Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
White House Offensive; Democrats Divided Over Iraq, Dean's Remarks on War; Finding a Voice; U.S. Nay Withhold Some U.N. Funds; Gilchrist Attempts To Gain Office In California
Aired December 06, 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, President Bush and Vice President Cheney are on the offensive against Democratic critics of the war in Iraq. We'll be live at the White House and on Capitol Hill.
And the Democratic Party is split over the war in Iraq. Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean declares the United States cannot win the war. We'll be examining the growing divisions within the Democratic Party.
And then, the Supreme Court considers a case that could determine whether universities have the right to ban military recruiters from university campuses. My guests tonight, two leading authorities on the highly controversial case.
Also, new fears about the future of our democracy, how illegal aliens and other non-citizens are influencing the outcome of congressional races and perhaps even presidential elections. We'll have the report.
And the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, is threatening dramatic action to combat the United Nations' culture of corruption and its history of incompetence. Ambassador Bolton joins me for an exclusive interview tonight.
We begin with a concerted effort by the White House to exploit the widening split in the Democratic Party over the war in Iraq. President Bush today blasted Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean's assertion that the United States cannot win in Iraq. At the same time, Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech before American troops, praised Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman for declaring U.S. troops must stay in Iraq.
Dana Bash reports from the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the Oval Office, a pointed rebuttal to the latest Democrat to call the Iraq mission doomed to failure.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Oh, there's pessimists, you know, and politicians who try to score points. But our strategy is one that is -- will lead to us victory. BASH: At issue, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean's accusation the White House is repeating mistakes from Vietnam.
HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC PARTY CHAIRMAN: The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
BASH: The president was quick to respond to that because it was a direct challenge to the new Bush playbook, Americans want to hear they can and will win. But once again, developments in Iraq underscore both the policy and political challenges facing the president.
An Islamic militant group claims it is holding an American hostage in Iraq, a response, the organization says, to the president's alleged strategy for victory.
BUSH: We of course, don't pay ransom for any hostages. What we will do, of course, is use our intelligence gathering to see if we can't help locate them.
BASH: Also, two suicide bombers not only reminded Americans how violent Iraq is, but killed at least three dozen new Iraqi police officers so critical to the president's exit strategy.
Meanwhile at Fort Drum, New York, the vice president was warmly welcomed by members of the Army's Tenth Mountain Division, awarding two Purple Hearts and echoing the president's criticism of those who favor swift withdrawal.
RICHARD CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This would be unwise in the extreme. A victory for terrorists, bad for the Iraqi people. And bad for the United States. To leave that country before the job is done would be to hand Iraq over to car bombers and assassins.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASH: And the president will give his second in a series of Iraq speeches leading up to elections there tomorrow. Bush aides say the focus this time will be on reconstruction and building an Iraqi economy. And once again, aides say the president will acknowledge, admit that the administration has had to make some changes, shift the approach in dealing with those issues -- Lou.
DOBBS: You say admit. At the same time, critics are suggesting, Dana, as you know, that the president has been inflexible. Are there some who would credit the administration for changing direction?
BASH: Unlikely. What you are likely to hear is what we heard last week when the president talked about the fact the administration has had to shift in how they deal with the Iraqi security forces because the approach at the beginning simply wasn't right.
It is -- the administration would likely hope that the critics say, well, finally the president is admitting sort of a mistake, but that is exactly what we're going to hear from the critics, that the administration essentially didn't do things right the first time. That's why they're having to shift in strategy.
DOBBS: And if the president's schedule is correct, the president is straying from screened selected audiences tomorrow for that address.
BASH: Very interesting, Lou. As we have talked about on this program, the president has tended to not only be in front of friendly audiences when talking about Iraq, but even specifically in front of military audiences. And tomorrow he's going to be in front of the Council on Foreign Relation.
That is not only bipartisan, actually nonpartisan, a nonpartisan think tank that has a long list of members that include Democrats, even liberals like Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke. Unclear if they're going to be there, but certainly they could go if they wanted to.
DOBBS: Even liberals. Dana, thank you.
Dana Bash from the White House.
Howard Dean's controversial remarks about the war in Iraq reflect the sharp division among Democratic members of Congress about the conduct of the war and within the Democratic Party. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats want a quick, orderly U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. But many other congressional Democrats say a quick withdrawal, orderly or otherwise, would be nothing less than disaster.
Ed Henry reports from Capitol Hill -- Ed.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Lou, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today was crowing a bit, saying that he believes, and, in fact, Democrats have shaken up the debate over the war in Iraq and have really put President Bush on the defensive. But, in fact, Democrats find themselves on the defensive a bit themselves.
This fissure in the party that you mentioned, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi calling for a quick pullout of U.S. troops. Her number two, Congressman Steny Hoyer, reiterated today that he believes that's a bad idea. This is one reason why tomorrow morning, House Democrats, in advance of the president's latest speech on Iraq, will be going behind closed doors for a private caucus meeting, trying to hash out some sort of a unified message on Iraq moving forward.
That task all the more difficult today. Though, as you mentioned with Vice President Cheney trying to widen this fissure in the party by citing the remarks of Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, who has basically said that all progress in Iraq could be lost if the pullout is too quick, then Lieberman himself chided his fellow Democrats a bit, saying they need to cool it on the attacks on President Bush.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that it matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: The Democrats also put on the defensive a bit today by those comments you mentioned by Howard Dean suggesting he does not believe the U.S. can win the war in Iraq. That may be one reason why tomorrow the Democrat who has been tasked to officially respond to the president is not someone like Howard Dean, it's, in fact, going to be Congressman John Murtha, whose defense credentials obviously very well known.
Speaker Dennis Hastert among the Republicans today saying he believes Dean's comments show that the Democratic Party, in Hastert's words, "side with those who wish to surrender."
Senator Harry Reid responded by trying to distance himself by -- from Howard Dean, saying, in fact, he believes that the U.S. can win the war in Iraq. And when a reporter asked Reid whether he thinks this partisan back and forth has gotten too nasty and can actually undermine the war effort in Iraq, Reid disagreed.
But I can tell you one person who does think it has gotten too partisan is Joe Lieberman, who said he believes today it's time for both sides to cool it, and he called on President Bush to form some sort of a bipartisan war council, bring in congressional leaders from both parties to try to finally craft some sort of bipartisan strategy on Iraq -- Lou.
DOBBS: Ed Henry from Capitol Hill.
Thank you.
The debate over the war in Iraq is becoming, of course, more heated every day, and not particularly helpful in many cases in clarifying the issues. And as emotions and partisanship rise, some of the language in the debate obscures the real fundamental issues at stake for this country, how the United States can defeat the enemy in Iraq and ultimately bring our troops home.
Here are three examples of politicians who have fallen prey to rhetorical impulse and who appear to be failing to address the fundamental issues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of -- historical customs, religious customs.
HOWARD DEAN, DNC CHAIRMAN: The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: To be responsible, it seems to me, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Joining me now, our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider.
Bill, just to what extent, in your judgment, are these kinds of statements distorting, obfuscating the real issues here?
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the real issue is, what do we do next?
DOBBS: Exactly.
SCHNEIDER: And you don't hear an awful lot of talk about exactly how to solve this problem. What you have is a situation where passions run very deep. There is rage out there, just as there was in Vietnam.
I remember people marching down the street saying, "Hey, hey, L.B.J., how many kids did you kill today?" We haven't reached that level of animosity, but we're getting there.
And the other part of it is, the facts are very elusive. You listen to people in the Pentagon and the White House and they talk about the progress that are being -- that's made by the Iraqi security forces, but then you read articles that say that Iraq has no army, that the situation there is pretty hopeless. And Americans don't know the facts firsthand.
What they're not hearing is anyone who has a real solution.
DOBBS: It is remarkable to hear Senator Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, obviously, for 2004, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, not addressing the issue of what to do next, or offering, as is the role of the opposition party, a fundamental idea about how to win in Iraq. It is -- it's peculiar, is it not, particularly the statement by Howard Dean?
SCHNEIDER: It is. And, you know, you get the sense that maybe they don't know. How's that for an answer? Maybe neither the administration knows exactly how to solve this problem. And maybe the Democrats don't know how to solve this problem.
The American people have one priority -- really two. And the president made mention of it last week.
Americans want to win and get out. That's exactly what they wanted to do in Vietnam. They want to win and get out.
DOBBS: And I'm one of those people, by the way, Bill, just to be -- to offer full disclosure, I see very few analogs between Vietnam and Iraq. But in this -- in this instance, to hear the secretary of defense say that one cannot use a metric of the number of Americans killed in Iraq, nor the number of incidents of terrorism carried out by insurgents or the enemies of the legitimate government of Iraq, is dumbfounding, isn't it?
SCHNEIDER: It is. And the question is, what -- how do you define winning, or losing, for that matter, in Iraq?
Look, what is the metric that you want to use? The president talked about victory, "Victory" behind him on the screen in the backdrop when he spoke. He talked about victory throughout his speech. But exactly what constitutes victory in Iraq? Nobody is yet willing to define. It's not clear.
Victory seems to be mean something that will enable Americans to get out, and at the very minimum it means that Iraq cannot become a nest of terrorists, like Afghanistan once became, that threatens the United States. But here you have the Republicans saying you can't get out until you win, and many Democrats saying, in order to win, you've got to get out, because the American forces are becoming targets.
I don't know where that argument goes.
DOBBS: Well, we will be finding out. And, of course, irrespective of Secretary Rumsfeld's remarks, we will be suffering more casualties. More American troops being wounded and dying in Iraq while our politicians play games.
Bill Schneider, thank you very much.
SCHNEIDER: Sure.
DOBBS: New details tonight of the insurgent attack in Iraq that killed 10 of our Marines last week. Eleven other Marines were wounded.
The military now says the Marines were killed after a promotion ceremony at an unused flower mill on the outskirts of Fallujah. Officials say one of the Marines apparently stepped on a huge landmine made of old artillery shells. The military originally had said the Marines were killed while on patrol.
Still ahead here, you won't believe how easy it has become for immigrants to pass the U.S. citizenship test. Now some want to take steps to make that test a lot easier. And that will have significant consequences. We'll have the special report for you.
And how illegal aliens and other non-citizens in this country are new influencing the outcome of almost every election in this country.
And the United States is demanding a massive overhaul of the United Nations. I'll be talking exclusively with the man leading the American push for reform, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: Tonight, the test immigrants take in order to become American citizens could soon undergo a major overhaul. Citizenship officials acknowledge the test is nothing more than a memorization game that almost everyone passes. But others are warning that any changes to that test could make it easier, imagine that, to pass.
Christine Romans reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Alfonso Aguilar says he wants to make America's citizenship test more meaningful. But the man who runs Citizenship and Immigration Services was careful, careful to say he doesn't want to make the test any harder.
ALFONSO AGUILAR, CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SVCS.: And just by having a harder exam, what would that prove? You could have people who have more education passing the harder exam and having no attachment to the country.
ROMANS: At best, the current test is an exercise in memorizing trivia. Questions like, "What are the colors of our flag?" "Who said, 'Give me liberty or give me death?'" Trivia with a hint of government bureaucracy. "What USCIS form is used to apply to become a citizen?"
To show basic English skills, immigrants must read aloud one sentence and write another. Sentences like, "Today is a sunny day. The boy threw a ball. I know how to speak English."
K.C. MCALPIN, PROENGLISH: "My dog is very big," or "Where is the White House?" Or some of the other questions that are really -- really very, very poor questions to ask if you're really probing for some knowledge.
ROMANS: Plus, he claims many immigrants with no English are rubberstamped on this part of the test anyway.
Larry Gonzalez also says the test should be more fair, but not more difficult, because it would hurt immigrants on the verge of citizenship.
LARRY GONZALEZ, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED OFFICIALS: The folks that are getting lost in this debate are really the folks that have played by the rules and want to embrace America, and that's what this test should be about.
ROMANS: The government hopes to unveil a new citizenship test by January 2007.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: A lot of controversy over this process, but the process started in the Clinton administration and has hit focus groups and dead ends for years now. One focus test reportedly asked immigrants to look at a picture and write about it in English. The failure rates then soared. That was quickly scrapped.
And this agency has a main focus on clearing up the backlog of applicants for visas and citizenship. Certainly any new test would not slow down that process.
DOBBS: This is remarkable to. And to put it in context, some studies suggesting that we have as many as 20 million illegal immigrants in the country. But part of it is we have an enormous backlog of those people whoa re applying for citizenship in this country appropriately and legally.
How many is the most recent and largest estimate?
ROMANS: The largest estimate is three to five million.
DOBBS: Three to five million people. And we have a federal government that is so fouled up that they cannot take care of those in the legal process, and are indifferent to those who are crossing the borders in an absolute violation?
ROMANS: And the focus in the legal process seems to be to whittle down that backlog as well. Some folks say they think they've got it down to maybe a million is the backlog. There are concerns about rushing people through.
Just this week, for example, this same agency recalled 60,000 green cards because of a computer error. That causes confusion and uncertainty among immigrants.
DOBBS: It's just idiocy.
ROMANS: Right.
DOBBS: And it's more of your government at work in this case in immigration. And they're very proud of their process. Three to five million people are not.
Christine Romans.
Thank you.
Also tonight, fears are growing that our nation's bedrock nation of one man, one person, one vote is in serious jeopardy. The House today held a hearing into how non-citizens, many of them illegal aliens, are skewing census figures and threatening U.S. democracy itself.
Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Non-citizens, including illegal aliens, count as much as U.S. citizens when it comes to dividing up seats in the House of Representatives. Apportionment is based on the census which includes all persons in a state, whether they're legal or not. Representative Candice Miller is seeking a constitutional amendment to change that before the 2010 census.
REP. CANDICE MILLER (R), MICHIGAN: When we are voting in Congress about issues like national security or border security, or illegal immigration, we allow illegal immigrants to influence the outcome of those votes.
SYLVESTER: Because of the presence of illegal aliens, California gained three seats in the House in 2000. North Carolina added one seat. Indiana, Michigan and Mississippi each lost a seat. And Montana failed to get a seat that it would have otherwise.
Taking into account non-citizens, including guest workers, tilts the numbers even more. Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Utah each had one fewer seat in 2000. If thousands of new foreign workers were allowed in the country, it would further redistribute seats.
STEVEN CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: Even the guest worker program has profound consequences for the United States, including political representation outside of the workforce.
SYLVESTER: Latinos groups argue everyone should have a voice in Congress regardless if they're eligible to vote or not.
LAWRENCE GONZALEZ, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED & APP. OFFICE: The passage of this resolution would only serve to isolate segments of society and send a message that only U.S. citizens have a right to be heard by our government and elected officials.
SYLVESTER: But considering non-citizens to determine seats in Congress, many argue that dilutes the very meaning of citizenship.
And there's more at stake than the House of Representatives. Congressional delegations determine the number of electoral votes and ultimately who sits in the White House.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Over time, certain states have lost a significant number of seats in the House. Consider Michigan. In 1960, it had 19 representatives. Today it has 15. Ohio had 24 in 1960. Today only 18 -- Lou.
DOBBS: And is there any likelihood that people are intelligent enough to start dealing with this issue that is affecting the structure of the United States Congress?
SYLVESTER: This is going to be quite a battle, because it will determine essentially who stays and who goes. And you can expect that states like California, which has essentially been on the winning side of this, their representatives will fight to keep the system as it is. Representatives from Ohio and Michigan and Montana, the states on the losing end, you can kind of see where this will be going as well -- Lou. DOBBS: Thank you very much.
Lisa Sylvester.
That brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. Do you believe non-citizens should be counted in the census and have the privilege of voting, yes or no? Cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results here later.
Just ahead, one of the nation's leading advocates of tightening border security vies for a congressional seat. We're live in California with the story.
Yet another scandal at the United Nations. Why the scandal- plagued agency has fired a top election official just days before a critical vote in Iraq. That story is next.
And why some U.S. universities are banning military recruiters from college campuses and why it could cost them a lot of money. Some say deservedly so.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The United Nations is being criticized from some quarters for firing its director of elections just days before the critical Iraqi parliamentary vote. The United Nations has accused Carina Perelli of sexual harassment and abuse of authority. The United States says he dismissal could not have come at a worse time.
Liz Neisloss was with Perelli as her firing took place, with the exclusive report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LIZ NEISLOSS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): She was a rising star at the United Nations. Carina Perelli led the U.N. agency that successfully set up elections in war-scarred nations like Afghanistan. Even President Bush singled her out for praise.
BUSH: The United Nations assistance team headed by Carina Perelli is in Iraq, developing plans for next January's election.
NEISLOSS: Today, under a different spotlight, Perelli was escorted out of the United Nations by a security guard. Fired, the U.N. says, for sexual harassment and abuse of authority.
STEPHANE DUJARRIC, U.N. SPOKESMAN: Her service with the U.N. ends effective today. She is no longer permitted to come into the building unless she makes an appointment.
NEISLOSS: Perelli denies the charges.
CARINA PERELLI, FMR. DIR., U.N. ELECTION UNIT: The charges are false because there has been no due process in this foreign (ph) exercise.
NEISLOSS: Under Perelli's watch, the U.N. has been organizing voting in Haiti and upcoming Palestinian elections. But perhaps none so critical as those in Iraq.
PERELLI: I hope it has no impact. In elections, you know, you always wish for the best but plan for the worst. So I have a very competent team over there. Sorry, the U.N. has a very competent team out there.
NEISLOSS: In late October, the U.N. put a senior elections official in Iraq to take over for Perelli. But the U.S. is worried about a disruption.
JOHN BOLTON, U.S. AMB. TO UNITED NATIONS: One has to ask why after a year of inquiry, a decision had to be made nine days before a critical election in Iraq that the office here at the U.N. is very much involved in.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEISLOSS: U.N. officials are defending the timing of the release of the report, saying that there is a policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment. Those who have seen the report say it's strong stuff, including frank sexual language used in Perelli's office. Perelli vows to defend herself, though.
Lou, I can tell you, it will be months after the Iraqi elections before this is over.
DOBBS: Liz, the United Nations has been notorious in its failure to act on these kinds of allegations, taking months, if not years, to move toward anything that most people consider a responsible action. Why this quick movement?
NEISLOSS: Well, many people would say that the U.N. is scrambling because they have suffered under the weight of allegations of sexual harassment in peacekeeping missions, under the massive oil- for-food scandal, and now they want to jump when something wrong happens. But in this case, they seem to have chosen a target that actually was praised by many, including the United States, for being able to really achieve things all around the world for the United Nations. So they may have picked the wrong target.
DOBBS: Liz Neisloss, we thank you very much from the United Nations.
And the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, joins us here for an exclusive interview in just a few minutes.
In Washington, D.C., today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that pits the United States military against some of our nation's top universities. The schools are challenging a law that forbids them taxpayer funding if they refuse to allow military recruiters on campuses.
Jamie McIntyre reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At issue is whether colleges and universities can discriminate against military recruiters because they say the Pentagon's don't ask, don't tell policy discriminates against homosexuals. The schools argue the threat of losing federal funds violates their freedom of speech, since the military demands the same exact treatment as employers who don't discriminate against gays.
But in oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the government countered that nothing in the law prevents schools from voicing their objections, so long as military recruiters get equal access to students.
JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY, U.S. SUPREME COURT: When it's, say, a job fair and all the employers are there, but then they jeer? Just the school organizes a line jeering the -- both the recruiters and the applicants? That's equal access?
PAUL CLEMENT, SOLICITOR GENERAL: I think that would be equal access. I think you have to draw a practical line here between...
KENNEDY: I'm surprised you...
CLEMENT: ... between access and allowing the speech, but I think you have to be...
ANTONIN SCALIA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT: You're not going to be an army recruiter, are you?
MCINTYRE (on camera): While much of the oral arguments focused on the principle of free speech, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to suggest it was more about the money, some $35 billion a year in federal aid to education.
(voice-over): The justice seemed skeptical of the colleges assertion that hosting and fully supporting recruiters on campus amounted to a tacit endorsement of the military's anti-gay policy.
JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ, ATTORNEY FOR LAW SCHOOLS: The law schools are disseminating a message that they believe it is a moral to abet discrimination.
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT: And they can say that to every student who enters the room.
ROSENKRANZ: And when they do it, your honor, the answer of the students is, "we don't believe you. We read your message as being that there are two tiers."
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT: The reason they don't believe you is because you're willing to take the money. What you're saying is, this is a message we believe in strongly, but we don't believe in it to the tune of $100 million. MCINTYRE: The schools argue that withholding all federal funds, if just one part of the institution is not complying, is heavy-handed.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: The government says that the military should not be treated as unwelcome intruders for abiding by a policy which, while it bans the gays from openly serving in the military, was in fact made the law of the land by the Congress. Lou?
DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much. Jamie McIntyre from the Pentagon.
This case before the Supreme Court was brought by the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. It's a group of three dozen law schools challenging the Solomon Amendment, forbidding federal funding to schools that ban military recruiters.
Joining me now, the president, the founder of the forum is Kent Greenfield. He's professor of law at Boston College. Good to have you with us. Also joining us, Perry Pendley, attorney for Congressman Richard Pombo, who co-authored the Solomon Amendment. We thank you both for being here.
Let me turn to you if I may to you first, Kent. It sounded to me like rough going for your side of this argument today before the Supreme Court. What was your read?
KENT GREENFIELD, PROFESSOR OF LAW, BOSTON COLLEGE: I think the court was very engaged with the case, of course. There were a couple of things that came out of the argument.
One is that I think the exact part of the government's argument that you highlighted in your report was important. When the solicitor general of the United States said that law schools can protest however they want when military recruiters come, I think that's a great thing for us and a great victory.
Insofar as the history of this case was that a lot of law schools were treeing, were protesting against military recruiters, and they were receiving letters from the Defense Department saying, such protest or such mistreatment were such -- a targeted attention to military recruiters was unequal access.
DOBBS: And your thought about that, if you will, Perry?
PERRY PENDLEY, ATTORNEY FOR REP. RICHARD POMBO: Well, I think he's engaged in a terrific understatement. I think it's more than engaged. I don't think the law schools have more than two votes on the court.
Even Justice Breyer, for example, one of the most liberal members of the court said, "hey, the answer to this speech problem is not less speech, but more speech. Let's have the military there to speak, let's have the law school speak." And it's ridiculous to conclude that these law professors who are at the podium 24/7, are somehow silent in the face of the presence of a military recruiter once a semester.
DOBBS: Kent, help us understand something here, because this is a very unusual case. I'm a product of the '60s. I saw all sorts of protest on college campuses in those years. But to have a specific issue, and if you will, a narrow issue.
And that is the military policy on gays, become the focal point of what is an institutional response, that is to ban military recruiters. Does that not leave open the institutional response for any number of, if you will, counter-protests on a host of narrow issues?
GREENFIELD: I understand your point. The reason why this case was brought in the way that it has is that law schools have long held a collective belief, and organized ourselves according to a collective belief in the equality of our students.
And what we say is that if you want to come and recruit our students, we're happy to help you. We will roll out the red carpet for you, but you have to promise that you won't discriminate against our students. So what the government is saying is that they want special treatment. They don't want the same policy to be applied to them as we apply to every other employer.
DOBBS: Is that the way you see it, Perry? Is it special treatment or is it universal treatment?
PENDLEY: Let's talk about who's getting the special treatment here. Yale Law School, for example, gets $350 million a year from the taxpayers and it says, "hey, bring that money on, we want that money. But don't you be sending us the sons and daughters of American taxpayers if they're wearing the uniform of the country and coming on our campus to recruit." Who wants special treatments? The law schools are demanding special treatment and the justices are skeptical. I think the law schools go down 7-2 here.
DOBBS: Kent, we want to ask you to project. Well, we will certainly invite to you do so. But it seemed to me at least, Judge John Roberts asked the essential question. If this is a moral issue, an issue of conscience, that is on the gay policy of the United States military, why do you permit these institutions to accept federal money, if it is an issue of conscience?
GREENFIELD: I think this is a crucial question that has been misunderstood about this case. Every American receives some kind of government benefit. And the government cannot, and the court has long held that the government cannot, condition those benefits.
And whether the recipient agrees to be an agent of the government speech. So if they can do what they're saying under the Solomon Amendment, they can condition Social Security benefits on whether the recipients put up military recruitment.
DOBBS: Well how about educational funding, for example? In which it's clearly mandated that the public schools, which are historically, legally, traditionally, and constitutionally, charged with responsibility for education, are under the control of the Department of Education, where those monies are received.
GREENFIELD: Right. And the constitutional issue would be different with regard to private schools as opposed to public schools.
DOBBS: Kent Greenfield, we thank you very much.
GREENFIELD: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Perry Pendley, we thank you for being here.
PENDLEY: My pleasure.
DOBBS: We'll be dealing with the issue just as the court is. We thank you, both. Please come back.
Still ahead, a leading Republican House member introducing a new bill against illegal aliens that could make waves at the White House and within the Republican Party. We'll tell you why.
And I'll be talking next with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: At the United Nations today, a top level dismissal. New questions about what some say is a culture of corruption and history of incompetence throughout United Nations. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, says the U.N.'s management is incompetent from top to bottom.
Ambassador Bolton he is threatening to delay the U.N.'s entire budget unless the U.N. introduces reforms.
Ambassador Bolton joins us here us now. Good to have you with us.
JOHN BOLTON, U.S. AMB. TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Good evening.
DOBBS: The idea, first, that The United Nations is firing Carina Perelli in change U.N. elections nine days before the vote in Iraq. Is there a purpose here, a reason that is not obvious?
BOLTON: It's hard to understand. This matter has been under investigation for a year, and one wants to be careful in these things. I don't want to get into the specifics of the case, you have to ask from a management point of view, why take an action like this nine days before a critical election, that's what's hard to understand.
DOBBS: Turning to that which is hard to understand at the United Nations. After the U.N. oil-for-food scandal, the Volker Commission Report, the Volker investigation, now that report has turn over to the United Nations.
Are we to learn what Mr. Volker found out?
BOLTON: There's a lot of information that's not become public. I think the most serious problem at the moment is at United Nations, people don't take the Volker Commission Report seriously. In Congress they take it very seriously. At the U.N., people don't want to talk about it.
It's unpleasant to talk about mismanagement and corruption. If you don't address the issue, you're not going to solve the problem.
DOBBS: Congressman Henry Hyde has a bill which would withhold $100 million unless the Volker investigation information is turned over to congress. I don't know whether that's entirely appropriate. What would you recommend?
BOLTON: We think that the findings of the Volker Commission already tell us a lot about what needs to be done about U.N. reform. The mismanagement and the corruption that we saw in the oil-for-food scandal didn't come out of nowhere. They arose out of culture of the U.N. That's what needs to be fixed.
DOBBS: You have also talked and charged rather directly, a culture of incompetence, a history of incompetence at the United Nations from top to bottom. Can it really be redressed by withholding a two year budget, introducing, as you suggest, a quarterly budget until those reforms are taken seriously by the 191 members of the United Nations?
BOLTON: In September we had over 150 heads of state and government come to New York and say reform, management reform in particular was important. Three months later we've lost the momentum.
We need to find a way to get the momentum back, our view is that reform should drive the budget and not the other way around.
DOBBS: What is the likelihood that you can prevail in this. We should point out that the United States provides about 22 percent of the funding of the United Nations, leaving a lot of room for the rest of the members to ante up. What should happen here?
BOLTON: You know, we contribute this year about $1.8 billion, that's with a B, dollars to the U.N. in regular budget and peacekeeping terms, but we only have one out of 191 votes. That's where the disparity comes: 22 percent of the money, one half of one percent of the votes.
DOBBS: In the general assembly.
BOLTON: In the general assembly, where the budget is decided. We're working very hard on that. It's an uphill fight. There's no question about it when a majority of the general assembly contributes less than one percent of the budget, there is a real disparity there.
DOBBS: You have also suggested, or made it rather direct, the assertion that the United States should look to other multinational bodies for resolution, if the United Nations continues on a path of incompetence. Explain what you think should happen here, if there is not a sincere and active and timely move toward reform that you're insisting upon. BOLTON: We do this right now. Americans are very practical people. They look at an institution and say, does it work? If it doesn't work, they say can we fix it?
If we can't fix it, what are the alternatives? That's something we need to do throughout our foreign policy and I think that's what's being applied to the U.N. right now.
DOBBS: The United Nations, the president put it straightforwardly going into Iraq, it will determine by its votes on the resolutions for the war in Iraq whether or not it is relevant.
The United Nations is not playing a major role in post war Iraq, if that's how we can describe this period. Is there a role for the United Nations? Is there a way to move forward? And should the United States bring about a greater presence and activity upon the of the United Nations in Iraq?
BOLTON: We've been encouraging greater activity by the U.N. in Iraq. We think that will be beneficial for the Iraqi people and for the coalition. We've been trying to encouraging them to get more involved.
DOBBS: And is it your sense that the United Nations will find itself both reformed and relevant in the course of the next several months?
BOLTON: I think it remains to be seen. Secretary Rice said in September she wanted a revolution of reform at the U.N. And we have a long way to achieve that.
DOBBS: Ambassador John Bolton, thank you for being here.
BOLTON: Thank you.
DOBBS: A reminder now to vote in our poll. Do you believe non- citizens should be counted in the census and have the privilege of voting in the United States? Yes or no. Please cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up in a few minutes.
(NEWS BREAK)
DOBBS: Just ahead here tonight, broken borders. How one of the nations leading advocates on tough border security is moving closer to a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our "SPECIAL REPORT" next.
A new border security plan from a top Republican missing a key component of the president's own border security proposals. We'll have that story and a great deal more still ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Our nation's illegal immigration crisis and border security crisis is set to play a decisive role in today's special U.S. congressional election in Orange County, Southern California. Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project and three other candidates facing off in what has become a closely watched runoff vote.
Gilchrist's success to this point of the ballot show just how mainstream the fight against illegal aliens and the move for greater border security has become.
Peter Viles reports from Lake Forest, California.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many are voting for Jim Gilchrist?
PETER VILES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In rock solid Republican Orange County, it's already a political upset. Independent Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project, has made illegal immigration the dominant issue in a special Congressional election and he's making Republicans sweat.
JIM GILCHRIST (I), CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: I'm not afraid of the Republican party. I like the Republican party. I want to be a real Republican like Ronald Reagan.
VILES: In an October primary, Gilchrist won 15 percent of the vote, trailing Republican State Senator John Campbell who received 45 percent but denying Campbell a majority and forcing today's election. Gilchrist argues broken borders are destroying America's middle class and that voters want straight talk and bold solutions such as using the military to seal off the border.
GILCHRIST: We struck something that subliminally was bothering most Americans and we brought it forth. It's OK to talk about this problem. That plague of politically correct paralysis, folks that's history. This is a new era.
MARK PETRACCA, U.C. IRVINE: He's made illegal immigration the centerpiece of virtually all other issues that people, in fact, do care about -- transportation issues, public housing issues, public education issues, health care issues.
VILES: The Union for Border Patrol Agents has endorsed Gilchrist.
T.J. BONNER, BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: I've often said this is not a Republican issue, it's not a Democratic issue, this is an American issue.
VILES: Campbell, who will outspend Gilchrist by more than two to one, opposes using troops on the border but insists he wants to crack down on illegal immigration.
JOHN CAMPBELL (R), CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: I think we should have a fence or some kind of electronic security something all along the border. I think we should have additional controls on this side of the border. It's -- in an era of terrorism, it is simply not right for us to allow people to come into this country without knowing who they are and what they're going to do and why they're here.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: For the record, there is a Democrat on the ballot today, a trial lawyer named Steve Young, and he has a very strange approach to the border crisis. He has suggested that Mexican workers be allowed to buy their way into the United States. So it should come as no surprise that with that idea, he did not do well in the primary, and is not expected, Lou, to be a big factor today.
DOBBS: Sort of resonant of the McCain-Kennedy Bill on immigration reform. The question is, how well is Gilchrist doing? He forced a runoff, but is there any prospect at all that he would prevail here?
VILES: It would be an epic upset if he were to win today.
DOBBS: I like that. Epic upset.
VILES: Fifteen percent of the vote he received in the primary.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: We're going to leave it with epic upset, Peter Viles. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Tonight a key Congressional Republican is breaking with the president on our nation's broken border crisis. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner today introduced new legislation that focuses on workplace enforcement of immigration laws and completely ignores any mention of the guest worker program.
Sensenbrenner says he supports the president's guest worker initiatives but says now is not the time to deal with them in Congress. Sensenbrenner's bill would force employers to check the status of new hires in a federal database to see whether they're in the country illegally. The bill would make it easier for the United States to quickly deport illegal aliens as well, and it would give the military a larger role in border security, an initiative first proposed by New York Congressman Peter King.
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts. Eileen and Ed in North Carolina wrote into say, "after banking 28 years in Wachovia, we pulled out and put our money in a local bank. CEO Ken Thompson's statement that 'outsourcing will help build the middle class in India' was the last straw. We're more interesting in preserving the middle class in the USA."
And Joseph in Michigan wrote in about Burlington, Vermont's decision to ban outsourcers from winning city contracts. "How could any community stop doing business with companies that outsources? Everything is being made somewhere else, cars, computers, clothing, et cetera. If you stop shopping at Wal-Mart, most of the products you would end up buying would still be made in other country. We manufacture almost nothing anymore." And Ken, In Alabama: "After all of our jobs have been exported overseas, who is going to pay the salaries of our politicians and bureaucrats?"
We'll leave you with that question, and we love hearing you from. Send us your thoughts at loudobbs.com. And each of you whose e-mail is read here receives a copy of my book "Exporting America." Our e- mail newsletter, you can sign up on our Web site.
Well, coming up next the results of our poll and a salute to our men and women in uniform next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll tonight, overwhelming again. Ninety-seven percent of you say non-citizens should not be counted in the census nor have the privilege of voting.
Finally tonight, a tribute to our troops. Tonight and every night here we'll be sharing some thoughts from a few of our brave men and women who are serving this country around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am IS-1 Chris Shive (ph). I'm stationed with Combined Joint Task Force, horn of Africa, Djibouti. I want to wish my wife Lisa and daughter Katie (ph) in Virginia Beach, Virginia, a merry Christmas and happy new year. I love and miss you guys very much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Captain Dave Huxtable (ph) in Kabul, Afghanistan. I'd like to wish my wife Julie and daughter Caroline and Sam a very merry Christmas. They're with family in Bethley (ph), West Virginia. I'll be home soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, everybody. This is Colonel Paul Kalbas (ph), in Kabul, Afghanistan. I just want to say merry Christmas and happy holidays to my wife and daughter and son in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, I'm specialist Carolyn Ennis (ph). I'm here in Balad, Iraq. I'd like to say hello to my mom and dad, Terry (ph) and Charlene Bortz (ph) in Jamestown, Pennsylvania. Mom and dad, I love you guys. I miss you. Obviously, I'm safe and well and fine and I'll see you soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hello. This is Lieutenant Colonel John Hanson (ph) from Kabul, Afghanistan. I'd like to wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to all of my friends and family in Staten Island, New York.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: As always, extending our gratitude to our men and women in uniform around the world in this holiday season, as well as every day of the year.
Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. Our guests will include Jim Gilchrist. We'll find out whether he had an epic upset in California.
We'll be talking with the author of the new book, "Illicit." I'll be talking with Moises Naim. He will be here. We hope you will as well. For all of us, good night from New York.
"THE SITUATION ROOM" starts right now with Wolf Blitzer -- 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
