Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Terror Hunt, Broken Borders; Nuclear War Fear; Buprinorphine; Unocal Sale
Aired July 15, 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: Good evening, everybody. Tonight, the Senate's promises to secure our borders against radical Islamist terrorists and illegal aliens are now inoperative. We'll have a special report for you on the talking points and other propaganda emanating from the U.S. Senate and other points within our nation's capital.
One of my guests tonight is the man who kicked over the Karl Rove controversy, Lawrence O'Donnell. It was his disclosure that produced this week's political firestorm over Karl Rove and the CIA leak.
And a Chinese general threatens the United States with nuclear war. The U.S. government responds. And you won't like the response. We'll have the report.
We begin tonight with a major development in the hunt for the radical Islamist terrorists who planned the suicide bomb attacks in London. Those attacks killed at least 54 people, 700 others wounded.
Egyptian police have arrested a U.S.-trained biochemist who's been linked to the suicide bombers. One source tells CNN that police have found explosives in an apartment in northern England that the biochemist had rented.
Matthew Chance reports from London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He could be a living link to the London bombings. Magdy Mahmoud el-Nashar, age 33, an Egyptian chemistry expert arrested in Cairo on Britain's request. British agents are believed to be with Egyptian officials as he's questioned.
In Leeds, where he earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry earlier this year, police have been continuing their forensic search of properties linked to the suspected bombers, including one rented by el-Nashar. Sources say home made explosive material has been found in one of the properties, the same kind British shoe bomber Richard Reid had in his shoes when he tried to blow up a Transatlantic flight in 2001.
IAN BLAIR, METRO POLICE COMMISSIONER: Because, you know, one day we hope to put people on trial, I'm not in a position to discuss the explosives. But I have said before this explosion has the hallmarks of al Qaeda, the simultaneous explosions, the fact that the dead appear to be sort of foot soldiers. And we have got to find is the people who trained them, the people who made the bombs, the people who financed it.
CHANCE: And this is the face of the man police say was one such foot soldier responsible for the London bus bombing, just one of the explosions that shocked the British capital. Identified at Hasib Hussain, he's just 18, photographed by security cameras at Luton train station on the day of the attacks. He's wearing a backpack which police believe concealed his bomb.
They're also confirming the identity of another suspect, Shehzad Tanweer, 22 years old, from Leeds, pictured here as a school boy back in 1995. He's believed to be responsible for the Aldgate bombing which killed seven.
The third suspect, Mohammed Sidique Khan, who's 30, has been linked to the Edgware Road explosion. These are his wedding pictures. He was a primary school teacher and a father of an 8-month-old son.
And as Londoners continue to grieve their loss, a fourth suspected bomber has been named by U.S. officials to CNN as Jamaican- born Germain Morris Lindsay, a convert to Islam, most likely killed, say police, in the explosion between Russell Square and King's Cross.
(on camera): Police say this is an investigation that will be complex. And as the latest arrest in Egypt is underlined, one with an international reach, it could be many months, they say, before those who planned the attacks, trained the bombers and encouraged them to strike are ever caught.
Matthew Chance, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: A sharp and disappointing example tonight of Congress's failure to address a critically important gap in our defenses against radical Islamist terrorists. The Senate has refused to fulfill a commitment to hire 2,000 more Border Patrol agents. The senators also failed to live up to a promise to provide 8,000 new detention beds.
Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Twice the Senate rejected the opportunity to strengthen the nation's borders. Senator John Ensign of Nevada proposing an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security spending bill to add an additional 1,000 more agents.
SEN. JOHN ENSIGN (R), NEVADA: I would urge our colleagues to support strengthening our borders and not using the money in wasteful ways.
TUCKER: The Senate not in a mood to add any more agents to the border than already provide for. The amendment went down to defeat by 60-38. Senator John McCain made a passionate appeal for more detention space so that when illegal aliens are arrested, they are actually held.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: The Border Patrol now releases 90 percent of the people they catch through voluntary repatriation. Ninety percent, my friends. We don't have enough detention facilities. We don't have enough beds.
TUCKER: Since October, more than 70,000 other than Mexicans have been stopped and released into the country. Senator McCain's appeal was futile.
All three Democrats whose names are mentioned as presidential hopefuls, senators Clinton, Kerry and Biden, voted against both amendments. Their opposition summed on the floor by New York Senator Charles Schumer.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: This amendment that seeks to strengthen the border is a good goal, but at an awful price. It takes -- could take 24 percent of our money away from our first responders: our police, our firefighters, our emergency technicians.
TUCKER: The president of the Union of Border Patrol Agents expressed his disappointment at the voting, saying that the next attack on America will be on American soil by foreigners and that Congress has failed to learn the lesson.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: The Department of Homeland Security spending bill did pass the Senate, but it will add only one half of the number of agents recommended in the intelligence overhaul bill and only about a quarter of the 8,000 detention beds that were recommended -- Lou.
DOBBS: Senators Schumer, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, holding up the artifice that to secure our borders require less money for first responders domestically. What kind of nonsense is that?
TUCKER: That is their position. They're arguing they could have voted for this bill, Lou, if, in fact, they weren't taking money out to fund the additional agents and the beds.
DOBBS: And at what point will it make sense to these senators that we provide for the nation's security both at the border and internally?
TUCKER: Perhaps we ought too have them on the show to ask them straight.
DOBBS: We hereby invite them all. Thank you very much. Bill Tucker. An amazing, amazing performance in the United States Senate.
One day after a top Chinese general threatened this country with nuclear war, the U.S. government is trying to downplay the general's remarks. The State Department today declared those comments were "unfortunate." The Pentagon said they were hypothetical.
Hypothetical or not, the Chinese general declared that China is prepared to destroy hundreds of American cities.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A top Chinese general has delivered the ultimate threat, saying China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against the United States over Taiwan. The State Department today said the threat was highly irresponsible.
SEAN MCCORMACK, STATE DEPT. SPOKESMAN: We hope that these comments don't reflect the views of the Chinese government.
PILGRIM: The Chinese embassy today said General Zhu doesn't speak for the government, but Beijing so far has not gone out of its way to deny the message.
Experts are alarmed. They say General Zhu Chengu is not a renegade but a highly placed general who has been repeatedly promoted for his hard-line rhetoric.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They want to basically remind Washington that China is no longer a third world country, it's no longer a junior partner in the anti-Soviet alliance of the '70s and '80s, but it is now a super power in its own right.
PILGRIM: China shocked U.S. officials in the mid '90s when the then Chinese intelligence chief told a former American official that the United States would never defend Taiwan because it valued Los Angeles more than it valued Taiwan. A statement many took to be a reference to nuclear attack. And military strategists say the Chinese have the capability to do it.
O'HANLON: There's no doubt the Chinese have a submarine, that if they get it out to the middle of the Pacific Ocean, could reach the United States. And they have roughly one to two dozen long-range ICBMs based on land that could reach Alaska, Hawaii, California, and some of them even the entire United States. So, yes, we are at risk.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: A State Department spokesman went to great pains to say that the U.S.-China relationship was "the best we've seen in some time." But when U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited China last weekend, she did say pointedly that of particular concern was the pace of China's military buildup -- Lou.
DOBBS: It is also remarkable that the U.S. State Department representative would respond to such words from an agent of the People's Republic of China, a general, threatening this country with a nuclear attack as irresponsible. This is the kind of strong response one would expect of the United States government these days.
PILGRIM: Yes, it isn't very strong language.
DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much. Kitty Pilgrim.
In Iraq, two U.S. Marines have been killed in combat in Al Anbar province. Those Marines killed in a bomb attack near Trebil on the border with Jordan. 1,758 of our troops have now been killed in Iraq since the war began more than two years ago.
In Baghdad today, insurgents launched a wave of suicide bomb attacks. At least eight bombs exploded. More than 30 people were killed. More than a hundred others wounded, including three American soldiers.
When we continue, President Bush on the road promoting CAFTA, a treaty that may cost thousands and thousands of Americans their jobs. A last-minute push for CAFTA before a key House vote. Among the claims, that CAFTA will help the United States deal with China. We'll have that report.
And Karl Rove under oath. Details of Rove's grand jury testimony as the CIA leak investigation takes a surprising new turn. My guest tonight, "West Wing" executive producer Lawrence O'Donnell. He is the man who broke open the Karl Rove controversy a week ago.
And the battle for Unocal. China poised to take over one of our nation's key oil firms and key energy assets. I'll be talking with a China watcher who says the Unocal deal is not a security concern for America, no problem. We'll see.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight, a surprising new development in the CIA leak investigation. Karl Rove's testimony to a federal grand jury is being reported. The testimony suggests that President Bush's political adviser may not have been the original source for the Valerie Plame leak. Rove testifying that he first learned about Plame from columnist Robert Novak, a CNN contributor.
Dana Bash reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): He's not talking now, but Karl Rove told a federal grand jury he indirectly confirmed to columnist Robert Novak the identity of a covert CIA agent. A lawyer familiar with the testimony told CNN.
The source says Rove did not initiate the conversation and did not use the name of the agent, Valerie Plame. Rove has repeatedly refused to discuss his testimony, though the White House until this past week has said rove had no role in the leak.
The source account now first reported by "The New York Times" comes amid growing Democratic calls for Rove to be fired. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Karl Rove has got to go!
BASH: It also comes days after "TIME" magazine's Matt Cooper testified he, too, talked generally to Rove about the story. Bush allies hope putting out more details about Rove's role will quiet the controversy, but there are still conflicting accounts.
Novak declined to comment, but the source familiar with Rove's testimony says on July 9, 2003, Novak volunteered he had been told Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and had a role in Wilson being sent to Africa to explore possible uranium sales to Iraq.
Rove's recollection and testimony, the source tells CNN, is that he responded casually, "I heard that, too." But in an October 2003 column explaining his earlier decision to reveal Plame's identity, Novak recalled his second administration source, whom we now know is Rove, saying, "Oh, you know about it," suggesting a more affirmative confirmation.
Rove's attorney says he is confident his client broke no laws and that he has been told Rove is not a target of the investigation. That he talked to reporters at all about such a sensitive issue surprises some secrecy experts.
JEFFREY SMITH, FMR. CIA GENERAL COUNSEL: Any senior government official who talks with a member of the press and the identity of a CIA officer emerges in the course of that conversation, a red flag ought to go up. And the government official ought to pause and think before he or she says anything to confirm the identity.
BASH: Even with Rove's account, there remains a huge unanswered question: who was the initial source of the leak?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: And remember, we do have a hint. Bob Novak reported that it was an off-hand comment from a senior administration official, someone whom Novak described as "not a partisan gunslinger" -- Lou.
DOBBS: Dana, thank you very much. Dana Bash from the White House.
The White House says it welcomes Chief Justice William Rehnquist's decision to remain on the Supreme Court for now. Rehnquist, who returned to his office today in a wheelchair, said in a statement that he has no plans whatsoever to resign.
Rehnquist saying, "I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."
Rehnquist is suffering from thyroid cancer. He was hospitalized this week by a fever.
Up next here, a tropical threat headed towards Texas. Hurricane Emily charging across the Caribbean. Winds of more than 100 miles an hour. We'll have the latest on where and when it could hit the United States.
And then, red storm. One economist says communist China's move to take control of a vital American energy asset poses absolutely no threat to our national security, to our national interests. I'll be talking to him about his remarkable views coming right up.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Hurricane Emily is racing across the eastern Caribbean tonight, headed for apparently the coast of Texas. It is a Category 2 hurricane. It has lost strength, but it's still on track to make landfall near the southern Texas coast.
A hurricane warning is in effect for Jamaica and the Cayman Islands. Emily is expected to hit there tomorrow. Should Emily remain on its current path, it will make landfall Wednesday between northern Mexico and Galveston, Texas.
At the Kennedy Space Center tonight, another delay for the Shuttle Discovery. NASA has given up on trying to launch the shuttle this weekend. It will not try to launch Discovery until the earliest late next week.
NASA is trying to repair what they believe to be a faulty fuel sensor. If NASA cannot launch by late July, NASA will have to wait until September for the next launch date for Discovery.
In North Carolina today, President Bush on the road selling the Central American Free Trade Agreement to a state that's lost thousands of manufacturing jobs. President Bush toured a textile mill and said CAFTA will actually keep jobs in the United States.
Later, in a speech at a community college, President Bush said CAFTA will help people in Central America as well. He even suggested CAFTA will fix our broken borders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It will help create a vibrant middle class. And that's important. That's important. It will mean somebody's more likely to find a job close to home than trying to sneak into the United States of America to find a job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: The president did not say what CAFTA would do for the middle class of this country, however. CAFTA narrowly passed in the Senate two weeks ago. It goes before the House as early as next week. It has an uncertain future there.
Tonight, American organized labor is simply in turmoil. The labor movement has never been weaker in this country, nor more divided. On the 25th of July, the AFL-CIO, America's largest labor federation, will hold its convention in Chicago. At least five unions are threatening to withdraw from the AFL-CIO and to start a competing labor organization of their own.
In Washington, Lisa Sylvester with the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Today, one out of 12 private sector workers belongs to a union. When the AFL-CIO was founded 50 years ago, it was one out of three.
Once half of the American labor force had a secure pension plan. Now fewer than 20 percent. American wages have fallen, health insurance plans have been watered down.
GARY BURTLESS, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: The weakening of the labor unions has meant that there is a weaker voice in defense of all workers, whether or not unionized workers, on those issues.
SYLVESTER: The nearly six million members of the Service Employees International Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, the Teamsters Union, the Laborers International Union of America and Unite Here are considering splitting from the AFL-CIO federation. The unions will decide this month whether to form their own federation, focused on organizing the 92 percent of American workers who are not unionized.
BRUCE RAYNOR, PRESIDENT, UNITE HERE: They see manufacturing jobs properly so as high wage jobs. People don't get rich, but they make a living, they get health care, they get a pension, they can buy a home, they can send their kids to college. It's a way to be a part of the American dream.
Well, god didn't create those jobs as middle class jobs. Unions did.
SYLVESTER: The AFL-CIO is trying to prevent the organization from splintering. If all of the dissident labor unions walked, it could lose nearly 40 percent of its membership. Solidarity and unity are the new buzz words.
RICHARD TRUMKA, SECRETARY-TREASURER, AFL-CIO: If one of those unions walks away, there will be winners and there will be losers. The loser will be every working family in this country.
SYLVESTER: The two sides agree on little except that something has to be done to stand up to corporate America and save the labor movement.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: The splinter group has laid out conditions to stay in the AFL-CIO. They want half of dues returned to the unions to organize new members. They want to move away from a political strategy of supporting primarily Democratic candidates to one supporting any candidate that supports workers' rights. And they want unions to be consolidated in the same industry to increase their clout -- Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you, Lisa.
One U.S. senator moving to block China's bid for one of our key oil assets, Unocal. But some economists still say the Unocal bid poses absolutely no threat to United States national security. I'll be talking with one of them when we come back.
And the forgotten war. You remember, the war on drugs. A simple pill can actually help addicted heroin users kick the habit if only the United States government would help. We'll have a special report on why your government isn't helping.
And the man who helped kick over the Karl Rove investigation. Lawrence O'Donnell, political advisor, political analyst, and executive producer of "West wing," he's our guest here next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: This week, the United States Congress voted against the public interest on a remarkable number of issues, vital issues critical to the future security and well-being of this country. When the U.S. Congress is more beholden to special interest groups than the American people, the nation can suffer. And sometimes does.
Here is a partial list of those actions this week.
Yesterday, the Senate reneged on its earlier pledge to improve U.S. border security, voting to hire only 1,000 Border Patrol agents instead of the 2,000 it had promised, and adding just over 2,000 new detention beds instead of the 8,000 that were promised.
And yesterday, the House of Representatives also made a stunning turnabout on an issue critical to U.S. national security. It rejected legislation that would have given the president the authority to bring sanctions against European countries that sell weapons to China. More than 100 House members reversed their earlier votes in favor of the legislation after a last-minute lobbying effort by U.S. business groups.
And yesterday, Senate Republican leaders rejected an amendment that would have allocated $1.4 billion to bolster security on mass transit systems. The Senate approved just $100 million instead. This after the London bombings exposed major gaps in U.S. transit security.
It makes you wonder just where your government actually does work for you.
That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Do you believe elected officials in Washington are truly working in the national interest, yes or no? Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up. My guest tonight broke the story that Karl Rove the source for "TIME" magazine's Matthew Cooper and the Valerie Plame CIA leak case. Lawrence O'Donnell is a well-known political analyst, executive producer of "The West Wing," formerly the Democratic chief of staff of the Senate Finance Committee, also served as senior advisor to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan in New York.
Lawrence O'Donnell joins us tonight from Los Angeles.
Lawrence, good to have you here. What made you decide to go public?
LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I knew about what was in the "TIME" magazine e-mails for several months, but I didn't want to reveal it at a time when it would interfere with the litigation and interfere with the appeals process that was going on. So Lou, I decided to reveal it actually within the hour that "TIME" magazine was handing over its e-mails to the prosecutor.
There are two reasons for that. One is I avoided any subpoena by the prosecutor for that.
DOBBS: Right.
O'DONNELL: If I had revealed it months before, the prosecutor would have been right to subpoena me and ask me how I knew it. And I was just revealing something that the prosecutor was going to know within the hour of reading those documents at that point.
DOBBS: You also said categorically on "The McLaughlin Group" television broadcast that Karl Rove was the source of the Matthew Cooper report. How long have you known that?
O'DONNELL: I've known it for several months, Lou. And one of the amazing things about that secret is how loosely it was actually held.
I just -- all I'll say about it is, it wasn't that hard for me to come by. And I didn't work hard at it. I was able to pick it up, though. And then after I revealed it publicly, I picked up a couple more confirming sources about it, highly authoritative sources.
DOBBS: Lawrence, as you may suspect, I'm dying to ask you what your sources are for that.
O'DONNELL: And I'm in that "can't reveal my sources" game, Lou, just like the other reporters in this case.
The difference is -- one difference, though, is that what I've done is I've actually tried to advance public knowledge of what's going on in the story as opposed to Judy Miller and Matt Cooper. They have actually been making efforts to prevent the public from discovering what's going on in the story, which is understandable from their perspective.
DOBBS: And certainly, to prevent rather than the public not knowing to at least expand the body of public knowledge and to do that, sometimes it is absolutely necessary, certainly in the case, Judith Miller and her views and her principles, which most of us in this craft adhere to. She thinks she has the right to protect her sources, and so do I, and so do a lot of other journalists.
O'DONNELL: Well, Lou, one of the judges -- one of the judges on the appeals court does, too. One of the judges, in an ignored opinion by the press, found that there is indeed a federal shield law, but what he said was, the gravity of the suspected crime in this case is so serious that it overwhelms any right to privilege that these reporters have.
He went so far as to say that if the leak involved was less harmful to national security, that's a quote from the judge, if it was less harmful to national security, he would not order the reporters to testify.
DOBBS: It's interesting that the investigation into this case, and particularly as the principal victims here now appear to be in this order Judith Miller, "The New York Times" Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who is now in, I believe, her eighth full day of being in prison. And basically the American taxpayer is paying for an investigation that so far has led nowhere.
It's a remarkable period. And we now know that Karl Rove was both a leaker and a leakee, if you will. That we're in this sort of bizarre situation in which apparently Karl Rove -- well, the press was leaking to the government in this case, Robert Novak talking to Karl Rove. Are you astounded by that development?
O'DONNELL: No Lou, over a year ago, one of the lawyers in the case indicated to me that he expected it to be one that included the echo effect. Which is to say Rove's information may well have come to him first from the press. That turns out to be apparently the structure of the story now.
But Lou, this is a very serious case. And I say that based exclusive on the judges' opinions. You can't read the judges' opinions in this case and think that this prosecutor is chasing his tail. These judges were reluctant to order these reporters to testify or into jail. And they have said that they have done so, because the underlying suspected crime is so serious. And they're talking about the leak case.
In fact, Lou, one of the judges refers to, quote, "the plot against Wilson." One of the appeals court judges sees this case as a plot against Joe Wilson. That's not spin from a political source, that's one of the judges' reading of the case.
DOBBS: And my readings of those judges' opinions frankly, somewhat constrained, because so much is redacted.
O'DONNELL: That's right.
DOBBS: And that is hardly helpful in this case either. Reports today that the neighbors of Valerie Plame, for example, and this is all part of the spin war that is underway, obviously, but reports today that Valerie Plame was well-known to her neighbors and friends as an employee of the CIA. This story compounds itself with complexity, contradiction, as well as talking points, of course.
O'DONNELL: Well, there are other neighbors who say they never knew she worked for the CIA.
But Lou, witness No. 1 in this grand jury had to be an administrator from the CIA who clearly established, legally, that Plame fits the definition of covert agent according to the statute. If witness No. 1 did not say that to the grand jury, no one would call witness No. 2.
And when the you read these judges' opinions, they are constantly referring to this being case about revealing the identity of a covert agent.
DOBBS: All right -- I'm going to turn to you right now. We're out of time. But I've got to ask you the last question. And that is what happens in your judgment, is Karl Rove in serious trouble here? What will be the consequences in conclusion when the special prosecutor wraps this up?
O'DONNELL: Well, his lawyer says he hasn't been a target of the case, but he is a subject of the case. That's one step below target. He could switch to target depending what Matt Cooper's testimony is.
The prosecutor's going to have to wrap this up, because after Cooper, there's no one else to talk to. And every indication from the prosecutor's conduct of this case is that he is going after a very serious crime. Who the criminal is remains the mystery.
DOBBS: Lawrence O'Donnell, good to have you here.
O'DONNELL: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: "The Forgotten War," the war on drugs tonight. A special report on a prescription medication that offers perhaps the best treatment ever for drug addiction. It has a remarkable 80 percent success rate in detoxing heroin addicts. It also treats people addicted to pain killers, even methadone, but this medication, this miracle cure if you will, is nearly impossible to obtain. Christine Romans has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): 95,000 people a yearly overdose on heroin. There are almost a million heroin addicts in this country, another 4 million addicted to prescription opiates. This little orange pill is, by all accounts, the best way to break that addiction. Buprinorphine, better known as Bup.
Dr. Terry Horten has had tremendous success treating addicts with this new drug. DR. TERRY HORTON, PHEONIX HOUSE: Buprinorphine is an effective tool for detoxification of a wide range of opiates, including prescription painkillers, heroin, OxyContin, even methadone.
ROMANS: It's less addictive than the standard heroine, methadone. And an exciting advance for the growing number of prescription drug addicts.
Problem is, Bup is incredibly hard to get. Federal laws intended to prevent prescription drug abuse only allow prescribers to treat 30 patients at a time. And fewer than 1 percent of doctors are prescribing it.
A combination of colossal Washington bureaucracy and doctors fatigue on what's been a futile war on drugs.
Senator Carl Levin hopes to clear up the red tape.
SEN. CARL LEVIN, (D) MICHIGAN: We have lines of people waiting to get Bup now. It is a proven heroin blocker. And now we want to change this limit on the law that restricts a clinic, for instance to 30 parents.
ROMANS: While Levin pushes in Washington, at Phoenix House, these men with the help of Bup, are slowly recovering from their heroin addictions. Rashon Muhammad has been clean for almost a year.
RASHAN MUHAMMAD, PHOENIX HOUSE: This is a good medication.
ROMANS: 38 years.
MUHAMMAD: 38 years.
ROMANS: And this is the first time it's worked.
MUHAMMAD: First I'm I've been clean on my own in 38 years. And I'm still amazed, you know, I'm still learning.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: Even as amazing as this drug is, many addicts don't have access to it while Congress contemplates this forgotten war on drugs. Senator Levin is pushing this, which might just be the best chance in at least 40 years to take hard-core addicts and bring them back into society, Lou.
DOBBS: And to win one battle at least in the forgotten war on drugs in this country.
And I think it's important we have also seen this week some examples of I think some courage and real political and public service on the part. Duncan Hunter holding hearings demanding honest answers on the Chinese efforts to take over you Unocal. Certainly Senator Levin without any political advantage whatsoever, as a matter of fact, considerable obstacles to confront, taking on this issue because it's in the public interests. ROMANS: And he wants to get this done in a matter of months. He is determined to get this done so that more people, not just 30 at a time, can get this drug and try to kick this addiction.
DOBBS: It would be an opportunity for the Senate to demonstrate some sense of glory instead of what it has been all too often here of late. Christine Romans, thank you.
Coming up next, "Red Storm." China's power grab over an American energy asset. One senator is working very hard to block it. But one economist says what's the problem? He's our guest next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: China's move to take control of an American oil company, an important energy asset, has caused considerable outrage around the country and to some degree on Capitol Hill. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota today introduced legislation that would block Chinese overseas oil company bid for Unocal. Senator Dorgan says American petroleum and natural gas resources should not be sold to a Communist country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BYRON DORGAN, (E) NORTH DAKOTA: This is not capitalism. It's false capitalism. You have a Chinese government controlled oil company deeply subsidized by the Chinese government trying to buy an American oil company. There's nothing free market, or capitalistic about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Senator Dorgan also points out that no American company would be permitted ever to buy any part of a Chinese oil company.
My next guest has a very different view from that of Senator Dorgan and many others on China's bid for Unocal. Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute says this bid poses no threat whatsoever to our national security. We should mention the Cato Institute describes itself as a libertarian organization strongly in favor of free trade, and I should mention as well, open boards.
Joining us tonight, Jerry, from Washington. Good to have you here.
JERRY TAYLOR, CATO INSTITUTE: Thanks for having me, Lou.
DOBBS: You testified that this is a nonevent, effectively, in your view while others say that this is a critical national interest issue. Why are you so sanguine?
TAYLOR: Well, Unocal is a bit player in global oil markets. It provides 2 tenths of 1 percent of global supply. It only provides 3 tenths of 1 percent of U.S. supply. It's a minor actor. And two- thirds of its assets are in eastern Asia anyway. Now, let's go through the scenarios. If the Chinese control Unocal, what are we afraid of? If they divert oil to China as opposed to other suppliers like the United States, all that does is displace other suppliers who were previously shipping to China. Their oil comes back on the world markets. There's no net effect on price, and no net effect on supply in the United States.
Scenario two, China decides to embargo the United States for the oil it controls. But we know that embargoes are essentially make believe events. In 1973, all that happened during the embargo was that instead of buying oil directly from OPEC, we bought oil from people who bought oil from OPEC and went to non-OPEC suppliers. We shuffled supply lines, but there was no net effect...
DOBBS: Whoa, Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, you're recasting history a bit. You're saying the 1973 OPEC embargo had no effect?
TAYLOR: It had no effect on oil imports whatsoever. The real effect was the production cutbacks. And that's the third point.
China is actually more dependent on cheap oil prices than the United States. They're less energy efficient, and they're also less capable of adjusting to oil shock. So in world oil markets...
DOBBS: Let's get to your threshold. So you don't believe that Unocal is large enough. It's the ninth largest oil company in the country. It has rare earth assets that are critical to the United States national interests. I think you would agree with that, would you not?
TAYLOR: No, I would not. If you want to get rare earth magnets, you don't need to buy Unocal, you can go to www.rareearthmagnets.com they'll sell you all you want. There's nothing rare about them. And their prices are declining.
What I was trying to say a moment ago, was that the U.S. and China have the same interests in world markets, low energy prices. Both countries are net oil importers. So it serves neither country's interest to increase oil prices or to take oil off the world markets, so I'm not sure...
DOBBS: I'm just trying to get to understand the threshold. Would you, for example, favor them -- you would have no problem with them buying Exxon.
TAYLOR: None whatsoever.
DOBBS: Chevron.
TAYLOR: None whatsoever.
DOBBS: OK.
TAYLOR: They have every incentive to produce. And that's all we really care about.
DOBBS: Do you see this as philosophy of free trade. I'm trying to understand what makes a libertarian think this is OK.
TAYLOR: Well, the main point is the world oil market works in such a way that as long as oil is produced, it doesn't effect who owns it or where it goes, it's one giant, global market.
DOBBS: But Jerry, there's one fallacy in that view, if I may point it out...
TAYLOR: I'm sorry, I didn't' hear you. You talked over me and I missed. I'm sorry.
DOBBS: Well, here we go. Ready. There is only one little problem with what you're saying about free markets. Free markets are assured by democracies. China happens to be a Communist nation. CNOOC, the Chinese natural overseas oil corporation is 70 percent owned by the government. How does that work out in your view?
TAYLOR: I'm not sure what you mean. I'd say from an economic standpoint, I'd say from an economic standpoint, France's economy is more Communist than China's? It's a pretty free market economy.
DOBBS: Excuse me?
TAYLOR: Absolutely.
DOBBS: OK. Let's try it another way. The fact that a U.S. company could not buy any asset, let alone a company within the Chinese energy sector, does have any influence on a libertarian philosophy?
TAYLOR: Well, again, it's not a matter of whether it has an influence on a libertarian philosophy or not. You can look at the data, right now U.S. corporations own over $100 billion of assets in China and they employ 350,000 people. Chinese corporations own only $8 billion...
DOBBS: Excuse me. What is the highest percentage of -- would he whoa, whoa. What is the highest percentage ownership of any Chinese enterprise by a U.S. corporation?
TAYLOR: Chinese enterprises are very small. I'm not sure what the numbers are, but they're not particularly relevant.
DOBBS: Well, they're very relevant. Because they're talking about buying 100 percent of a company that's prescribed altogether in their energy sector.
TAYLOR: As Venezuelan bought Citco. The Venezuelan state oil company owns 28 percent of U.S. oil refineries. And yet, we haven't heard any bed wetting about that. I mean, this is not an unprecedented event in the slightest. There have been many events like this, many purchases by foreign-owned oil companies.
DOBBS: Oh no, this isn't about foreign owned -- no, no, Jerry, this isn't about foreign owned -- this is about a purchase by a Chinese communist government. And we thank you for taking the time. We're out of time, though.
TAYLOR: Thank you for having me, Lou. I appreciate it.
DOBBS: A reminder now to vote in our poll. "Do you believe elected officials in Washington are truly representing the national interests? Yes or no." Cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up in a few minutes.
Coming up at the top of the hour, none other than Anderson Cooper. Erica Hill is in tonight for Anderson. And has the preview -- Erica.
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, Lou. That's right. Coming up next on 360, Hurricane Emily barreling down towards Texas. When will it hit? Just how strong will it be? That's what everybody wants to know. So we're going to bring you the latest storm track.
Also, this is a really incredible story, a family in California has twins and then 13 years later, has the triplet to those twins. How is it possible? It's amazing. It's a little confusing. So, we'll have an interview with the family coming up. All that and more, Lou, when 360 starts at the top of the hour.
DOBBS: Look forward to you straightening all of that out for us. Thank you very much, Erica.
When we continue here, Karl Rove under fire. Has the president's top political adviser, has he become a liability? I'll be talking with three of the country's top political journalists. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Each evening, we ask you to weigh in on critical issues facing the country. Here's a look how you voted this week on a number of those issues. Monday, 94 percent of you said no, American taxpayers should not be giving Israel more than $2 billion to pay for the pullout from Gaza. And on the next critical issue, Tuesday, 96 of you said yes, the White House should immediately disclose all to the American people about the CIA leak. And on Wednesday, 93 percent of you said, no, the United States should not allow the Chinese government-owned CNOOC to buy California based Unocal. And last night, 86 percent of you said you agree with many Democrats and many Republicans that the Supreme Court nominee should not be a judicial activist.
Tonight, we want to hear your opinion on our representatives in Washington. Do you believe elected officials are truly working in the national interests? Yes or no. One of the things I like about this audience, a lot of you are thinking the right way. So I want to now turn to my colleagues here, here in New York, as Jim Ellis chief of correspondence, -- well, there's Rod Brownstein. Now there's Jim Ellis. I messed up the director here. Jim Ellis, "Business Week" magazine. Jim, good to have you here. Ron Brownstein, who is -- well, he's putting up with my introduction tonight, from "The Los Angeles Times". Karen Tumulty gracing us with her smile, her wit, and her insight tonight, from "Time" magazine. Good to have you all here. Ron, Karl Rove, Lawrence O'Donnell, it's broken loose in a week. What in the world do you expect to happen next?
RON BROWNSTEIN, LOS ANGELES TIMES: Well I think first of all, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, we don't know what we don't know, so everyone has to be cautious in anticipating where this is going to go.
DOBBS: And they say we journalists aren't always clever in our observations.
BROWNSTEIN: But look, I mean I think based on the revelations this week, I'm sort of giving you a temperature of Washington, I don't think people feel that what was disclosed about Karl Rove's conversations with Matt Cooper and Robert Novak necessarily increased his legal jeopardy under the statute about naming a covert agent. What they have done is increase a political problem that the -- I think the problem for Rove now, at least on what we know, and I keep coming back to that, is less the special prosecutor than the contrast between what he and the White House had previously said what about what they would do in this case and what they did do in this case.
DOBBS: Karen, what do you think?
KAREN TUMULTY, TIME MAGAZINE: Well we also don't know precisely what the prosecutor is going after here. There's been a lot of talk about this 1982 statute that makes it illegal for anyone in government to out a covert operative. But you know, that from the beginning, we've known, that is a very difficult statute to prosecute. So I think increasingly what you're hearing in Washington is that what this prosecutor is really after is some other crime, possibly perjury, possibly obstruction of justice. But this law has been around since 1982 and only one person has ever been successfully prosecuted under it.
DOBBS: Well one person who's been successfully prosecuted under the actually the conspiracy and fraud is Chuck Olsen(ph) who was here last night. He was known as the evil genius of the Nixon administration, you may recall, Jim. He says he thinks he does not believe Karl Rove -- what he did, rose to a crime. He's concerned about the same thing that hit him. And that was going after leaking information to the Daniel Ellsberg case.
JIM ELLIS, BUSINESSWEEK: Well actually, I think that the issue here is going -- definitely, at least to the public, move beyond the whole legalistic definition of whether a crime was committed. I think that's what's happening now, is with the administration coming back and being very vocal about, well no crime has been done, it's sounding more and more like the Clinton administration. Or if it's Al Gore.
DOBBS: A little parsing?
ELLIS: Yes. Well Al Gore says well there's no controlling legal authority. I mean, what the public -- public understands right and wrong, and they don't like people trying to weasel out of doing something bad. And I think that they're saying now that Rove, after the administration said he wasn't involved, was definitely involved. Whether there was legal issue, is totally different. DOBBS: This runs -- just a bizarre situation in which it turns out that Scott McClellan certainly was either lied to or didn't understand what he had been told when he said it was ridiculous that Karl Rove was involved, when it's clear that he did now, it's incontrovertible, leak to Matthew Cooper "Time" magazine. But what's remarkable is, apparently, a journalist leaked to Karl Rove here. I mean this couldn't be more confounding if they tried.
BROWNSTEIN: Well, Lou, it would not be the first time a White House press secretary was, as Humphrey Bogart said, misinformed. And it would not be the first time --
DOBBS: I'm outraged.
BROWNSTEIN: It would not be the first time that a journalist and an administration official shared information. It is hard to know exactly, as Karen was saying, exactly what the -- until we know exactly what the prosecutor is trying to do, I don't think we really know where we stand on this.
DOBBS: Well, what is this prosecutor trying to do? I mean, let's get right to it. It's taken longer to investigate this silly leak than it did to investigate all of Watergate for crying out loud.
BROWNSTEIN: Well you know that's the history of special prosecutors. I mean some of the ones in the Clinton administration outlived the administration. We're going to have to see on that front. I think what's interesting is that the partisan temperatures rose on this so high this week, with Democrats making this effort to deny him his security clearance, Republicans really haven't wavered yet. I don't think there is a sense in Republican circles there's a legal problem here. I think, as Jim said, the issue is the White House was very broad in its denials, and now it's looking as though it is parsing exactly what they meant to cover.
DOBBS: Let's be parochial here, because I'd like each of you to weigh on this. Judith Miller is now in jail more than a week. She is the victim right now in this case. And the fact is that "Time" magazine -- allowing, well, deciding to turn over its notes to -- and Matthew Cooper's notes, to the judge and to the prosecutor in this case, putting the "New York Times" in a terrible position, and Judith Miller a terrible position, what is going on there? And I'm going to ask you first to weigh in on that Karen Tumulty.
TUMULTY: Well certainly looking at this from a very parochial standpoint, which is our trying to go out there everyday and do our jobs as journalists, I think that one difference between this case and a lot of the scandals that have come before that, is the prosecutors are coming after the journalists. You know, the prosecutor did not ever try to force Bob Woodward to reveal who Deep Throat was. And I think that for a lot of us, certainly at "Time" magazine, after what we've been through over the last few weeks, that is really I think the overused phrase chilling effect is totally appropriate here.
DOBBS: Jim Ellis, you get the final word. ELLIS: There's a chilling effect here, and I think it's very dangerous. There's no federal shield law; however, I think in a case like this the public does have a right to know what's going on. I think that we really are -- we're in trouble now.
DOBBS: I lied. You get the last word, Ron.
BROWNSTEIN: I was going to say, that not withstanding all of that, there is another element here. Journalists too, have to listen to the Supreme Court. And I think that is a dangerous position for journalists to argue that they would somehow be exempt from a Supreme Court decision, rightly or wrongly pressed by the prosecutor, it still came down.
DOBBS: Ok. I lied twice. I'm going to take the last word. Judith Miller isn't suggesting she's above the law or beyond the Supreme Court. In point of fact, she is following the law and fulfilling her responsibilities as she sees it and maintaining her faith with her sources, and she's in jail as a result.
BROWNSTEIN: I was thinking more about "Time" magazine.
DOBBS: I don't want to think about that. Very disappointing.
Jim Ellis, Karen Tumulty, Ron Brownstein, thank you all.
Still ahead, the results of tonight's poll. A preview of what's ahead here Monday. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll tonight overwhelming. Ninety- eight percent of you saying you don't believe our elected officials are truly working in the national interest.
And finally tonight, "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller has now spent nine full days in prison for refusing to reveal her confidential sources in the White House CIA leak case. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here next week. A long vacancy at the center of the Supreme Court. Karl Rove, what should President Bush do? I'll being talking with President Reagan's Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein with his extraordinary insight. Good night from New York. Have a very pleasant weekend. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" starts right now. Erica?
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
