Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs Tonight

'Newsweek' Debacle; Nuclear Challenges; United Nation's Iraq Scandal; Intelligent Design: Is It Science?; Is CAFTA Fair?

Aired May 16, 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.


LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the White House versus "Newsweek" magazine. The White House blasting "Newsweek" over its reporting on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. And in just the past hour "Newsweek" has retracted its story. We'll have complete coverage tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Also ahead on LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, urgent new efforts to break the deadlock in the nuclear confrontations with North Korea and Iran.

The battle over judicial appointments and filibusters: the Senate is on the brink of a huge showdown.

And extreme event: a massive solar storm, the most powerful possible. How the storm could disrupt life here on Earth. A special report.

This is LOU DOBBS, for news, debate and opinion, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: Good evening.

"Newsweek" magazine tonight has retracted its story suggesting U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran. Earlier, the White House declared it's "puzzled," it's word, that "Newsweek" admitted the facts were wrong but then refused to publish a full retraction. Over the past hour, that is precisely what has happened. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went on to say journalists need to be very careful about what they say.

From the Pentagon tonight, Barbara Starr reports on the Defense Department's efforts to control the damage. And from the White House, Ed Henry reports on attempts to restore the U.S. image in the Muslim world.

We begin with Barbara Starr at the Pentagon -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Lou, that retraction by "Newsweek" was something the Bush administration had been pressing for here in Washington all day.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) STARR (voice-over): Allegations so far unproven that U.S. military personnel desecrated the Quran at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have swirled around for months. But then, in its May 9 issue, "Newsweek" magazine said, "... interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Quran down a toilet." That touched off riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving at least 15 dead.

Now "Newsweek" says they got it wrong. Their source no longer certain about where he got the information that he told the magazine.

DAN KLAIDMAN, "NEWSWEEK" WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: This was an honest mistake. We are obviously not very happy about it.

STARR: Across Washington, the Bush administration striking back hard at "Newsweek".

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: It's appalling, really, that an article that was unfounded to begin with has caused so much harm.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: People lost their lives. People are dead. And -- and that's unfortunate.

STARR: The military opened a new inquiry after the "Newsweek" article, publicly acknowledging it is looking into allegations of mishandling the Quran. But so far, officials say they haven't found any evidence of wrongdoing.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: More than one detainee tore pages out of the Quran and put it in the toilet in protest to stop up the toilet. But we have not found it where any wrongdoing on the part of U.S. service members.

STARR: But in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where tensions still are running high, the military is trying to make sure everyone knows its side of the story.

COL. JAMES YONTS, COALITION SPOKESMAN, AFGHANISTAN: Any disrespect to the Quran and any other religion is not tolerated by our culture and our values. That goes against our beliefs. And we do not tolerate that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STARR: Lou, the Pentagon's position remains they will investigate all credible allegations. They say so far they haven't found any. But to be clear, Lou, there are two military inquiries that are still open about what might have happened at Guantanamo Bay, so this story is not quite over just yet -- Lou.

DOBBS: Indeed, it's not, Barbara. And as to the issue of knocking this story down from the outset, any explanation on the part of the Pentagon as to why it did not simply knock this report down to begin with? STARR: Well, officials say that they did once they realized what "Newsweek" was publishing, that they did talk to them. For its part, "Newsweek" says that it went to two Pentagon officials after it got its original information, one official just did not respond, another official disputed another part of the story. "Newsweek" also says that they went back to their original source, as we said in our report, and that original source then could not recall exactly where he had learned or read the information about the Quran allegations.

So, Lou, a lot of confusion about who said what to who.

DOBBS: Confusion at "Newsweek" magazine, which quoted -- which reported sources as the basis for that story and since is referring to a singular source. Some confusion at the Pentagon, at least among certain high officials as well.

Barbara Starr, as always, thank you.

A senior White House official tonight applauded "Newsweek's" decision to retract its story. But the official said "Newsweek" must do more to repair the damage that the White House blames on the magazine.

Ed Henry reports from the White House -- Ed.

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Lou.

That's right. I just got off the phone with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. He called this a good first step to try to repair the damage already done. But McClellan said he also wants to see "Newsweek" lay out exactly what went wrong in the reporting of this story. He also wants to see the magazine show the Muslim world and actually talk to the Muslim press about the fact that, in McClellan's word, U.S. interrogators actually treat the Quran with respect.

Earlier today, President Bush attended an energy event in Virginia. He was asked about the "Newsweek" controversy. He would not comment on it directly. But today I did interview McClellan earlier, before the retraction, and Scott McClellan expressed outrage that "Newsweek" had initially just apologized and admitted errors but did not immediately issue a full retraction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Damage has been done. And what this report did was provide people who are opposed to the United States and who are on the other side of the war on terrorism with the ability to go out and exploit this report for their own purposes. They've used it to insight violence, violence that led to the deaths of individuals. Some 15, 16, 17 individuals have lost their lives in the aftermath of this report.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: And White House officials are very concerned that Islamist leaders in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere are planning to go ahead with protests that they had planned before the retraction. White House officials concerned that in fact there could be even more violence incited. That's why they have been a very aggressive today in reaching out to the Muslim press, using a press center, in fact, that the White House had already previously set up in London to try to reach out directly to the Muslim world, tell them about this apology and try to knock this story down completely.

Scott McClellan telling me a short while ago that's what they want "Newsweek" to do as well now, join the White House in that effort. But McClellan and other officials fear that the genie is already out of the bottle -- Lou.

DOBBS: Well, Ed, let's put this story in some context and bring some perspective to it, as well. Donald Rumsfeld talking about lives having been lost, Scott McClellan doing precisely the same thing. It is important to point out that in Afghanistan and Pakistan the imams, the Muslim clergy, are quick and invigorated to turning their people to emotional exercises, whether riots, as in this case, or something more constrained. This -- to put this on "Newsweek" is -- is really a bit (ph) strong, is it not?

HENRY: Well, in fact, as you mentioned, Lou, that anger towards the United States was already out there before this "Newsweek" report, in part because of some mistakes that the administration itself has made. McClellan and other acknowledging obviously previous abuses at Guantanamo Bay, as well as the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Iraq, have previously come up.

Those obviously help incite previous violence. But what McClellan and other White House officials point out is, when those previous incidents have occurred, the White House and this administration, they say, have been very aggressive in dealing with those abuses and trying to repair the damage.

So clearly some of that damage was there before the "Newsweek" report, but the White House is now putting heavy pressure on "Newsweek" magazine to also do what the White House says it has done before, which is to deal with this moving forward -- Lou.

DOBBS: I suppose what I would ask you is this: did the White House in any way criticize the Pakistani government or Pakistan leadership for having its own security forces fire into a crowd of protesting Muslims concerned about the Quran?

HENRY: They have not, but the bottom line, Lou, is that they are saying they are putting it on "Newsweek" right now -- Lou.

DOBBS: Ed Henry, thank you.

Turning to the war in Iraq, an American civilian and two Iraqis working for a western firm were killed in a bomb attack in eastern Baghdad. Two other Iraqis were wounded.

Insurgents also launched new attacks against Iraqi security forces. Nine Iraqi soldiers were killed in a bomb attack in southern Baghdad. And five Iraqi national guardsmen were killed in a mortar attack near Baquba. In western Iraq a suicide bomber killed at least five Iraqis near the border with Syria.

Urgent new efforts tonight to break the deadlock in the escalating nuclear confrontations with both North Korea and Iran. South Korea today offered North Korea what it called a significant proposal to return to six-country talks, and Europe is trying one last time to persuade Iran to give up its ambitions for a nuclear program.

Kitty Pilgrim reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In talks today, South Korea tried to cajole North Korea back to diplomatic negotiations about its nuclear program. It promised North Korea a substantial, undisclosed proposal if it did. It's been nearly a year since North Korea abandoned the six-way talks, and there are worries North Korea might soon test a nuclear weapon. If that test happens, U.S. officials this weekend said it will be the last straw.

STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It would be something where the North Koreans would be defying not only us, but our partners in the six-party talks. And action would have to be -- have to be taken.

PILGRIM: Experts say tensions are building. In the last year, North Korea declared itself a nuclear power, test-fired a missile over the Sea of Japan, and shut down a reactor to remove 8,000 spent fuel rods, enough to make several more nuclear bombs. Now satellite photos indicate a test may be being prepared.

JAMES WALSH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: If they are going to test, it's probably going to be sooner rather than later. And the U.S. policy on this is on a train that is headed towards a collision course in June. The U.S. is talking about tough engagement in June, trying to get a quarantine on North Korea, trying to get them referred to the Security Council.

PILGRIM: Also at a crisis point, talks with Iran over its nuclear program. The United States has let Europeans take the lead with a diplomatic solution, but the U.S. is increasingly vocal about the lack of progress.

BOUCHER: We've supported the Europeans. We think it's time for the Iranians to come to terms and to comply with their desire. We think it's time for the Iranians to demonstrate to the world that they are not going to develop nuclear weapons, and to do so with objective guarantees.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Well, the chances for that to succeed increasingly dim. Iran's parliament on Sunday ratified an agreement urging the government to restart uranium enrichment. And the next round of talks is scheduled for next week, but already Iran is saying it's determined to pursue its right to a nuclear program -- Lou.

DOBBS: And it's still at best unclear as to what the U.S. policy and steps would be to create a positive outcome.

PILGRIM: Yes. When pressed today, the State Department spokesman said he didn't deal in hypotheticals, which is the usual reason that they give.

DOBBS: Hypotheticals, in this case seeking a substantive answer to an issue as grave as both Iran and North Korea. Kitty, thank you very much. Kitty Pilgrim.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan with a warning for the United States today, saying the U.N. Security Council could refuse to take any action against Iran over its nuclear program and ambitions. The United States and Britain may ask the Security Council to approve sanctions if Iran begins reprocessing nuclear fuel. But in an interview with "USA Today," Annan said China and Russia might veto such sanctions.

Annan warned the United States that "action or inaction will have a great impact on future cases" -- that's action or inaction -- "and on our efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation."

Still ahead here, more on "Newsweek's" decision to retract its story on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay.

Also coming up, the latest developments in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal. Tonight, how two close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin have been involved.

And a Senate showdown could be only hours away, certainly a matter of days. The escalating battle over judicial nominees and filibusters and what it could mean for the future of the Senate and majority rule and minority rights.

Those reports, a great deal more, still ahead here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: New developments tonight in the widening U.N. scandal over Iraq's oil-for-food program. U.S. Senate investigators say top Russian politicians, including advisers to President Vladimir Putin, received oil rights worth millions of dollars from Saddam Hussein. One of those politicians is Vladimir Zhirinovsky, an outspoken Russian nationalist.

Senior United Nations Correspondent Richard Roth with the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The oil was allegedly a reward for supporting Saddam's regime and calling for an end to economic sanctions against it, according to former top Iraqi officials interviewed by Senate investigators. Iraqi oil ministry records cited in the report allege Zhirinovsky even hired an American company, Houston-based Bayoil, as a middleman to take possession of some of his oil and sell it on the open market. Bayoil and its CEO are under federal indictment for paying Saddam illegal surcharges to get Iraqi oil.

Zhirinovsky says he did lobby Iraq to get millions in debts to Russia paid off, but never personally profited from oil-for-food payoffs.

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY (through translator): We received no money from Iraq, signed no contracts, and haven't seen any Iraqi oil whatsoever, not a single drop of it.

ROTH: The alleged profits for Zhirinovsky on his deals, about $9 million. But according to the Senate report, Zhirinovsky was not the only Russian politician rewarded by Iraq.

The report says President Vladimir Putin's United Russia Party got oil allocations, as did a top Putin adviser Alexander Voloshin and the Russian foreign ministry. In all, some 90 million barrels to top Russian officials and $3 million profit, according to the Senate report.

Former Iraqi officials told investigators they were "buying influence" and providing "compensation for support," especially at the U.N. Security Council. The Russian government was largely silent, though a deputy foreign minister said, "No evidence showing that Russian companies or individuals involved in the oil-for-food program committed offenses has been provided. We are puzzled by the nature of the report."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: According to the documents the Senate committee says it has, at one point Zhirinovsky said he couldn't come up with the surcharges and was told by Iraqi authorities, "Pay up or you get nothing." At another point, according to the documents, Saddam Hussein ordered that Russia be rewarded for threatening to veto a tougher Security Council resolution on sanctions -- Lou.

DOBBS: Richard Roth, thank you.

The Senate tonight is also set for what could be an historic battle over the fate and future of the filibuster. The nominations of two controversial judges are expected to go before the full Senate this week. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has warned that if Democrats block those nominations, Republicans will move to end the filibuster.

Joe Johns reports now from Capitol Hill -- Joe.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the negotiations continue, so do the attempts at persuasion to try to get just a handful of United States senators to go one way or the other on this. Some of this is very much out in the open, including earlier today twice the Senate Democratic leader called on a group of senators to become "profiles in courage." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: I address my remarks now to Republican senators. We only need a handful. We only need a handful to stand up and say what is going on is wrong.

We have three separate equal branches -- but equal branches of government. We believe in a system of checks and balances. And we are not going to let the White House run the Senate, and therefore I'm going to vote against nuclear option. We only need six profiles in courage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Both sides are claiming they do have the votes or will have the votes if it comes to that to win if this thing reaches the Senate floor, but there are a lot of mixed feelings. For instance, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, of course, within the last 24 hours suggested the Senate was skating on thin ice on this. However, his office issuing a clarification to us just a little while ago, saying there's no question he will vote with the Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, if it comes to that.

Behind the scenes there is intense negotiations centered on Senator John McCain, the Republican of Arizona, and the Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Democrats have been circulating language that would translate into a deal with Democrats permitting a straight up- or-down vote on most of the appellate judges currently being filibustered. However, that deal includes language allowing filibusters in extraordinary situations. It's not clear who would get to decide what an extraordinary situation is.

Now, we're told just a little while ago a meeting broke up with Reid emerging, saying this thing may very well end up being decided in a vote on the Senate floor. Of course, judges could be on the floor of the United States Senate tomorrow, or more likely Wednesday -- Lou.

DOBBS: Joe, Harry Reid, Senator Reid, has called President Bush a loser. He has antagonized the Republican leadership. He has five too few votes. What in the world does he think he can negotiate here?

JOHNS: Well, he has admitted in some cases he is not real good with the language he uses. Nonetheless, he feels very strongly about the things he says, especially with regard to this issue.

He says he's still negotiating in good faith. And the negotiations do continue, Lou. He continues talking to Majority Leader Frist.

So the question, of course, is, can something be worked out? There's another issue, of course. That is the possibility of negotiations outside of the leadership. Members like McCain and Nelson getting together to come up with something on their own. That's also still a possibility -- Lou.

DOBBS: Joe, thank you very much. Joe Johns reporting from Capitol Hill.

And that, of course, the filibuster, is the subject of our poll tonight. Is the filibuster an archaic device to thwart majority rule, or is it an important historical safeguard for minority rights in the U.S. Senate? Vote for either archaic device or important safeguard, and please cast that vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up in the broadcast.

Up next, the White House versus "Newsweek" magazine. "Newsweek" retracts its story on U.S. interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. "The Washington Post" media columnist is our guest here next.

And fighting the latest so-called free trade agreement that could cost millions of Americans their jobs. The head of the nation's largest labor union will join us to tell us why Congress simply must defeat CAFTA.

And an extreme event in the center of our solar system. How a massive solar storm could disrupt our lives.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: An extreme event that began on the surface of the sun hit the Earth yesterday. The geomagnetic storm reached the strongest possible rating from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Bill Tucker has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They are officially known as coronal mass expulsions, but most people know them better at solar flares. This is what one looks like. And it turns out that what most people may never know is happening can have a big impact.

LARRY COMBS, NOAA: Economically, they can be devastating. And they have been ranked up as -- in monetary value with the expenses they can cause, just imagining on power grids and satellite operations, that are equivalent to hurricanes, the damage that hurricanes can do.

TUCKER: That's because coronal mass expulsions become geomagnetic storms once they hit the Earth's atmosphere. This weekend's storm ranked at the very top of the scale, a G-5, but fortunately it only lasted about nine hours.

At their worst, these type of storms can affect satellites, disrupting communications, causing dropped cell phone calls, interrupting data and video feeds. They can cause power grids to fluctuate uncontrollably, even crash them and cause blackouts.

In 1989, thousands of Canadians lost power in what's described as a geomagnetic super storm. There have even been reports suggesting that these storms can significantlyly increase people's blood pressure. But not every effect is dire.

CHARLES LU, ASTROPHYSICIST, HAYDEN PLANETARIUM: When the solar particles hit the upper Earth atmosphere, they collide with molecules that are in the upper atmosphere and they can cause them to glow, creating beautiful auroras, the northern lights and the southern lights that can produce a spectacular natural light show for all the world to see.

TUCKER: This weekend, parts of the United States which ordinarily never see an aurora saw one.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: There were reports of aurora citings in southern California, Arizona, and Mississippi. Fortunately, the storm hit early Sunday morning Eastern Daylight Time, and it was over quickly. So, Lou, it only caused minor fluctuations in the power grids of some northern utilities.

DOBBS: OK. Good news for all of us.

TUCKER: Exactly.

DOBBS: Thank you very much. Bill Tucker.

This year's Atlantic hurricane season is once again expected to be busier than normal after a devastating series of storms last year. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association -- Agency and Administration -- we've got all the A's in there, predicted 12 to 15 named tropical storms would form between the first of June and November 30.

Seven to nine storms are expected to become full-blown hurricanes. Three to five expected to turn into major hurricanes. In an average season, there are only two major hurricanes.

Last year, forecasters correctly forecast two to four of the major storms. Four hurricanes with winds upwards of 111 miles an hour slammed into Florida, of course, causing more than $40 billion in damage last year.

Coming up next here, "Newsweek" magazine has just retracted a story that some say triggered riots and led to 16 deaths. I'll be talking with Howard Kurtz. He is the media critic and columnist for "The Washington Post."

And the debate over evolution, intelligent design, and what we should be teaching in our schools. It could be a deciding factor in one Pennsylvania election tomorrow.

That and much more still ahead here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: "Newsweek" magazine tonight just within the last hour- and-a-half has retracted its controversial report suggesting U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran. Their retraction follows a storm of protests from the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, and violent demonstrations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Muslim countries.

Joining me now is Howard Kurtz, "Washington Post" media columnist. Howard, first, why in your best judgment did it take "Newsweek" so long, when they said there were things wrong with the story, to retract it?

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, CNN'S "RELIABLE SOURCES": Well, "Newsweek" editor Mark Whitaker, Lou, told me this afternoon that he felt they had already retracted the story yesterday when he personally apologized for the things that were wrong, but the ratcheting up of the rhetoric by various Bush administration officials, as you just mentioned, put "Newsweek" in kind of a box, so they threw up their hands and said, all right, we're putting up a formal retraction. They have not been able to defend this story since the riots took place and since they went back to their original source, an unnamed senior U.S. official, who now says that he can't be certain that this incident about the Koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay.

DOBBS: And as you know, "Newsweek" in its article wrote "sources," not "source" but "sources" on this story. How could they refer to the plural in their reporting, and then in the retraction and clarifications refer to a single source?

KURTZ: Based on what I know, the use of the word "sources" appears to be misleading, because it was one person, a person who -- identity we do not know. A person who they decided to gamble their reputation on, because they dealt with in the past and thought that he was reliable. But you know, relying on unnamed sources, in particularly one unnamed source, is a risky business as "Newsweek," to its dismay, has learned.

DOBBS: And Howard, the way in which the media, the news media will be following up on this story, I'm personally taken by the rather strong words on the part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, referring to lives have been lost, putting it squarely upon "Newsweek" magazine. The White House, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, doing much the same thing, as our Ed Henry reported. I'm very personally as a journalist uncomfortable with that, particularly since the White House has not in any way castigated the governments of Afghanistan or criticized them, or Afghanistan or Pakistan, for firing on their own citizens.

Do you find this to be -- let me put it this way, a retraction and a story that they are taking to great political service?

KURTZ: Well, clearly they would rather talk about "Newsweek's" problems than their own problems in the region. And it's not like this is the first time we have heard this allegation about desecrating the Koran. A number of former detainees at Guantanamo have made this before, but "Newsweek" now says, well, we have got a source who is a U.S. government official who is confirming it. That's what they've now backed off. I would agree that there were probably many elements that went into the violent protests in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere. Clearly, there are anti-American extremists who seized upon this report as a way to exploit sentiment against the United States, but I think it's also undeniable that "Newsweek" provided the spark in the rather dry tinder of anti-American -- for the dry tinder of anti-American sentiments in that part of the world.

DOBBS: My point is, no question, bad journalism on the part of "Newsweek" magazine. Also, no question that both societies, Afghanistan and Pakistan, blessed as they are with imams and holy men who would love to stir up their citizenry against the United States.

Howard, do you think that context will be important as the media covers this story going forward?

KURTZ: I hope that the context is important, but I fear that we're into one of the feeding frenzies where the entire focus is going to be on what "Newsweek" did wrong, which is part of the story, an undeniably important part of the story, but not necessarily the whole story.

DOBBS: Perhaps, Howard, we could all make some news and sort of separate ourselves from the pack from time to time.

Howard, thank you very much, as always. Howard Kurtz, "Washington Post," and the host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES."

Turning now to another controversy tonight. Mexican President Vicente Fox is refusing to apologize for his remarks criticizing -- stereotyping African-Americans. President Fox says Mexicans in the United States are doing jobs that, quote, "not even blacks want to do," end quote. That comment sparked outrage in the African-American community. It sparked outrage in a lot of communities. It's also adding to the rising tensions between the United States and Mexico over the issue of border security and illegal immigration. Casey Wian reports from Los Angeles.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's hard to imagine that Mexican President Vicente Fox could say much more to anger the United States. He's already praised Mexican illegal aliens as "heroes," called border fences "discriminatory," and threatened to complain to the United Nations over the Real ID Act. But he's done it.

Speaking to the Texas-Mexico Frozen Food Council Friday, Fox insulted African-Americans.

PRES. VICENTE FOX, MEXICO (through translator): There's no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work, are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States.

WIAN: U.S. African-American leaders responded with outrage, including Al Sharpton, who went to New York's Mexican consulate to demand an apology.

AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: I called on President Fox to just unequivocally apologize for a statement that is offensive, that is biased, and confirms the stereotype that blacks are the permanent lower tier of the workforce in this country.

WIAN: The State Department also says it has raised the issue with the Mexican government.

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: Obviously, that's a very insensitive and inappropriate way to phrase this, and we would hope that they would clarify the remark if they have a chance.

WIAN: The Mexican embassy did release a clarification stating, "President Vicente Fox conveys his utmost respect to all minorities, and thus regrets and expresses his disagreement with the interpretation that described yesterday's statement as racist." But the absence of an apology is being criticized even by the Mexican press.

JOSE CARRENO, "EL UNIVERSAL": He needs to apologize publicly and say, hey, you know what, this is not what I meant, this is not what I am. Mexico is not a racist country. And if you look at the Mexican press today -- since yesterday, better said -- there has been a lot of criticism to President Fox.

WIAN: The Mexican government says Fox was merely trying to stress the importance of Mexican workers to the United States.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: In recent weeks, Fox has sharply criticized U.S. border security measures, he says infringe upon the rights of Mexican citizens living in the United States. Injecting race into the debate over illegal immigration is not likely to win President Fox many allies here, Lou.

DOBBS: This government, headed by President Vicente Fox, is I think we could say, peculiar at best. A president of a country that is proud of the fact that his people are fleeing the economic problems of the nation he is responsible for leading, and then criticizing and stereotyping others. It's peculiar. Casey, what has been the reaction in Los Angeles in particular?

WIAN: Well, the reaction here has been the same as it's been across the nation, one of outrage. There was a group of civil rights organizations, including the National Council of La Raza, the Urban League, that just put out a statement about an hour ago condemning President Fox's remarks, Lou.

DOBBS: Casey, thank you very much. Casey Wian from Los Angeles.

Police in riot gear were called in to break up a protest over a piece of artwork in Southern California over the weekend. A 20-foot high arch in Baldwin Park, California bears inscriptions that read, "it was better before they came," and "this land was Mexican once and was Indian always, and will be again."

The city of Baldwin Park, which is 70 percent Hispanic, commissioned that arch 12 years ago. A recently formed anti-illegal immigration group called Save Our State organized this weekend's protest against that artwork. The group's executive director calls the work "incredibly offensive," saying it essentially talks about returning this land to Mexico.

Tonight's quote of the day comes from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Secretary Rice today appealing to Syria's neighbors to pressure the country to close its borders to militants trying to cross the borders of Iraq to join the Iraqi insurgency. Secretary Rice said, quote: "The Syrian government's unwillingness to deal with the crossings of their border into Iraq is frustrating the will of the Iraqi people."

We applaud Secretary Rice and the Bush administration for addressing the importance of border security.

Coming up next here, the nation's biggest group of working Americans taking on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. How the AFL-CIO is fighting so-called free trade, that agreement in particular, next.

In "Debating Our Origins": evolution, creationism, intelligent design, among the critical issues in a looming school board election in one American town tomorrow. Three of the candidates will be our guests here, ahead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: President Bush this weekend called upon Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement which is facing rising opposition in Congress, in fact in both parties.

The nation's biggest labor union also opposes CAFTA. Secretary- Treasurer of the AFL-CIO Richard Trumka says CAFTA is not the answer to the challenges facing the Central-American countries, nor certainly to the United States and working men and women in this country.

He says the deal will protect big business while wiping out jobs and adding to poverty in Central America.

Richard Trumka, the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, is our guest tonight.

Good to have you with us.

RICHARD TRUMKA, SECRETARY-TREASURER, AFL-CIO: Thanks, Lou. Thanks for having me on again.

DOBBS: CAFTA, is it worse than NAFTA?

TRUMKA: It really is. It's a failed model. It's based after the failed NAFTA. But it actually take as step or two backwards when it comes to workers' rights and environmental rights. We have no enforcement mechanism and the only thing that these companies have to agree to or comply with is the laws that are currently on the books. And those laws can be scaled back at any time.

So the 40 percent of the workers in Central America that eastern less than $2 a day will likely grow. The number of American jobs in the United States will flow there will increase. And people on both sides, workers on both sides of the border, will suffer because of this agreement.

It is perhaps the worst-drawn agreement that we have seen of the bunch. And they have all been bad.

DOBBS: The fact is that this administration seems absolutely committed these types of agreements -- NAFTA, CAFTA -- which a number of critics have described as basically outsourcing agreements. What do you think is the likely outcome of this legislation in Congress?

TRUMKA: I think we'll defeat this one. We have a growing number of people on both sides of the aisle. This week the president put on his big push. He brought in the six presidents from Central-American countries. They have had no effect. No one switched over. The demonstrations have continued in those countries. Workers in Costa Rica right now are demonstrating. Guatemala, they're demonstrating.

So we've not seen any change, and we think we'll defeat it.

DOBBS: Robert Portman, the U.S. trade representative saying that it's important to deal with the deficit in China. And at the same time the Commerce Department saying that they are going to impose limits on textile imports from China after they soared to 1,500 percent with the lifting of quotas in December.

Do you think this administration is beginning -- beginning -- to awaken to the issues of free trade being a very expensive proposition for this country?

TRUMKA: I think they are starting to understand it's a political problem for them. I don't think they really understand that what they are doing is bad for the country and it's killing the working class and the middle class in the United States. Elsewise they wouldn't have negotiated an agreement like CAFTA that is so backwards. It's a step backwards from even NAFTA which is a failed trade model.

DOBBS: Richard Trumka the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, always good to talk to you.

TRUMKA: Thanks, Lou. Thanks for having us on.

A reminder now to vote in our poll. The question: Is the filibuster an archaic device to thwart majority rule in the Senate or is it an important historical safeguard for minority rights? Vote for either "archaic device" or "important safeguard." Please cast your votes as loudobbs.com; results coming up here shortly.

Coming up at the top of the hour, However, on CNN, "Anderson Cooper 360."

Anderson is here to tell us all about it.

COOPER: Lou, thanks very much.

About 14 minutes from now: 911, lives on the line. Millions of Americans depend on it. Will help really come when you need it? The system is under more pressure than ever before. Tonight, a special look at 911: the triumphs and tragedies.

Also tonight, "Newsweek" retracts a story that's being blamed for riots in Afghanistan. What went wrong? We'll take a close look.

Lou?

DOBBS: Anderson, thank you.

"Debating Our Origins," one high school's debate over what to teach our children coming right up. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: My next guests are members of one Pennsylvania community that is divided in a debate that is taking place all around the country. It is the debate over our origins and how evolution or creationism or intelligent design should be taught in our nation's public schools.

That debate is at the center of a school board election that will be held tomorrow in Dover, Pennsylvania.

The current school board voted last year to order ninth grade teachers to mention intelligent design in their biology classes. That prompted, in fact, one of my guests, Jeff Brown, and two others to resign from the school board. He's now running again from the school board and against the intelligent design mandate. Alan Bonsell is another candidate in tomorrow's election who says intelligent design is a scientific theory and should be taught in science classes. Another candidate, Rob McIlvaine, disagrees. He says intelligent design should not be taught in science classes.

Thank you all for being here tonight.

How many candidates are there running tomorrow?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fourteen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eighteen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's 18.

DOBBS: Eighteen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eighteen and seven slots.

DOBBS: Well, in Dover, they are getting pretty interested in their schools, and that's a positive sign.

Let me begin with you, Jeff. You want intelligent design out of the curriculum. What is it about intelligent design that set you off, caused you to resign in fact from the board?

JEFF BROWN, DOVER, PA SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATE: It's an unproven hypothesis. And to bring one unproven hypothesis into our science classes is to me to open the door for every unproven hypothesis out there. And I have no idea how many there are.

DOBBS: Well, I don't either. Let me ask you this, Rob. Is it worthy of teaching in your judgment in school but not in a science class?

ROB MCILVAINE, DOVER, PA SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATE: Lou, I agree wholeheartedly that it's a subject that's worthy of respect, it's worthy of understanding. And it needs to be put in the proper learning context, such as a comparative religion class, a social studies class, but not in a science class, particularly when we have to equip our students with analytical reasoning skills to be able to cope in an increasingly competitive world.

DOBBS: Alan, you subscribe, at least to the degree one can, about intelligent design. What is your position?

ALAN BONSELL, DOVER, PA SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATE: Our position is, is that what we have in our school district right now, the only thing different from last year to this year is that there's a one-minute statement that's being said to our children, at our students one time in January and one time in June, that just mentions basically, to get the kids aware that there is other theories out there besides Darwin.

DOBBS: Well, let me ask each of you, is religion playing any part in your position here? Let me ask you first, Jeff.

BROWN: In my case, I guess I would have to say it does. I read the book "Of Pandas and People," and by the second paragraph I felt that they were calling me an atheist, because I did not subscribe to their particular viewpoint on intelligent design.

I don't consider myself an atheist. I consider myself a Christian, to be honest. But I felt their definition was so narrow and so slanted that my own beliefs were being classed with those of essentially no belief whatsoever.

So, yes, in that sense, my religion is playing a part in this. I felt my religion was being insulted and attacked by the supplemental textbook that accompanies this subject in our school.

DOBBS: Alan, how about you?

BONSELL: Well, no, it's not religious at all. And Mr. Brown's mistaken in the fact that the book is not a supplemental textbook at all. It's just a library book in the library. It's not required to be looked at, read, anything as far as that goes. Dr. Michael Behe was just in Dover not -- less than a month ago. And he is an award- winning microbiologist who gave us an informational seminar on exactly what the intelligent design theory is. And to have intelligent design discussed in social studies class, like Mr. McIlvaine has said, would be like taking right between the Civil War and World War I, we're going to talk about the flagellum on a bacteria. It just doesn't fit.

DOBBS: Rob?

MCILVAINE: Well, I believe very strongly that religion plays in all of our lives, with respect to how religion describes our values as individuals, as human beings. In my particular case, open-mindedness, tolerance, acceptance of varying viewpoints, and trying to appreciate diversity. It's very important, certainly as citizens in a highly fractured, conflicted world.

In this particular case, I think the school district missed an opportunity to be able to cast intelligent design as a topic for discussion, whereby varying viewpoints could be entertained and a clear understanding arrived at. And such was not the case.

DOBBS: Is it -- give us your sense of the atmosphere among students there. Is there some desperate desire to move beyond evolution? It does despite what everyone would suggest otherwise. One of the things -- I'll just ask you this way -- one of the things that disturbs me is to look at something that is the most rigorous and most detailed and specialized and tested of sciences, and that is physics, and to see how it is, if you will forgive the expression, evolved over the course of even the past half-century -- forget the past 100 years, but certainly the past half-century -- into new theories. But so often so much of what is taught is not referred to as mathematical-based theories nor is it taught that we may be expanding our knowledge further that may give us entirely new underpinnings and change the very foundation of the discipline.

Doesn't that concern you in almost every aspect of the debates and issues that will be going on about evolution within the school, at the high school level, that students should be exposed to that? The issue of religion and intelligent design. Do you all believe that they should -- that they could live harmoniously in the same curriculum? And I will ask you first, Jeff, whether or not in the same class?

BROWN: I suppose they could. Whether they are doing it is another question. I don't believe that the...

DOBBS: Let me rephrase it.

BROWN: ... that intelligent design...

DOBBS: Should they? Should they?

BROWN: Should they? Yes, yes, they should. I agree, they should. I also agree that it should only rain between midnight and 4:00 a.m. so that the days are nice and clear, but that's not the way it works.

DOBBS: Rob, you get a quick -- we're out of time. Rob? MCILVAINE: I believe that you have got to entertain every possible idea and to put it into the appropriate context, the appropriate subject. But you must allow that discussion to occur openly and intelligently.

DOBBS: You get the last quick word, Alan, Alan.

BONSELL: I have no problem with comparative religion classes. The only thing is, intelligent design and religion are two separate things. One is science, one is religion.

DOBBS: Gentlemen, we thank you. We'll look forward to the results of tomorrow's election. Dover certainly has a spirited contest to decide. We look forward to it, as I know you do.

BONSELL: Thank you very much.

BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Dobbs.

DOBBS: Still ahead here, the results of our poll and a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results of our poll: 93 percent of you say the filibuster is an important safeguard for minority rights in the U.S. Senate.

Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. Among our guests, the man leading the Senate investigation of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal, Senator Norm Coleman. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now -- Anderson.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Lou, thanks very much.

END

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 May 16, 2005 - 18:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the White House versus "Newsweek" magazine. The White House blasting "Newsweek" over its reporting on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. And in just the past hour "Newsweek" has retracted its story. We'll have complete coverage tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Also ahead on LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, urgent new efforts to break the deadlock in the nuclear confrontations with North Korea and Iran.

The battle over judicial appointments and filibusters: the Senate is on the brink of a huge showdown.

And extreme event: a massive solar storm, the most powerful possible. How the storm could disrupt life here on Earth. A special report.

This is LOU DOBBS, for news, debate and opinion, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DOBBS: Good evening.

"Newsweek" magazine tonight has retracted its story suggesting U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Quran. Earlier, the White House declared it's "puzzled," it's word, that "Newsweek" admitted the facts were wrong but then refused to publish a full retraction. Over the past hour, that is precisely what has happened. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went on to say journalists need to be very careful about what they say.

From the Pentagon tonight, Barbara Starr reports on the Defense Department's efforts to control the damage. And from the White House, Ed Henry reports on attempts to restore the U.S. image in the Muslim world.

We begin with Barbara Starr at the Pentagon -- Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Lou, that retraction by "Newsweek" was something the Bush administration had been pressing for here in Washington all day.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) STARR (voice-over): Allegations so far unproven that U.S. military personnel desecrated the Quran at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have swirled around for months. But then, in its May 9 issue, "Newsweek" magazine said, "... interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Quran down a toilet." That touched off riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving at least 15 dead.

Now "Newsweek" says they got it wrong. Their source no longer certain about where he got the information that he told the magazine.

DAN KLAIDMAN, "NEWSWEEK" WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: This was an honest mistake. We are obviously not very happy about it.

STARR: Across Washington, the Bush administration striking back hard at "Newsweek".

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: It's appalling, really, that an article that was unfounded to begin with has caused so much harm.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: People lost their lives. People are dead. And -- and that's unfortunate.

STARR: The military opened a new inquiry after the "Newsweek" article, publicly acknowledging it is looking into allegations of mishandling the Quran. But so far, officials say they haven't found any evidence of wrongdoing.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: More than one detainee tore pages out of the Quran and put it in the toilet in protest to stop up the toilet. But we have not found it where any wrongdoing on the part of U.S. service members.

STARR: But in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where tensions still are running high, the military is trying to make sure everyone knows its side of the story.

COL. JAMES YONTS, COALITION SPOKESMAN, AFGHANISTAN: Any disrespect to the Quran and any other religion is not tolerated by our culture and our values. That goes against our beliefs. And we do not tolerate that.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STARR: Lou, the Pentagon's position remains they will investigate all credible allegations. They say so far they haven't found any. But to be clear, Lou, there are two military inquiries that are still open about what might have happened at Guantanamo Bay, so this story is not quite over just yet -- Lou.

DOBBS: Indeed, it's not, Barbara. And as to the issue of knocking this story down from the outset, any explanation on the part of the Pentagon as to why it did not simply knock this report down to begin with? STARR: Well, officials say that they did once they realized what "Newsweek" was publishing, that they did talk to them. For its part, "Newsweek" says that it went to two Pentagon officials after it got its original information, one official just did not respond, another official disputed another part of the story. "Newsweek" also says that they went back to their original source, as we said in our report, and that original source then could not recall exactly where he had learned or read the information about the Quran allegations.

So, Lou, a lot of confusion about who said what to who.

DOBBS: Confusion at "Newsweek" magazine, which quoted -- which reported sources as the basis for that story and since is referring to a singular source. Some confusion at the Pentagon, at least among certain high officials as well.

Barbara Starr, as always, thank you.

A senior White House official tonight applauded "Newsweek's" decision to retract its story. But the official said "Newsweek" must do more to repair the damage that the White House blames on the magazine.

Ed Henry reports from the White House -- Ed.

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Lou.

That's right. I just got off the phone with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan. He called this a good first step to try to repair the damage already done. But McClellan said he also wants to see "Newsweek" lay out exactly what went wrong in the reporting of this story. He also wants to see the magazine show the Muslim world and actually talk to the Muslim press about the fact that, in McClellan's word, U.S. interrogators actually treat the Quran with respect.

Earlier today, President Bush attended an energy event in Virginia. He was asked about the "Newsweek" controversy. He would not comment on it directly. But today I did interview McClellan earlier, before the retraction, and Scott McClellan expressed outrage that "Newsweek" had initially just apologized and admitted errors but did not immediately issue a full retraction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Damage has been done. And what this report did was provide people who are opposed to the United States and who are on the other side of the war on terrorism with the ability to go out and exploit this report for their own purposes. They've used it to insight violence, violence that led to the deaths of individuals. Some 15, 16, 17 individuals have lost their lives in the aftermath of this report.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: And White House officials are very concerned that Islamist leaders in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere are planning to go ahead with protests that they had planned before the retraction. White House officials concerned that in fact there could be even more violence incited. That's why they have been a very aggressive today in reaching out to the Muslim press, using a press center, in fact, that the White House had already previously set up in London to try to reach out directly to the Muslim world, tell them about this apology and try to knock this story down completely.

Scott McClellan telling me a short while ago that's what they want "Newsweek" to do as well now, join the White House in that effort. But McClellan and other officials fear that the genie is already out of the bottle -- Lou.

DOBBS: Well, Ed, let's put this story in some context and bring some perspective to it, as well. Donald Rumsfeld talking about lives having been lost, Scott McClellan doing precisely the same thing. It is important to point out that in Afghanistan and Pakistan the imams, the Muslim clergy, are quick and invigorated to turning their people to emotional exercises, whether riots, as in this case, or something more constrained. This -- to put this on "Newsweek" is -- is really a bit (ph) strong, is it not?

HENRY: Well, in fact, as you mentioned, Lou, that anger towards the United States was already out there before this "Newsweek" report, in part because of some mistakes that the administration itself has made. McClellan and other acknowledging obviously previous abuses at Guantanamo Bay, as well as the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Iraq, have previously come up.

Those obviously help incite previous violence. But what McClellan and other White House officials point out is, when those previous incidents have occurred, the White House and this administration, they say, have been very aggressive in dealing with those abuses and trying to repair the damage.

So clearly some of that damage was there before the "Newsweek" report, but the White House is now putting heavy pressure on "Newsweek" magazine to also do what the White House says it has done before, which is to deal with this moving forward -- Lou.

DOBBS: I suppose what I would ask you is this: did the White House in any way criticize the Pakistani government or Pakistan leadership for having its own security forces fire into a crowd of protesting Muslims concerned about the Quran?

HENRY: They have not, but the bottom line, Lou, is that they are saying they are putting it on "Newsweek" right now -- Lou.

DOBBS: Ed Henry, thank you.

Turning to the war in Iraq, an American civilian and two Iraqis working for a western firm were killed in a bomb attack in eastern Baghdad. Two other Iraqis were wounded.

Insurgents also launched new attacks against Iraqi security forces. Nine Iraqi soldiers were killed in a bomb attack in southern Baghdad. And five Iraqi national guardsmen were killed in a mortar attack near Baquba. In western Iraq a suicide bomber killed at least five Iraqis near the border with Syria.

Urgent new efforts tonight to break the deadlock in the escalating nuclear confrontations with both North Korea and Iran. South Korea today offered North Korea what it called a significant proposal to return to six-country talks, and Europe is trying one last time to persuade Iran to give up its ambitions for a nuclear program.

Kitty Pilgrim reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In talks today, South Korea tried to cajole North Korea back to diplomatic negotiations about its nuclear program. It promised North Korea a substantial, undisclosed proposal if it did. It's been nearly a year since North Korea abandoned the six-way talks, and there are worries North Korea might soon test a nuclear weapon. If that test happens, U.S. officials this weekend said it will be the last straw.

STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It would be something where the North Koreans would be defying not only us, but our partners in the six-party talks. And action would have to be -- have to be taken.

PILGRIM: Experts say tensions are building. In the last year, North Korea declared itself a nuclear power, test-fired a missile over the Sea of Japan, and shut down a reactor to remove 8,000 spent fuel rods, enough to make several more nuclear bombs. Now satellite photos indicate a test may be being prepared.

JAMES WALSH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: If they are going to test, it's probably going to be sooner rather than later. And the U.S. policy on this is on a train that is headed towards a collision course in June. The U.S. is talking about tough engagement in June, trying to get a quarantine on North Korea, trying to get them referred to the Security Council.

PILGRIM: Also at a crisis point, talks with Iran over its nuclear program. The United States has let Europeans take the lead with a diplomatic solution, but the U.S. is increasingly vocal about the lack of progress.

BOUCHER: We've supported the Europeans. We think it's time for the Iranians to come to terms and to comply with their desire. We think it's time for the Iranians to demonstrate to the world that they are not going to develop nuclear weapons, and to do so with objective guarantees.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Well, the chances for that to succeed increasingly dim. Iran's parliament on Sunday ratified an agreement urging the government to restart uranium enrichment. And the next round of talks is scheduled for next week, but already Iran is saying it's determined to pursue its right to a nuclear program -- Lou.

DOBBS: And it's still at best unclear as to what the U.S. policy and steps would be to create a positive outcome.

PILGRIM: Yes. When pressed today, the State Department spokesman said he didn't deal in hypotheticals, which is the usual reason that they give.

DOBBS: Hypotheticals, in this case seeking a substantive answer to an issue as grave as both Iran and North Korea. Kitty, thank you very much. Kitty Pilgrim.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan with a warning for the United States today, saying the U.N. Security Council could refuse to take any action against Iran over its nuclear program and ambitions. The United States and Britain may ask the Security Council to approve sanctions if Iran begins reprocessing nuclear fuel. But in an interview with "USA Today," Annan said China and Russia might veto such sanctions.

Annan warned the United States that "action or inaction will have a great impact on future cases" -- that's action or inaction -- "and on our efforts to promote nuclear nonproliferation."

Still ahead here, more on "Newsweek's" decision to retract its story on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay.

Also coming up, the latest developments in the U.N. oil-for-food scandal. Tonight, how two close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin have been involved.

And a Senate showdown could be only hours away, certainly a matter of days. The escalating battle over judicial nominees and filibusters and what it could mean for the future of the Senate and majority rule and minority rights.

Those reports, a great deal more, still ahead here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: New developments tonight in the widening U.N. scandal over Iraq's oil-for-food program. U.S. Senate investigators say top Russian politicians, including advisers to President Vladimir Putin, received oil rights worth millions of dollars from Saddam Hussein. One of those politicians is Vladimir Zhirinovsky, an outspoken Russian nationalist.

Senior United Nations Correspondent Richard Roth with the report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RICHARD ROTH, CNN SR. U.N. CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The oil was allegedly a reward for supporting Saddam's regime and calling for an end to economic sanctions against it, according to former top Iraqi officials interviewed by Senate investigators. Iraqi oil ministry records cited in the report allege Zhirinovsky even hired an American company, Houston-based Bayoil, as a middleman to take possession of some of his oil and sell it on the open market. Bayoil and its CEO are under federal indictment for paying Saddam illegal surcharges to get Iraqi oil.

Zhirinovsky says he did lobby Iraq to get millions in debts to Russia paid off, but never personally profited from oil-for-food payoffs.

VLADIMIR ZHIRINOVSKY (through translator): We received no money from Iraq, signed no contracts, and haven't seen any Iraqi oil whatsoever, not a single drop of it.

ROTH: The alleged profits for Zhirinovsky on his deals, about $9 million. But according to the Senate report, Zhirinovsky was not the only Russian politician rewarded by Iraq.

The report says President Vladimir Putin's United Russia Party got oil allocations, as did a top Putin adviser Alexander Voloshin and the Russian foreign ministry. In all, some 90 million barrels to top Russian officials and $3 million profit, according to the Senate report.

Former Iraqi officials told investigators they were "buying influence" and providing "compensation for support," especially at the U.N. Security Council. The Russian government was largely silent, though a deputy foreign minister said, "No evidence showing that Russian companies or individuals involved in the oil-for-food program committed offenses has been provided. We are puzzled by the nature of the report."

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROTH: According to the documents the Senate committee says it has, at one point Zhirinovsky said he couldn't come up with the surcharges and was told by Iraqi authorities, "Pay up or you get nothing." At another point, according to the documents, Saddam Hussein ordered that Russia be rewarded for threatening to veto a tougher Security Council resolution on sanctions -- Lou.

DOBBS: Richard Roth, thank you.

The Senate tonight is also set for what could be an historic battle over the fate and future of the filibuster. The nominations of two controversial judges are expected to go before the full Senate this week. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has warned that if Democrats block those nominations, Republicans will move to end the filibuster.

Joe Johns reports now from Capitol Hill -- Joe.

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the negotiations continue, so do the attempts at persuasion to try to get just a handful of United States senators to go one way or the other on this. Some of this is very much out in the open, including earlier today twice the Senate Democratic leader called on a group of senators to become "profiles in courage." (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MINORITY LEADER: I address my remarks now to Republican senators. We only need a handful. We only need a handful to stand up and say what is going on is wrong.

We have three separate equal branches -- but equal branches of government. We believe in a system of checks and balances. And we are not going to let the White House run the Senate, and therefore I'm going to vote against nuclear option. We only need six profiles in courage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHNS: Both sides are claiming they do have the votes or will have the votes if it comes to that to win if this thing reaches the Senate floor, but there are a lot of mixed feelings. For instance, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, of course, within the last 24 hours suggested the Senate was skating on thin ice on this. However, his office issuing a clarification to us just a little while ago, saying there's no question he will vote with the Republican majority leader, Bill Frist, if it comes to that.

Behind the scenes there is intense negotiations centered on Senator John McCain, the Republican of Arizona, and the Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Democrats have been circulating language that would translate into a deal with Democrats permitting a straight up- or-down vote on most of the appellate judges currently being filibustered. However, that deal includes language allowing filibusters in extraordinary situations. It's not clear who would get to decide what an extraordinary situation is.

Now, we're told just a little while ago a meeting broke up with Reid emerging, saying this thing may very well end up being decided in a vote on the Senate floor. Of course, judges could be on the floor of the United States Senate tomorrow, or more likely Wednesday -- Lou.

DOBBS: Joe, Harry Reid, Senator Reid, has called President Bush a loser. He has antagonized the Republican leadership. He has five too few votes. What in the world does he think he can negotiate here?

JOHNS: Well, he has admitted in some cases he is not real good with the language he uses. Nonetheless, he feels very strongly about the things he says, especially with regard to this issue.

He says he's still negotiating in good faith. And the negotiations do continue, Lou. He continues talking to Majority Leader Frist.

So the question, of course, is, can something be worked out? There's another issue, of course. That is the possibility of negotiations outside of the leadership. Members like McCain and Nelson getting together to come up with something on their own. That's also still a possibility -- Lou.

DOBBS: Joe, thank you very much. Joe Johns reporting from Capitol Hill.

And that, of course, the filibuster, is the subject of our poll tonight. Is the filibuster an archaic device to thwart majority rule, or is it an important historical safeguard for minority rights in the U.S. Senate? Vote for either archaic device or important safeguard, and please cast that vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up in the broadcast.

Up next, the White House versus "Newsweek" magazine. "Newsweek" retracts its story on U.S. interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. "The Washington Post" media columnist is our guest here next.

And fighting the latest so-called free trade agreement that could cost millions of Americans their jobs. The head of the nation's largest labor union will join us to tell us why Congress simply must defeat CAFTA.

And an extreme event in the center of our solar system. How a massive solar storm could disrupt our lives.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: An extreme event that began on the surface of the sun hit the Earth yesterday. The geomagnetic storm reached the strongest possible rating from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Bill Tucker has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They are officially known as coronal mass expulsions, but most people know them better at solar flares. This is what one looks like. And it turns out that what most people may never know is happening can have a big impact.

LARRY COMBS, NOAA: Economically, they can be devastating. And they have been ranked up as -- in monetary value with the expenses they can cause, just imagining on power grids and satellite operations, that are equivalent to hurricanes, the damage that hurricanes can do.

TUCKER: That's because coronal mass expulsions become geomagnetic storms once they hit the Earth's atmosphere. This weekend's storm ranked at the very top of the scale, a G-5, but fortunately it only lasted about nine hours.

At their worst, these type of storms can affect satellites, disrupting communications, causing dropped cell phone calls, interrupting data and video feeds. They can cause power grids to fluctuate uncontrollably, even crash them and cause blackouts.

In 1989, thousands of Canadians lost power in what's described as a geomagnetic super storm. There have even been reports suggesting that these storms can significantlyly increase people's blood pressure. But not every effect is dire.

CHARLES LU, ASTROPHYSICIST, HAYDEN PLANETARIUM: When the solar particles hit the upper Earth atmosphere, they collide with molecules that are in the upper atmosphere and they can cause them to glow, creating beautiful auroras, the northern lights and the southern lights that can produce a spectacular natural light show for all the world to see.

TUCKER: This weekend, parts of the United States which ordinarily never see an aurora saw one.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: There were reports of aurora citings in southern California, Arizona, and Mississippi. Fortunately, the storm hit early Sunday morning Eastern Daylight Time, and it was over quickly. So, Lou, it only caused minor fluctuations in the power grids of some northern utilities.

DOBBS: OK. Good news for all of us.

TUCKER: Exactly.

DOBBS: Thank you very much. Bill Tucker.

This year's Atlantic hurricane season is once again expected to be busier than normal after a devastating series of storms last year. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association -- Agency and Administration -- we've got all the A's in there, predicted 12 to 15 named tropical storms would form between the first of June and November 30.

Seven to nine storms are expected to become full-blown hurricanes. Three to five expected to turn into major hurricanes. In an average season, there are only two major hurricanes.

Last year, forecasters correctly forecast two to four of the major storms. Four hurricanes with winds upwards of 111 miles an hour slammed into Florida, of course, causing more than $40 billion in damage last year.

Coming up next here, "Newsweek" magazine has just retracted a story that some say triggered riots and led to 16 deaths. I'll be talking with Howard Kurtz. He is the media critic and columnist for "The Washington Post."

And the debate over evolution, intelligent design, and what we should be teaching in our schools. It could be a deciding factor in one Pennsylvania election tomorrow.

That and much more still ahead here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: "Newsweek" magazine tonight just within the last hour- and-a-half has retracted its controversial report suggesting U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran. Their retraction follows a storm of protests from the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department, and violent demonstrations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other Muslim countries.

Joining me now is Howard Kurtz, "Washington Post" media columnist. Howard, first, why in your best judgment did it take "Newsweek" so long, when they said there were things wrong with the story, to retract it?

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, CNN'S "RELIABLE SOURCES": Well, "Newsweek" editor Mark Whitaker, Lou, told me this afternoon that he felt they had already retracted the story yesterday when he personally apologized for the things that were wrong, but the ratcheting up of the rhetoric by various Bush administration officials, as you just mentioned, put "Newsweek" in kind of a box, so they threw up their hands and said, all right, we're putting up a formal retraction. They have not been able to defend this story since the riots took place and since they went back to their original source, an unnamed senior U.S. official, who now says that he can't be certain that this incident about the Koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay.

DOBBS: And as you know, "Newsweek" in its article wrote "sources," not "source" but "sources" on this story. How could they refer to the plural in their reporting, and then in the retraction and clarifications refer to a single source?

KURTZ: Based on what I know, the use of the word "sources" appears to be misleading, because it was one person, a person who -- identity we do not know. A person who they decided to gamble their reputation on, because they dealt with in the past and thought that he was reliable. But you know, relying on unnamed sources, in particularly one unnamed source, is a risky business as "Newsweek," to its dismay, has learned.

DOBBS: And Howard, the way in which the media, the news media will be following up on this story, I'm personally taken by the rather strong words on the part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, referring to lives have been lost, putting it squarely upon "Newsweek" magazine. The White House, Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, doing much the same thing, as our Ed Henry reported. I'm very personally as a journalist uncomfortable with that, particularly since the White House has not in any way castigated the governments of Afghanistan or criticized them, or Afghanistan or Pakistan, for firing on their own citizens.

Do you find this to be -- let me put it this way, a retraction and a story that they are taking to great political service?

KURTZ: Well, clearly they would rather talk about "Newsweek's" problems than their own problems in the region. And it's not like this is the first time we have heard this allegation about desecrating the Koran. A number of former detainees at Guantanamo have made this before, but "Newsweek" now says, well, we have got a source who is a U.S. government official who is confirming it. That's what they've now backed off. I would agree that there were probably many elements that went into the violent protests in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere. Clearly, there are anti-American extremists who seized upon this report as a way to exploit sentiment against the United States, but I think it's also undeniable that "Newsweek" provided the spark in the rather dry tinder of anti-American -- for the dry tinder of anti-American sentiments in that part of the world.

DOBBS: My point is, no question, bad journalism on the part of "Newsweek" magazine. Also, no question that both societies, Afghanistan and Pakistan, blessed as they are with imams and holy men who would love to stir up their citizenry against the United States.

Howard, do you think that context will be important as the media covers this story going forward?

KURTZ: I hope that the context is important, but I fear that we're into one of the feeding frenzies where the entire focus is going to be on what "Newsweek" did wrong, which is part of the story, an undeniably important part of the story, but not necessarily the whole story.

DOBBS: Perhaps, Howard, we could all make some news and sort of separate ourselves from the pack from time to time.

Howard, thank you very much, as always. Howard Kurtz, "Washington Post," and the host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES."

Turning now to another controversy tonight. Mexican President Vicente Fox is refusing to apologize for his remarks criticizing -- stereotyping African-Americans. President Fox says Mexicans in the United States are doing jobs that, quote, "not even blacks want to do," end quote. That comment sparked outrage in the African-American community. It sparked outrage in a lot of communities. It's also adding to the rising tensions between the United States and Mexico over the issue of border security and illegal immigration. Casey Wian reports from Los Angeles.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's hard to imagine that Mexican President Vicente Fox could say much more to anger the United States. He's already praised Mexican illegal aliens as "heroes," called border fences "discriminatory," and threatened to complain to the United Nations over the Real ID Act. But he's done it.

Speaking to the Texas-Mexico Frozen Food Council Friday, Fox insulted African-Americans.

PRES. VICENTE FOX, MEXICO (through translator): There's no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work, are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United States.

WIAN: U.S. African-American leaders responded with outrage, including Al Sharpton, who went to New York's Mexican consulate to demand an apology.

AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: I called on President Fox to just unequivocally apologize for a statement that is offensive, that is biased, and confirms the stereotype that blacks are the permanent lower tier of the workforce in this country.

WIAN: The State Department also says it has raised the issue with the Mexican government.

RICHARD BOUCHER, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: Obviously, that's a very insensitive and inappropriate way to phrase this, and we would hope that they would clarify the remark if they have a chance.

WIAN: The Mexican embassy did release a clarification stating, "President Vicente Fox conveys his utmost respect to all minorities, and thus regrets and expresses his disagreement with the interpretation that described yesterday's statement as racist." But the absence of an apology is being criticized even by the Mexican press.

JOSE CARRENO, "EL UNIVERSAL": He needs to apologize publicly and say, hey, you know what, this is not what I meant, this is not what I am. Mexico is not a racist country. And if you look at the Mexican press today -- since yesterday, better said -- there has been a lot of criticism to President Fox.

WIAN: The Mexican government says Fox was merely trying to stress the importance of Mexican workers to the United States.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: In recent weeks, Fox has sharply criticized U.S. border security measures, he says infringe upon the rights of Mexican citizens living in the United States. Injecting race into the debate over illegal immigration is not likely to win President Fox many allies here, Lou.

DOBBS: This government, headed by President Vicente Fox, is I think we could say, peculiar at best. A president of a country that is proud of the fact that his people are fleeing the economic problems of the nation he is responsible for leading, and then criticizing and stereotyping others. It's peculiar. Casey, what has been the reaction in Los Angeles in particular?

WIAN: Well, the reaction here has been the same as it's been across the nation, one of outrage. There was a group of civil rights organizations, including the National Council of La Raza, the Urban League, that just put out a statement about an hour ago condemning President Fox's remarks, Lou.

DOBBS: Casey, thank you very much. Casey Wian from Los Angeles.

Police in riot gear were called in to break up a protest over a piece of artwork in Southern California over the weekend. A 20-foot high arch in Baldwin Park, California bears inscriptions that read, "it was better before they came," and "this land was Mexican once and was Indian always, and will be again."

The city of Baldwin Park, which is 70 percent Hispanic, commissioned that arch 12 years ago. A recently formed anti-illegal immigration group called Save Our State organized this weekend's protest against that artwork. The group's executive director calls the work "incredibly offensive," saying it essentially talks about returning this land to Mexico.

Tonight's quote of the day comes from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Secretary Rice today appealing to Syria's neighbors to pressure the country to close its borders to militants trying to cross the borders of Iraq to join the Iraqi insurgency. Secretary Rice said, quote: "The Syrian government's unwillingness to deal with the crossings of their border into Iraq is frustrating the will of the Iraqi people."

We applaud Secretary Rice and the Bush administration for addressing the importance of border security.

Coming up next here, the nation's biggest group of working Americans taking on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. How the AFL-CIO is fighting so-called free trade, that agreement in particular, next.

In "Debating Our Origins": evolution, creationism, intelligent design, among the critical issues in a looming school board election in one American town tomorrow. Three of the candidates will be our guests here, ahead. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: President Bush this weekend called upon Congress to pass the Central American Free Trade Agreement which is facing rising opposition in Congress, in fact in both parties.

The nation's biggest labor union also opposes CAFTA. Secretary- Treasurer of the AFL-CIO Richard Trumka says CAFTA is not the answer to the challenges facing the Central-American countries, nor certainly to the United States and working men and women in this country.

He says the deal will protect big business while wiping out jobs and adding to poverty in Central America.

Richard Trumka, the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, is our guest tonight.

Good to have you with us.

RICHARD TRUMKA, SECRETARY-TREASURER, AFL-CIO: Thanks, Lou. Thanks for having me on again.

DOBBS: CAFTA, is it worse than NAFTA?

TRUMKA: It really is. It's a failed model. It's based after the failed NAFTA. But it actually take as step or two backwards when it comes to workers' rights and environmental rights. We have no enforcement mechanism and the only thing that these companies have to agree to or comply with is the laws that are currently on the books. And those laws can be scaled back at any time.

So the 40 percent of the workers in Central America that eastern less than $2 a day will likely grow. The number of American jobs in the United States will flow there will increase. And people on both sides, workers on both sides of the border, will suffer because of this agreement.

It is perhaps the worst-drawn agreement that we have seen of the bunch. And they have all been bad.

DOBBS: The fact is that this administration seems absolutely committed these types of agreements -- NAFTA, CAFTA -- which a number of critics have described as basically outsourcing agreements. What do you think is the likely outcome of this legislation in Congress?

TRUMKA: I think we'll defeat this one. We have a growing number of people on both sides of the aisle. This week the president put on his big push. He brought in the six presidents from Central-American countries. They have had no effect. No one switched over. The demonstrations have continued in those countries. Workers in Costa Rica right now are demonstrating. Guatemala, they're demonstrating.

So we've not seen any change, and we think we'll defeat it.

DOBBS: Robert Portman, the U.S. trade representative saying that it's important to deal with the deficit in China. And at the same time the Commerce Department saying that they are going to impose limits on textile imports from China after they soared to 1,500 percent with the lifting of quotas in December.

Do you think this administration is beginning -- beginning -- to awaken to the issues of free trade being a very expensive proposition for this country?

TRUMKA: I think they are starting to understand it's a political problem for them. I don't think they really understand that what they are doing is bad for the country and it's killing the working class and the middle class in the United States. Elsewise they wouldn't have negotiated an agreement like CAFTA that is so backwards. It's a step backwards from even NAFTA which is a failed trade model.

DOBBS: Richard Trumka the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, always good to talk to you.

TRUMKA: Thanks, Lou. Thanks for having us on.

A reminder now to vote in our poll. The question: Is the filibuster an archaic device to thwart majority rule in the Senate or is it an important historical safeguard for minority rights? Vote for either "archaic device" or "important safeguard." Please cast your votes as loudobbs.com; results coming up here shortly.

Coming up at the top of the hour, However, on CNN, "Anderson Cooper 360."

Anderson is here to tell us all about it.

COOPER: Lou, thanks very much.

About 14 minutes from now: 911, lives on the line. Millions of Americans depend on it. Will help really come when you need it? The system is under more pressure than ever before. Tonight, a special look at 911: the triumphs and tragedies.

Also tonight, "Newsweek" retracts a story that's being blamed for riots in Afghanistan. What went wrong? We'll take a close look.

Lou?

DOBBS: Anderson, thank you.

"Debating Our Origins," one high school's debate over what to teach our children coming right up. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: My next guests are members of one Pennsylvania community that is divided in a debate that is taking place all around the country. It is the debate over our origins and how evolution or creationism or intelligent design should be taught in our nation's public schools.

That debate is at the center of a school board election that will be held tomorrow in Dover, Pennsylvania.

The current school board voted last year to order ninth grade teachers to mention intelligent design in their biology classes. That prompted, in fact, one of my guests, Jeff Brown, and two others to resign from the school board. He's now running again from the school board and against the intelligent design mandate. Alan Bonsell is another candidate in tomorrow's election who says intelligent design is a scientific theory and should be taught in science classes. Another candidate, Rob McIlvaine, disagrees. He says intelligent design should not be taught in science classes.

Thank you all for being here tonight.

How many candidates are there running tomorrow?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fourteen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eighteen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's 18.

DOBBS: Eighteen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Eighteen and seven slots.

DOBBS: Well, in Dover, they are getting pretty interested in their schools, and that's a positive sign.

Let me begin with you, Jeff. You want intelligent design out of the curriculum. What is it about intelligent design that set you off, caused you to resign in fact from the board?

JEFF BROWN, DOVER, PA SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATE: It's an unproven hypothesis. And to bring one unproven hypothesis into our science classes is to me to open the door for every unproven hypothesis out there. And I have no idea how many there are.

DOBBS: Well, I don't either. Let me ask you this, Rob. Is it worthy of teaching in your judgment in school but not in a science class?

ROB MCILVAINE, DOVER, PA SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATE: Lou, I agree wholeheartedly that it's a subject that's worthy of respect, it's worthy of understanding. And it needs to be put in the proper learning context, such as a comparative religion class, a social studies class, but not in a science class, particularly when we have to equip our students with analytical reasoning skills to be able to cope in an increasingly competitive world.

DOBBS: Alan, you subscribe, at least to the degree one can, about intelligent design. What is your position?

ALAN BONSELL, DOVER, PA SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATE: Our position is, is that what we have in our school district right now, the only thing different from last year to this year is that there's a one-minute statement that's being said to our children, at our students one time in January and one time in June, that just mentions basically, to get the kids aware that there is other theories out there besides Darwin.

DOBBS: Well, let me ask each of you, is religion playing any part in your position here? Let me ask you first, Jeff.

BROWN: In my case, I guess I would have to say it does. I read the book "Of Pandas and People," and by the second paragraph I felt that they were calling me an atheist, because I did not subscribe to their particular viewpoint on intelligent design.

I don't consider myself an atheist. I consider myself a Christian, to be honest. But I felt their definition was so narrow and so slanted that my own beliefs were being classed with those of essentially no belief whatsoever.

So, yes, in that sense, my religion is playing a part in this. I felt my religion was being insulted and attacked by the supplemental textbook that accompanies this subject in our school.

DOBBS: Alan, how about you?

BONSELL: Well, no, it's not religious at all. And Mr. Brown's mistaken in the fact that the book is not a supplemental textbook at all. It's just a library book in the library. It's not required to be looked at, read, anything as far as that goes. Dr. Michael Behe was just in Dover not -- less than a month ago. And he is an award- winning microbiologist who gave us an informational seminar on exactly what the intelligent design theory is. And to have intelligent design discussed in social studies class, like Mr. McIlvaine has said, would be like taking right between the Civil War and World War I, we're going to talk about the flagellum on a bacteria. It just doesn't fit.

DOBBS: Rob?

MCILVAINE: Well, I believe very strongly that religion plays in all of our lives, with respect to how religion describes our values as individuals, as human beings. In my particular case, open-mindedness, tolerance, acceptance of varying viewpoints, and trying to appreciate diversity. It's very important, certainly as citizens in a highly fractured, conflicted world.

In this particular case, I think the school district missed an opportunity to be able to cast intelligent design as a topic for discussion, whereby varying viewpoints could be entertained and a clear understanding arrived at. And such was not the case.

DOBBS: Is it -- give us your sense of the atmosphere among students there. Is there some desperate desire to move beyond evolution? It does despite what everyone would suggest otherwise. One of the things -- I'll just ask you this way -- one of the things that disturbs me is to look at something that is the most rigorous and most detailed and specialized and tested of sciences, and that is physics, and to see how it is, if you will forgive the expression, evolved over the course of even the past half-century -- forget the past 100 years, but certainly the past half-century -- into new theories. But so often so much of what is taught is not referred to as mathematical-based theories nor is it taught that we may be expanding our knowledge further that may give us entirely new underpinnings and change the very foundation of the discipline.

Doesn't that concern you in almost every aspect of the debates and issues that will be going on about evolution within the school, at the high school level, that students should be exposed to that? The issue of religion and intelligent design. Do you all believe that they should -- that they could live harmoniously in the same curriculum? And I will ask you first, Jeff, whether or not in the same class?

BROWN: I suppose they could. Whether they are doing it is another question. I don't believe that the...

DOBBS: Let me rephrase it.

BROWN: ... that intelligent design...

DOBBS: Should they? Should they?

BROWN: Should they? Yes, yes, they should. I agree, they should. I also agree that it should only rain between midnight and 4:00 a.m. so that the days are nice and clear, but that's not the way it works.

DOBBS: Rob, you get a quick -- we're out of time. Rob? MCILVAINE: I believe that you have got to entertain every possible idea and to put it into the appropriate context, the appropriate subject. But you must allow that discussion to occur openly and intelligently.

DOBBS: You get the last quick word, Alan, Alan.

BONSELL: I have no problem with comparative religion classes. The only thing is, intelligent design and religion are two separate things. One is science, one is religion.

DOBBS: Gentlemen, we thank you. We'll look forward to the results of tomorrow's election. Dover certainly has a spirited contest to decide. We look forward to it, as I know you do.

BONSELL: Thank you very much.

BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Dobbs.

DOBBS: Still ahead here, the results of our poll and a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: The results of our poll: 93 percent of you say the filibuster is an important safeguard for minority rights in the U.S. Senate.

Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. Among our guests, the man leading the Senate investigation of the U.N. oil-for-food scandal, Senator Norm Coleman. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now -- Anderson.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Lou, thanks very much.

END

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