Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Heated Debate Over Iraq Pullout in Congress; China Building Up Military Might; Leak Investigation to Continue with New Grand Jury
Aired November 18, 2005 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: Good evening, everybody.
Tonight, a showdown on the House floor. Heated debate as congressional Republicans confront Democrats on the issue of withdrawal from Iraq. A vote on whether to withdraw our troops will take place within the hour. We'll be taking you live to Capitol Hill.
And then new developments in the CIA-White House leak investigation. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald now says he has plans to go back to a grand jury. We'll be telling you why.
President Bush will be in China tomorrow as he faces mounting political troubles at home and plummeting poll numbers. Former presidential advisor David Gergen is among our guests.
And as the president is in Beijing, communist China is pursuing its biggest military buildup ever to challenge U.S. strategic preeminence. We'll have a special report on China.
And you're looking live now at Southern California, Ventura County. Wild fires there are spreading quickly, threatening homes. We're live on the scene.
Tonight a showdown in Congress over the issue of Iraq as Republicans try to squash rising opposition to the conduct of the war. The House could vote within the hour on whether to withdraw our troops from Iraq as soon as possible. That vote comes one day after a highly respected Democratic congressman called for a pull-out over the next six months and three days after the Senate called for regular reports on the progress and conduct of this war.
Ed Henry reports from Capitol Hill -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, House Republicans trying to raise the stakes a bit by basically saying they would call the Democrats' bluff and basically call Jack Murtha's resolution up for a vote.
But instead what's going on is that the Republicans decided to bring up a resolution of their own. While Murtha's resolution called for a six-month transition period in order to make sure the troops got out of Iraq safely, the Republican written resolution doesn't say that. Instead calls for terminating the Iraq mission immediately, not allowing for a time cushion to actually get the troops out safely.
That is actually providing a little bit of political cover for Democrats to vote against this resolution, saying it's really not the Murtha resolution at all.
The rhetoric is getting heated on the House floor. Take a look at what happened when Republican Duncan Hunter started reading from an e-mail he says he got from a captain over in Iraq who is upset about the Murtha plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAVE OBEY (D), WISCONSIN: I'd like to ask the gentlemen from California why he introduced a counterfeit Murtha resolution rather than allowing us to vote on the real Murtha motion, if he wanted us to vote at all?
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: Let me answer, my friend. This is a letter from an Army captain in Iraq. He says in this e- mail, "I am a U.S. Army captain currently serving and I..."
OBEY: I want an answer from you not somebody else...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Gentlemen from California has the time.
HUNTER: "I am shocked and appalled by Rep. Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal. Please, please, please convince your colleague to let us finish this critical job. He is correct that the deployments and service and casualties are hard on all of us. He is wrong about what is demoralizing us. What is demoralizing is a Congress which no longer stands behind our mission."
That's why we're offering this resolution.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will the gentlemen yield?
HUNTER: That's obviously the message that's going out to thousands of servicemen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will the gentlemen yield?
OBEY: That's because you're sending that message. Jack Murtha isn't sending that message, you are and the White House is.
REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D), OREGON: We have a signed document from the chair of the United States House of Representatives Armed Services Committee asking for immediate withdrawal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: That was -- that was Democratic Pete DeFazio of Oregon. Earlier, heard from Dave Obey of Wisconsin, shouting back at Duncan Hunter. You see the political opening there for the Democrats, based on the way the Republicans wrote the resolution.
Another dramatic moment coming when a freshman Republican, Jean Schmidt of Ohio, started recounting a conversation she says she had with a state lawmaker back in Ohio in which the state lawmaker called Jack Murtha a coward for bringing up this original plan. Pandemonium erupted on the House floor, Democrats demanding an apology. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee racing across the aisle pointing his finger. Eventually Jean Schmidt stood up and apologized, withdrew her own words.
But the bottom line is that this ended up possibly being a little bit difficult for the Republicans. Because it's put more of a microscope on the whole Iraq situation, and it's provided a little bit of opening for the Democrats, Lou.
DOBBS: You know, while parsing is popular in Washington, and I understand that, Ed, the fact is whether six months in which to withdraw or, as the language of this resolution states, to terminate the mission, the effect is precisely the same.
The up and down vote, while it may be political art on the part of the Republicans, this is precisely what is required, is it not, a nation at war? A question about the mission or commitment to it and our troops in Iraq need to hear precisely what our government wants them to do.
HENRY: Absolutely. I mean, most of this is political theater. And what the Democrats feel is that this is at least provoking a debate on Iraq that they've been demanding for a long time.
Republicans see it as an opportunity to get on record, get the entire Congress on record as saying that they will not be withdrawing the troops, whether it is six months, whether it's immediate, whether it's three months, that they don't want the troops withdrawn. Bottom line, though, it's mostly political theater, Lou.
DOBBS: It will be a vote of our constitutionally elected representatives, as well. Ed Henry, thank you.
Tonight President Bush will talk about the war in Iraq in a speech to our troops in South Korea. The president's speech comes as the Bush White House tries to deflect the rising criticism of the conduct of this war.
Dana Bash reports now from Busan, South Korea.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): No press questions here with Russia's leader. President Bush for now is letting deputies fight the latest skirmish over the Iraq war political debate back home.
STEPHEN HADLEY, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We simply believe that the congressman is wrong on this issue.
BASH: The gloves-off White House effort is to paint a Democratic congressman calling for troops out of Iraq in six months as out of the mainstream.
"Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America," said the White House press secretary in a blistering statement. "So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
By trying to link John Murtha, a known hawk, to the dovish filmmaker Michael Moore, Bush aides hope to stop independents and Republicans already skittish about Iraq from following the influential Democrat's lead.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: I respectfully disagree with John Murtha.
BASH: White House officials note even outspoken war critics in Murtha's own party think an immediate troop withdrawal would be dangerous.
But the Bush strategy to dismiss Murtha's biting criticism of the president's Iraq policy by calling him part of the left wing fringe may be undermined by past statements like this.
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was secretary of defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee. We used to be able to do more together on a bipartisan basis than seems possible these days.
BASH: It's that kind of glowing comment in the heat last year's campaign that makes the Bronze Star, double Purple Heart recipient's slam at the vice president on Iraq so stunning.
REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: I like guys that got five deferments and never been there. And send people to war. And then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: And, Lou, on that vote that will happen shortly in the House of Representatives that Republicans are pushing to withdraw troops immediately from Iraq, as you know the White House has eventually been coordinating very carefully with members of Congress in -- Republicans in Congress on the whole political hit back, if you will, against Democrats on Iraq.
This particular tactic, according to a couple of White House officials, is not one that the White House certainly endorsed to begin with, and some at the White House don't necessarily think that it is a good idea politically to be doing this.
But in the end they hope perhaps they will at least get some Democrats on the record, saying that they don't want to withdraw troops from Iraq. Because as you know at the White House they think that is not a good policy -- Lou.
DOBBS: I'm not sure what the White House is thinking. And Dana, if you would clarify something for me: did or did not the White House link Jack Murtha to Michael Moore in their response? BASH: they absolutely did.
DOBBS: Then what in the world are we talking about they don't endorse this approach?
BASH: I'm talking about the political tactic, Lou, of putting a piece of legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives to force a vote among Republicans and Democrats on withdrawing troops immediately from Iraq.
The idea, politically, from the perspective of the White House, in the end, perhaps, they think it might help them. Again, I'm talking just politically. But to do this at this point, it's not something that the White House necessarily coordinated with the House of Representatives with the Republican leadership. They said they did this on their own. It's not necessarily something they think politically is a very good idea right now.
DOBBS: And while a man of Congressman Murtha's standing requires no defense whatsoever, it is also, it seems to me, Dana, to be perfectly clear that when Jack Murtha referred to the vice president's five deferments, he was doing so only after the White House had attacked him rather personally, correct?
BASH: Certainly, that would be what Jack Murtha would say. And there's no question, Lou, the war of words between those two men, particularly since they both have said that they go back a long time and are old friends is very telling about where this situation, where this debate has gone in Congress and in the country.
DOBBS: Without question. And as you say, that would be Jack Murtha's perception, but chronologically and factually it is also the case, is it not?
BASH: Well, the vice president didn't attack Jack Murtha personally, specifically. I think he certainly was talking generally about congressional Democrats and Jack Murtha is one of them. So Jack Murtha fall -- fell under that broader category but he didn't specifically directly attack Jack Murtha personally, no.
DOBBS: But chronologically that is the case in which it occurred, correct?
BASH: Correct.
DOBBS: Right.
BASH: The vice president in a speech a couple of nights ago did broadly say that the congressional Democrats were wrong on this issue, correct.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. Dana Bash from Busan, South Korea, thank you.
We'd like to know what you think. Give you a chance to vote, in fact, before the U.S. Congress, only we're going to give you three options, if we may. The options that seem most obvious at least to us.
Do you believe the United States should, A, stay the course in Iraq; withdraw U.S. troops within six months as Congressman Murtha suggests; or C, commit to whatever it takes to win the war? This, of course, would include adding troops and resources necessary to bring about that solution.
Please cast your vote as LouDobbs.com. We'll have the results here later in the broadcast.
As President Bush prepares for his visit to Beijing tomorrow, China is rapidly building up its armed forces to challenge American military preeminence across the globe. Astonishingly, that build-up is being at least partially, if not fully, financed by the United States and our consumers as our trade deficit with China explodes.
Christine Romans reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): China is transforming its military with its newfound economic wealth. Dollars from our $200 billion trade deficit are financing a remarkable modernization. The goal of this build-up, military experts say, is to challenge the United States for military superiority in the western Pacific.
ROGER CLIFF, RAND: I actually think we are entering a real period of danger over the next five years or so in the U.S.-China- Taiwan relationship. I think that there is a low but significant possibility of an actual military conflict within the foreseeable future.
ROMANS: China's army stands at 2.3 million. And experts say China is spending billions to develop a core high tech fighting force within.
And China is making strides in missile technology. China has now perhaps 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaches U.S. shores and highly effective land and sea-based cruise missiles.
To say nothing of a new class of torpedoes designed to attack U.S. aircraft carriers and two brand new Leilang (ph) 2 class destroyers that appear to have Aegis technology.
China has also developed its counterpart to U.S. war planes like the F-16 and now has perhaps 400 fighter jets.
All this is a challenge for American defense planners.
PETER LEITNER, CENTER FOR ADVANCED SECURITY STUDIES: When the Chinese start floating the boats and start fielding these missiles the president will inevitably go back to Congress and ask for a new spending to develop new weapon systems or additional weapon systems to array in the Pacific against the Chinese to at least balance the modernization program. ROMANS: The State Department estimates China will spend $90 billion this year on its military, much more than China admits.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: China is still very far behind the United States in military prowess. That's why the focus appears to be on a light and smart fighting force able to dominate in the Taiwan Straits.
At the same time experts say China's dollar diplomacy is another powerful weapon. China has 711 billion American dollars in its war chest. It's the second largest holder of U.S. debt.
DOBBS: And a significant power and influence in our capital markets, as well.
It is also worth pointing out on the issue of China that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has come in for his share, we think, a proportionate share of criticism on this broadcast for the conduct on the war in Iraq, may be alone amongst the cabinet secretaries of this administration in focusing on the strategic threat posed by China.
ROMANS: We hear a lot about engagement. But when you talk to people who are close to Rumsfeld and the Pentagon they're talking about being cautious and containment in terms of the military in China.
DOBBS: Christine Romans, thank you.
Still ahead here. Desperate hours in Ventura County, California. An out of control wildfire emergency. We'll have live report for us. And an epic investigation with apparently no end in sight. The White House CIA leak probe is expanding once again. We'll have a live report for you from Washington next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: It now appears the CIA-White House leak investigation will go on for much longer than anyone expected. It has already lasted 688 days, more than twice as long as the Watergate investigation, and so far only one person has been indicted. That person, of course, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby. Only one person has been in jail, former "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller.
Kelli Arena has the report -- Kelli.
KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in a new court filing that he will continue to investigate who leaked Valerie Plame's name with a new grand jury. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be new charges in this investigation but, of course, that's always a possibility.
White House aide Karl Rove remains under investigation, and new information from journalist Bob Woodward could take this investigation in new directions.
Now, speaking of Woodward, Lou, in a new interview with "TIME" magazine he's explaining for the first time why his source finally went to the special prosecutor, prompting Woodward's testimony.
Woodward says when former vice presidential aid Scooter Libby was indicted Fitzgerald described him as the first official to tell a reporter about Plame. But Woodward realized that he spoke to a source about Plame first. So he called the source, and that person decided that there was no choice but to go to Fitzgerald.
And then there's just one other development, Lou, on the Scooter Libby front. Fitzgerald and the media reached an agreement that allows some of the evidence against Libby to be made public before his trial. Now that's only after CNN and other news organizations went to court to fight Fitzgerald's initial proposal to keep all of that material secret, Lou.
DOBBS: Is there any indication that this special prosecutor, who has already been at work for more than two years with, I think it is clear, zero results on the substance of the initial charge of the investigation, is there any indication that he will be forthcoming to determine whether or not in point legally Valerie Plame was, in point of fact, covert while working at the CIA to discuss the roles of the certainly the journalist who started all of this with his reporting? That is Robert Novak. There are questions upon questions here...
ARENA: There are.
DOBBS: ... that this prosecutor has not been able, it seems irresponsibly so, to answer to the American public.
ARENA: Well, Lou, officials have said that Fitzgerald will answer all questions through any indictments, that he is not going to write a paper. It would be -- there would be too many legal problems and complications for him to actually do that, Lou. So much of it is classified anyway.
So if we do not get another indictment, it's very likely that many of those questions may never be answered unless those people like Bob Novak tell us what the heck went on.
DOBBS: We're back where we started, Depending on the journalists to report. Thank you very much, Kelli Arena.
Still ahead here, wildfires out of control and threatening homes in southern California. We'll be live with the very latest for you.
And a new illegal alien controversy right now, and Wal-Mart right in the middle of it, right where they didn't want to be. We think. We'll have that special report, as well. Straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight, parts of Ventura County, California, are in the midst of an out of control wild fire. The fierce Santa Ana winds are fueling the flames, driving those fires about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
More than 2,000 acres have been scorched. The fires are now threatening homes. Some residents are being evacuated.
Ventura County is literally focused on these flames so many homes in danger that it is an outright full blown response to this fire. All of the dry parched Southern California, however, is on a red flag wildfire alert, which means wildfires could spring up at any time tonight in Southern California.
Ted Rowlands is tonight in Ventura County and has the latest for us -- Ted.
TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And Lou, those winds are the real problem. And the springing up is the real problem, as well. Here in Ventura County, they sprang up in force today, and they forced the evacuation of dozens of homes here.
Right now those winds have subsided considerably. And there is not much in terms of threatened -- threat for these homes.
This fire was knocked down because of the lack of winds and an air assault which was thrown at this fire from the entire region, and it has been very successful.
People gathered what they could and got out and now we're seeing them actually come back and find that their homes have not been damaged. There are a few outbuildings that have been damaged and one firefighter was injured. But for the most part, because the winds dropped down so very -- as much as they did -- you're looking at a live picture now. The fire is still burning, but it's in a rural area in between a canyon, which separates hillside homes.
So at this hour things are looking good. However, that said, the winds typically do pick up in the evening hours, and as we approach that in the next few hours here, firefighters are on guard and ready to battle this throughout the night. They're hoping that they contain this sometime tomorrow -- Lou.
DOBBS: Ted Rowlands, thank you very much.
Good news, Florida is on tropical storm watch once again tonight. Tropical Storm Gamma, which formed today off the coast of Central America, is strengthening. It is the 24th named storm of this record Atlantic hurricane season.
At this hour, Gamma is expected to take virtually the same path as Hurricane Wilma last month and to hit Florida sometime Monday, possibly at hurricane strength.
Coming up next here, more than 100 illegal aliens busted by the federal government, and it all is connected to Wal-Mart. We'll have the story.
And a desperate plea to an American airline to save thousands of American jobs from being exported to cheap foreign labor markets. I'll be joined by the woman calling for, well, a great deal of action on the part of the federal government against Northwest Airlines. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is our guest.
And able danger. New pressure tonight on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. We'll have that report for you.
And we're keeping track of the vote on the House floor tonight to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. I'll be talking with a former advisor to four presidents, David Gergen. And also three of the top political and legal analysts in the country about what has been an extraordinary week in American politics.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight, the very latest on the massive federal bust of illegal aliens in Pennsylvania: 125 illegal arrested at a construction site for a brand new Wal-Mart distribution center.
Bill Tucker has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Last May Wal-Mart fired the general contractor at this job site and took over the job of building its distribution center in Eastern Pennsylvania itself.
Now roughly half the workers who worked on the job site have been detained by Immigration and Custom Enforcement on charges they illegally entered and were illegally working in the United States.
Wal-Mart quickly issued a statement. The company noted that none of the workers were Wal-Mart associates, that it has contracts with its subcontractors requiring they follow employment law. And Wal-Mart says it is cooperating fully with federal authorities.
One hundred and twenty-five workers at these five subcontractors were arrested. But proving that any one knew the workers were illegal, is not a slam dunk.
VICTOR CERDA, FORMER ICE OFFICIAL: In order to establish a case, you have to prove -- the government has to prove that the employer knowingly hired this person, knowing that they were illegally here in the United States.
TUCKER: In other words, the employers may never be fined for hiring illegal workers. For Wal-Mart, which earlier this year settled federal charges involving child labor and the use of illegals by cleaning subcontractors...
ROY BECK, NUMBERS USA: This is very embarrassing. It's bad for business, for Wal-Mart.
(END VIDEOTAPE) TUCKER: Now the tip-off that the illegal workers might be working on the job came from the president of a union local back in July. He says he noticed a lot of out of state plates at the job site, and he complained because he has a lot of local members, Lou, who are unemployed in the area, without any benefits.
DOBBS: Wal-Mart, after having settled for the charges of child labor violations, hiring illegal aliens before, aren't they on some sort of higher standard of conduct than all of the other unscrupulous employers of illegal aliens?
TUCKER: They probably are wishing that they at least appear to be tonight.
DOBBS: It's remarkable. And -- well, good for the folks there checking it out. Only if Wal-Mart were as rigorous in its concerns. Apparently, they don't believe they have to deal with local authorities.
TUCKER: Well, that's what set him off is he called them, asked them about the out of state plates. And they said we don't have to sit down with any local business attorney group.
DOBBS: Well, I can't imagine Wal-Mart being arrogant like that. But as you reported it must be true.
Bill Tucker, thank you.
The U.S. Border Patrol tonight is determined to avoid a repeat of the case of Oscar Antonio Ortiz. Ortiz, as you may recall, the illegal alien charged with lying his way into a job as a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
The border patrol says it has begun screening new applicants itself to make sure they are in the United States legally instead of relying on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
A border patrol spokesperson, Salvador Zamora, says, quote, "the information we obtained from OPM fell through the cracks, we're not taking anyone's word on who they are or whether they are in the country legally."
Sounds like common sense to us, and our hats off to the border patrol for exercising absolutely great judgment and common sense, something we don't often see in the federal government.
Turning now to a Northwest Airline plan to take away jobs from American citizens, and export them to cheap foreign labor markets. We reported to you last night, the American owned company is considering outsourcing 2, 600 American jobs.
My guest tonight has written a letter to the CEO of Northwest urging him to reconsider.
Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York met with several flight attendants yesterday on Capitol Hill. Her letter has been signed by 99 members of Congress from both parties.
Congresswoman, good to have you here.
REP. CAROLYN MALONEY (D), NEW YORK: Well, Lou, thank you for your support. I'm going to make it 100 now with your support. One hundred supporters for this letter.
DOBBS: Well, I'm sure you have got more supporters than that by far.
But the fact is that CEO has -- we invited him to join us here. He declined. Do you think that after federal loans to this airline, and their purchase of Airbus products instead of U.S. made products, at some point there would be a conscience about using that money?
MALONEY: It's absolutely outrageous. And with this idea of exporting and outsourcing flight attendant jobs on top of the huge subsidy that they got over $251 million, they use that money to buy Airbus. They could have bought Boeing, a great company.
Boeing is our number one exporter. Many foreign companies buy Boeing, but this company decides to go buy Airbus, and give the money to foreign workers and to a foreign company.
It's a very disturbing trend. And if it continues it will have a domino effect with all the other airlines. Seven different airlines are now in bankruptcy now.
DOBBS: Do you think Congress can do anything here? I know you're trying congresswoman.
MALONEY: Well, he has not replied to our letter. In fact, he's been calling around in opposition to the letter.
But I think that certainly legislation would be appropriate that those airlines that have huge subsidies from the American taxpayer that they should not be using this money to hire foreign workers, and to buy planes that are manufactured in foreign companies with foreign workers.
DOBBS: Congresswoman, we're out of time. Let me just ask you, do you think there's any point at which the American people are going to say they have had a belly full of this nonsense, and demand action on the part of you and Congress?
MALONEY: If we don't do something we will not have a middle class. This is an extremely disturbing trend.
I have their letter, their contract that they are talking about, and Northwest is even talking about having foreigners as flight attendants on American soil for the first time and flying across America in flights of 100 passengers or less.
It is a very disturbing trend. Thank you for your attention on it.
DOBBS: Thank you for being here. We appreciate it, Congresswoman Maloney.
Congressman Curt Weldon says he's planning on sending the Able Danger Petition to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld tonight. Congressman Weldon gathered nearly 250 signatures now from his colleagues from the house of representatives demanding Rumsfeld allow able danger officials to testify publicly before Congress.
Those signatures, by the way, of course, constituting more than half the members of Congress. Able Danger, the U.S. Army Intelligence Unit, that claims to have identified 9/11 mastermind, Mohammed Atta, and another 9/11 radical Islamic terrorists, more than a year before 9/11.
Able Danger officials say an army attorney prevented them from sharing the information with the FBI.
You can read the Congressman Weldon's letter to the secretary of defense on our web site, loudobbs.com.
President Bush tomorrow is in Beijing for a summit with President Hu of China. But President Bush's visit is being overshadowed by his political troubles and there are many here at home, from concerns about his conduct of the war to his plummeting poll numbers.
Joining me now, David Gergen former adviser to four presidents.
David, you and I have talked about whether things could get worse for this president. It appears they have just done that.
DAVID GERGEN, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Well, he has sure had four bad weeks in a row. I'm sure weeks he would like to forget. And he has to--pretty soon he has to start pulling out of this slump or it's going to, I think, solidify against him.
DOBBS: This--I will just say it straightforwardly. This insult to Congressman Jack Murtha, implying that he is a Michael Moore liberal, in response, has this White House communications group gone nuts?
GERGEN: Well, you might ask it. Well, listen, I understand why they are fighting back.
DOBBS: Oh, I understand fighting back. But I don't understand a man who has been supportive of the administration's policies, and who has reached a decision in conscience, should be treated like this by anyone in this country.
GERGEN: Well, I think...
DOBBS: Let alone the White House.
GERGEN: I think that's absolutely right.
Let's first underscore the significance of Jack Murtha breaking with the administration on the war. He has been, you know, a hawk on the war, supported the war, and more importantly, Lou, as you know, he's very close to a lot of generals in the army.
He knows -- and when he speaks, many think they are hearing the voice of those generals. So, when he broke with the president yesterday, and said, get those troops out of here now, this is a losing proposition. That was a significant blow for the administration.
I understand why they fought back. But I don't think the language they are using gets them anywhere. To go after people, who are being reprehensible or punching their patriotism only backfires.
It makes it a lot harder, among other things, to keep some of the moderate Democrats with them in the fights ahead.
DOBBS: We're going to have a vote within the hour on this apparently. A vote within the hour on the resolution that is altered from the Murtha position. It calls for a termination of the American mission in Iraq.
So, it will be interesting. Do you think that was a smart decision on the part of the leadership of the house to do that?
GERGEN: Yes, I think that was a smart move on the part of the Republicans. Because the Democratic party is splintered over this. And the vote will likely expose that. And it has not yet rallied to Murtha's position. So, I think it's a quick way to demonstrate Murtha doesn't have the support.
But the fact that Murtha broke is -- and that he came out swinging against Dick Cheney in a very personalized way underscores how toxic the atmosphere is becoming, Lou.
I have to tell you again, this country--if these folks can't get together on some of this, get a united front on Iraq, get a united front on deficits, and start governing as real leaders, the country is going to pay one hell after price.
We cannot afford--you know, somebody, a Republican strategist pointed out to me today, when you look at George Bush, how much time he has left in office. He has the entire length of time that John Kennedy served plus four months still left in his second term.
DOBBS: And facing problems of an extraordinary dimension. And amongst those problems China, itself. A trade policy that has resulted in $200 billion deficits this year, total mounting trade debt.
Trillions of dollars, and meanwhile great concern that the Chinese are building up militarily to the point that they could challenge U.S. preeminence.
What is this president got to do when -- is it going to be enough for him to have simply visited Beijing? Or does he have to come back with a concrete result diplomatically?
GERGEN: I think he has to come back with some, again, a softening on their currency so that our goods are more competitive. And they don't have this protective quality on their side.
But, I also have to tell you, Lou, that I think he has got to make sure he cools the view inside the administration that China is ultimately going to be our enemy. That China is ultimately going to be some kind of showdown.
That view you can find in quiet places in the administration. And it is bubbling up in the Congress. It is a very unhealthy way.
You know, Nixon had the view a long time ago. The way to deal with the Soviet Union was to tie them up in so many trade deals that they wouldn't want to fight. They wouldn't pursue their imperialism. Turned out to be a pretty darn good strategy.
We need to even the playing field with China so we have a much better trade deal. But we don't need to treat them as military enemy, a potential military enemy.
DOBBS: Well, as the saying goes, you were there. And I was living through it from my perch outside.
But, the fact is as I recall, Ronald Reagan's build up of the defense of this country, and putting them in a race at which effectively bankrupted the Russians, had a heck of a lot more influence than Richard Nixon's decision to trade with them.
GERGEN: Well, I'll tell you something, and we could probably debate this a long time.
DOBBS: We've got about 30 seconds.
GERGEN: OK. Nixon did two things. He tied them up in trade deals. And he was the one who split china apart from Russia. So, they weren't united...
DOBBS: Hold on, no, no.
GERGEN: ...opened the door to Reagan, whom I think deserves a lot of credit for ending the Cold War the way he did. I do agree with you on that.
DOBBS: Thank you sir, and I agree with you on your other positions as well. We are utter agreement.
David Gergen, thank you very much for being with us.
GERGEN: Thank you. Thank you, Lou. Good to talk to you again.
DOBBS: In tonight's poll, we'd like to know what you think. As we said the question tonight is, as the house prepares to vote on a decision to terminate the American mission Iraq, do you believe -- we're going to give, as we said, more options than the Congress has given tonight.
Do you believe the United States should A, stay the course in Iraq as the administration would like; B, withdraw U.S. troops in six months as Congressman Murtha has recommended; or C, commit to whatever it takes to win this war that, of course, would include adding troops to the fight in Iraq. We will have the results for you in just a few minutes.
Coming up here next as we've been reporting, high stakes on the House floor, a resolution to withdraw the troops. We'll be talking with our experts on the political and legal ramifications of what has been an extraordinary week.
And our tribute this week to the men and women who serve this nation in uniform all around the world. Tonight the story of a colonel who received one of our military's top honors for his heroism in Iraq. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: A new study out this week challenges what it an assumption among many, that military recruits come from overwhelmingly poor and minority families. This report from the Heritage Foundation says the middle and upper classes in fact are sending the majority of our troops into service: 66 percent of all enlisted recruits in 2003.
The report says only 15 percent of our enlisted recruits come from poor, minority households. Chuck Vinch of the "Army Times" reports his new research shows that whites are also paying a far greater price in this war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHUCK VINCH, "ARMY TIMES": Seventy-four percent of the first 2,000 casualties in the war were white whereas whites make up about 67 percent of the total military force. So the whites are overrepresented among the deaths. Blacks on the other hand are underrepresented, make up about 10 percent of the 2,000 deaths versus 17 percent of the total force.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: And Vince says of the first 2,000 American deaths in Iraq, 53 percent were 24 years of age or younger.
Now, our weekly salute to this nation's heroes, the men and women whose service around the world in uniform. Tonight the story of Colonel James Coffman who played a critical role in leading Iraqi police through a deadly battle with insurgents. Colonel Coffman was severely wounded but he continued to fight in that battle. Philippa Holland reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PHILIPPA HOLLAND, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Colonel James Coffman joined the Army in 1972. He served in various infantry and special forces assignments around the world before heading to Iraq in December of 2003. After nearly a year in Iraq, Coffman was called to help an Iraqi commando platoon under attack at a police station in Mosul. COL. JAMES COFFMAN, U.S. ARMY: When he closed within about 100 meters of the police station, we came under very heavy attack from RPGs, heavy machine guns, which forced us to deploy from the vehicles and take up whatever defensive fighting positions that we could in the area. About an hour into the fight I was wounded in my left hand. So I was forced to use my other hand to shoot which is not my dominant hand.
HOLLAND: Within that first hour, all but one of the Iraqi commandos were wounded. Coffman encouraged the remaining troops to continue to fight. They went on until help arrived, several hours later.
COFFMAN: We also got some air support at that time. And we were able to start putting some rocket fire into the positions of the insurgents. A Stryker quick reaction force arrived on the scene, able to guide them into position and at that time the fighting pretty well was under control.
HOLLAND: On August 24th, 2004, Colonel James Coffman was awarded the distinguished Service Cross for his extraordinary courage and heroism during this five-and-a-half hour battle.
COFFMAN: What was going through my mind was that you just can't give up. You can't stop. You know, you have to go to pulling a knife out, whatever it takes to win.
HOLLAND: To this American hero, his commitment to other soldiers is just as important.
COFFMAN: I would trade that medal in today if it could bring back those soldiers that died next to me.
HOLLAND: Philippa Holland, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Colonel Coffman back from Iraq. He's now on duty at the Pentagon. Coming up, on the next hour of CNN, THE SITUATION ROOM and Wolf Blitzer. Wolf, what do you have?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks very much, Lou.
Coming up a war of words and a line drawn in the sand. The House right now debating whether to pull troops out of Iraq immediately. The vote expected in the coming hour. We're covering all sides of this story.
Plus, Tropical Storm Gamma now projected to possibly hit Florida by Monday. We have the forecast.
And Robert Blake gets the O.J. treatment. He got off for his wife's murder but today a jury finds him liable for her death. Attorney Bob Shapiro joins us live.
And a billionaire in the world's largest aquarium. We're taking you under the ocean in THE SITUATION ROOM. All that, much more coming up at the top of the hour -- Lou.
DOBBS: Looking forward to it, Wolf. Thank you .
Your government at work tonight. As if there aren't more pressing issues for elected officials, two senators who oversaw an appropriation subcommittee backed an amendment that would have named two federal buildings after themselves.
Senator Arlen Specter and Senator Tom Harkin supported a measure in the Senate that would rename two buildings at the Centers for Disease Control after themselves, but it's not going to happen. The House rejected the massive health and education spending bill including the amendment which would have added the names Specter and Harkin to the buildings.
Still ahead here, drama this Friday evening on the House floor. The vote on a controversial resolution calling for immediate withdrawal of American troops is scheduled to take place this evening. We'll continue to monitor the vote and I'll be talking with two of the country's top political and legal analysts here next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining us now, Ed Rollins, political strategist, former political director for the Reagan White House. Joe Klein, columnist, TIME Magazine. And Jeffrey Toobin, our senior legal analyst here.
Ed, let's start with you. This White House is besieged, if ever one has been.
ED ROLLINS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE POLITICAL DIRECTOR: There's no question. It's important for them to be on the offensive. But, you've got to be very careful as to what you're saying. I learned in politics that you never fight on your own negatives. They're not fighting on intelligence before the war, which they can't win. They are now attacking a man who clearly was a war hero, went to war.
DOBBS: Linking him with Michael Moore.
ROLLINS: You can certainly get up, and you have to argue your case of why you want to stay there. And I'm happy for that. But they better get their lines right. And I think they've had a very bad week.
DOBBS: Joe?
JOE KLEIN, COLUMNIST, TIME MAGAZINE: You know, they're not on the offensive. They're on the obnoxious. I mean, it's been dreadful. But this is a very important week in the history of this war. This is the week that the debate shifted from how to prosecute the war to how to withdraw from the war.
Even in the Senate vote, where they didn't set a timetable, where they just asked for guidance and strategy next year. The subtext there was, we got to get out of here. And that is a huge shift. I'm not sure it's a good one. DOBBS: Why not a good one?
KLEIN: Because of the consequences if we do leave. There are two huge questions that we have to ask ourselves. If we leave, is it going to make the Middle East more or less stable? And the other question is, is it going to make it more or less likely that we'll be attacked by terrorists? If we leave, al Qaeda is going to be able to say we drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, we drove the Americans out of Iraq. Al-Zarqawi is going to be running high.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: But if we stay, is there any prospect for anything other than the status quo? Is there any prospect that if -- you know, with Rumsfeld in charge, that this war is going to go any differently than it's going today?
KLEIN: Well, not with Rumsfeld in charge.
DOBBS: That's why we ask our viewers tonight to vote on three options, which is not available to the House tonight. Our audience here is obviously far more favored. But it is, stay the course, which is not working, no matter what the protestations are in terms of the loss of lives for our young men and women in uniform, or in terms of the goals that are not articulated by this administration.
And simple termination of the mission, which is not a bright approach, either. Or, the more difficult one, that is to win at any cost. That means bringing in more troops, because it is clear...
KLEIN: ... by the way, that option hasn't been -- wasn't on the table in the Senate. And when I talked to John McCain about this yesterday, it's his position. And I asked him, where we going to get these extra troops from? He said, it's very tough.
TOOBIN: But, is there one American politician right now calling for, let's put another 200,000 troops in there? Let's do the job. I mean, there's not one politician that I've seen who's doing that.
ROLLINS: I think what's very important is, we are training their troops. And the idea is, we're training their troops to get out. I think the bottom line is, we've got to train their troops and we've got to stay there together. We've got to have a strategy that's going to work and give some stability. They are going to have a democracy there in a very short period of time. I think if we pull, cut and run today, it's going to be chaos and a civil war.
KLEIN: The thing that this administration does not do well, at all, is the detail work of governance. They haven't -- they are great at spinning, they are great at attacking. But in Iraq, they are not doing the detail work of setting up ministries that can support an army.
DOBBS: We'll have back here in just a moment, right after this break. We've got a lot more to talk about, obviously. Including the results of our poll tonight. Coming up, right after this quick break. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now the results of our poll. And thousands upon thousands of responses, already 87 percent of you saying the United States should withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within six months. Now, this is overwhelming, 11 percent saying the U.S. should commit to whatever it takes to win the war. Two percent say the United States should stay the course.
Jeffrey Toobin, if the White House is watching that, or if the House of Representatives is watching that, it has to be at least, illuminating?
TOOBIN: It just shows the ferocious discontent with what's going on now. The problem, it seems, is that there is no sense in the White House that anything they're doing is wrong and needs changing. So, they're not changing, and so they get two percent support in this unscientific, but interesting poll.
ROLLINS: I'm a Republican, what is it I'm supporting? I'm supporting the troops. I want the troops that have gone there and paid a price, to basically think their country is behind them. But, I don't know what the policy is anymore.
KLEIN: Well, there hasn't been a policy. And the other thing is, there isn't a policy-making process in place in the administration now. It really is chaotic. It's a very bad situation.
DOBBS: It is -- it is a bad situation. It is a situation exacerbated by the calls for investigations into pre-war intelligence, whether it was manipulated or not. Despite the fact, if it was manipulated, it was manipulated by an administration before them.
KLEIN: It's just so weird for me to be sitting here, being with the 11 percent who want to do what it takes to win, since I opposed the war to begin with. But I think the withdrawal and immediate withdrawal is a recipe for utter chaos and disaster in the area. And we can't just keep on going the way we've been going, because we haven't been fighting it.
TOOBIN: The political advice, it seems with most issues when you have a problem is, change the subject. But when you're a nation at war, you can never change the subject. This subject can't go away. A clever tax plan is not going to make people forget the war.
DOBBS: I not only get annoyed with the politicians in Washington, occasionally I get very annoyed with the journalists covering our politicians. They buy into the art of the game and they forget that this is not a game, it's lives.
American lives, Iraqi lives and the future of that country as well as this. There should be an absolute, straight-forward, honest exchange of views and discussions by our policy makers. Both of the White House and in our Congress. Why can't we get there?
ROLLINS: And just a debate of the consequences. If we do pull out, what are the consequences to our foreign policy in the future? Any time you go shoot a few Americans, you cut and run. The greatest country in the world, economically and militarily, basically gets chased out by a bunch of terrorists.
TOOBIN: I'm not sure that is exactly the lesson here. The 2,083, that's not just a few Americans. That's a lot of Americans. It's billions of dollars. I think the withdrawal people, they are not crazy. The Iraqi government will be up and running in a month. Maybe it is time for them to just run their own government.
ROLLINS: But it should be a debate.
KLEIN: But wait a second. The ministry of the interior, where we found all of this torture this week, is run by a religious militia with close ties to the Iranian government. I mean, we cannot allow that.
DOBBS: Well, the debate is alive and well on this broadcast. We thank you all three of you for being here to do so. We can only hope for the very best.
Thank you very much, Ed, Joe, Jeffrey. Thanks for being with us tonight. We appreciate you being here for this debate and we thank you for your votes. Please be with us next week. For all of us here, we wish you a great weekend. Good night from New York.
THE SITUATION ROOM with Wolf Blitzer, begins right now. Wolf?
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
