
If there's any gap there, if Taliban or al Qaeda smells a crack, a seam, a gap in the security, they'll take advantage of it, there's no doubt about it. So, like what General Olson, the number two man in Afghanistan stated, it's go a while to go, five, ten years. And he's a good soldier, knows what he's talking about. He's absolutely correct.
PILGRIM: I hate to play such a hard-headed numbers game with you, but if you can't reduce it in Iraq, you can't reduce it in Afghanistan, are we overstretched?
GRANGE: Oh, the military's much too small for the commitments today, and what may come about, whether there's an issue with North Korea, in Iran, or let's say Syria snubs their nose at the United States, or the United Nations who said, get out. If that doesn't happen, what are you going to do? Are you going to walk your talk? Are you going to ignore it? Or are you going to do something about it.
And so -- there's some tenuous situations going on around the globe, and, it requires, quite often -- if diplomacy doesn't work -- a strong military to make it happen. And so that's where there's some danger that we must be cognizant of when we're looking at strength levels around the world.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, General David Grange.
Next the results of tonight's poll, a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Now, the results of tonight's poll: 71 percent of you believe Major League Baseball should be responsible for cracking down on steroids in baseball; 10 percent says the Players' Union; 19 percent said Congress.
Thanks for being with us tonight; please join us tomorrow. Former director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Bobby Inman, joins us to discuss the latest threats to our national security.
For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is 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
