Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Reports: Iraqi President Suffered Stroke or Heart Attack; Cheney Pushes War Agenda
Aired February 26, 2007 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, Mexico protests about a so- called border violation by the United States but refuses to stop millions of its own citizens from entering this country illegally.
Also, "The War Within" -- a painkiller prescribed by many doctors often lethal results.
We'll have a special report.
And the escalating showdown between the federal government and many states over national standards for driver's licenses.
All that and more straight ahead.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, news, debate and opinion for Monday February 26th.
Sitting in for Lou Dobbs, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: A bleak warning today about military readiness as U.S. sends more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. Joint Chiefs chairman General Peter Pace said the military would face significant risks if it responded to a new crisis.
Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney has called on Pakistan to step up its campaign against radical Islamist terrorists. The vice president said Congress may cut off aid to Pakistan if Pakistan fails to crack down.
Jamie McIntyre reports on the warning about our military's readiness for another war.
Michael Ware reports from Baghdad on a new crisis at the top of the Iraqi government.
And Ed Henry reports on the vice president's political tactics with our so-called allies.
And we turn first to Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kitty, you know, for years the Pentagon has been making the argument that the wars in Iraq haven't really hurt U.S. military readiness, but they don't make that argument anymore.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) MCINTYRE (voice over): It's a fine line the Pentagon has to tread between acknowledging the obvious reality -- that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a heavy toll on military readiness -- and avoiding any sign of weakness that could embolden potential adversaries such as Iran or North Korea.
GEN. PETER PACE, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: The United States military can today and tomorrow handle any additional challenge that comes our way.
MCINTYRE: That's General Pace in public three months ago. But CNN has confirmed that recently Pace secretly upgraded to "significant" the risk that the U.S. would have trouble responding to a major new security threat. In that classified assessment, General Pace insists, as he did in public, that the U.S. could still win a third war, just that it would be messy. The problem, as outlined in a Senate hearing two weeks ago, is that the Army and Marine Corps are maxed out.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), ARMED SERVICES CHAIRMAN: Simply stated, our ground forces are stretched thin and equipment is wearing out faster than planned and is not being replaced at a timely manner.
MCINTYRE: Those are the two critical shortages -- combat-ready ground troops and their equipment. The top brass has been worried for a while.
GEN. PETER SCHOOMAKER, ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF: I am not satisfied with the readiness of our nondeployed forces.
GEN. JAMES CONWAY, MARINE CORPS COMMANDANT: We're not doing amphibious training. We're not doing mountain warfare training. We're not doing combined (INAUDIBLE) maneuver such as would need to be the case potentially in another type of contingency.
MCINTYRE: So what if the U.S. had to respond to Iran or repel a North Korean invasion? The plan now is to rely heavily on air and sea power, which is not nearly as stressed by the Iraq war.
PACE: If you had to go fight another war someplace that someone sprang upon us, you would keep the people who are currently employed doing what they're doing and you would use the vast part of U.S. armed forces -- that is, at home station -- to include the enormous strengths of our Air Force and our Navy against the new threat.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: So the bottom line is the U.S. military is still pretty well equipped to fight a major conventional war against a big Army. But not another unconventional insurgency that would require large numbers of highly-trained ground troops -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much.
Jamie McIntyre. Well, a bloody day of violence in Iraq. A suicide bomber killed at least 14 people in Ramadi and Al Anbar Province. A bomb in Baghdad wounded an Iraqi vice president, killed 12 people. And at the same time, Jalal Talabani, is receiving emergency treatment in Jordan after falling ill.
Michael Ware reports from Baghdad -- Michael.
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kitty, in the past 24 hours, we've seen both the Iraqi president and one of Iraq's two vice presidents admitted to different hospitals. One in a health scare, one as the result of a bombing which is believed to have been an attempted assassination.
The president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, a man in his early 70s, is now in neighboring Jordan in a hospital in the capital, Amman, undergoing treatment. There has been media reports that he suffered either a stroke or heart attack; however, both his family and his political faction have claimed that his condition relates to fatigue and low blood pressure.
Jordanian hospital officials claim, however, that he's now in intensive care following a procedure where a catheter was inserted into his heart. However, in Baghdad, the Shia vice president for Iraq, Adel Abdul Mahdi, was treated in hospital for injuries sustained in a bombing attack whilst he was visiting the Ministry for Municipalities and Public Works, a ministry controlled by his political faction, the most dominant Shia bloc within the government. Many are calling this an attempted assassination or a strike against this most potent political grouping within the government -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Michael Ware reporting.
Now, insurgents in Iraq have killed another one of our troops. The Marine was killed in Al Anbar Province, west of Baghdad.
Seventy-two of our troops have been killed in Iraq so far this month, 3,155 of our troops have been killed since this war began. 23,677 of our troops wounded, and 10,509 of them so seriously they could not return to duty within three days.
Britain is sending an additional 1,400 troops to Afghanistan, raising the total to nearly 8,000. Most of the troops will be deployed in the Helmand providence in southern Afghanistan .
British forces have been engaged in heavy fighting with radical Islamist terrorists over the past year.
The United States is also increasing its troop strength in Afghanistan. One reason is the refusal of countries such as France and Germany to send reinforcements to fight the Taliban.
Vice President Dick Cheney today met with U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan. And earlier, the vice president held talks with the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, in Islamabad. Now, the top issue in both meeting, the struggle to defeat radical Islamist terrorists.
Ed Henry reports from the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice over): In a surprise visit to Pakistan, Vice President Cheney put private pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to crack down on al Qaeda and Taliban militants. But in public, White House spokesman Tony Snow struck a much more cautious tone.
TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We have not been saying it's a tough message. What we're saying is we're having -- the vice president is meeting with President Musharraf because we do understand the importance of making even greater progress against al Qaeda, against the Taliban.
HENRY: What's really going on here is a delicate diplomatic dance. While Musharraf has helped the U.S. capture hundreds of terrorists in urban areas of Pakistan, he has been much less helpful in remote areas where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding.
JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It is simultaneously one of our best partners against terrorism. And at the same time, to a degree, a safe haven against -- a safe haven for terrorists.
HENRY: President Bush needs the to cooperation of his Pakistani counterpart more than ever after sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan in advance of an expected spring offensive by terrorists.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We've got active fronts in this war on terror. One is Afghanistan, the other's Iraq.
HENRY: While Democrats charge the president has treated Musharraf with kid gloves, experts note the U.S. cannot push him too hard.
MCLAUGHLIN: Were there to be a cataclysmic event of some sort in Pakistan that brought extremists to power, we would face the nightmare scenario of an extremist government in charge of a country that has nuclear weapons.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HENRY: Now, part of Mr. Cheney's message to President Musharraf was that if he does not crack down on more terrorists, U.S. aid to Pakistan could be cut by the new Democratic Congress. I spoke to Democratic leadership aides today, though. They insist that they have no plans to do that. They think that is a strawman being set up by the White House in order to try to bring Musharraf along -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Ed, another point, Senate Democrats want to restrict the president's authority to wage war in Iraq. How is the White House reacting to that today? HENRY: Well, Tony Snow pounced on the fact that Carl Levin, the author of this new resolution, the Democratic senator, basically said yesterday that his goal here is to tie the president's hands. Well, that plays right into the argument, in fact, that the White House has been making, that Democrats want to tie the hands of the commander in chief in a time of war and that that's not a good idea.
The White House also cheered by the fact that in the short term, at least, very few, if any Republicans are on board with Levin's move. But obviously in the long term, public opinion still riding against this White House over the war in Iraq. So they can maybe cheer it a little bit in the short term, but long term, still, there's a long haul here in Iraq -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much.
Ed Henry.
HENRY: Thank you.
PILGRIM: Well, still to come, Mexico's hypocrisy on border violations by Mexican citizens and one so-called border violation by the United States.
Also, the rising backlash against the law to stop terrorists from having U.S. driver's licenses.
And Venezuela's leftist president buying billions of dollars of new weapons from countries with an anti-American agenda.
We'll have the story.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Mexico today complaining that U.S. workers building the border fence may have strayed just 30 feet into Mexican territory. Casey Wian reports those complaints come from Mexican authorities who have done almost nothing to stop millions of their own citizens from illegal crossing the border into the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): When Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff spent 22 seconds welding a portion of the Arizona border fence last week, government officials say he was careful to stay on the U.S. side of the border.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: This is showing real results. A couple years ago, when there wasn't any fence, and people literally could pour across the border -- and now, although this fencing can't stop 100 percent, it does pretty close to 100 percent.
WIAN: But apparently a crew of real-life government fence- builders mistakenly ventured about 30 feet into Mexican territory one day last week. The alleged incident occurred on the border between Douglas, Arizona, and Agua Prieta, Mexico, an area well known for violent confrontations with drug smugglers.
Incredibly, Mexican lawmakers and other officials are outraged, calling the incident a violation of Mexican territory, and they're urging senior officials of Felipe Calderon's government to stand up to the United States.
DAN STEIN, FED. FOR AMER. IMMIG. REFORM: It's highly ironic to see after all these years, with six million illegal aliens from Mexico, with regular incursions by the Mexican army working with drug smugglers, coming into our territory, actually fighting with our Border Patrol, the audacity of the Mexican government complaining about going a few feet inadvertently into Mexican territory is outrageous.
WIAN: U.S. ambassador to Mexico Antonio Garza responded to the complaints with a statement, saying the U.S. is sensitive to Mexican concerns. He added, "This is, of course, not the first allegation of officials from either the U.S. or Mexico entering the other country's territory by mistake. The United States wants to make clear it has the deepest respect for the integrity of the sovereignty of Mexican soil."
In the words of one border security activist, "If only the respect was mutual, there would be no need for a fence."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: U.S. representatives of the International Boundary and Water Commission visited the site of the alleged American incursion Friday. And Ambassador Garza says the United States will make sure to make sure the border fence is actually built on the U.S. side of the border -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Casey, isn't this going to seriously limit how they're able to work? I mean, some of this is just unworkable, to put up a fence from one side.
WIAN: Yes, it may actually do that. And that's what U.S. officials are looking at now to make sure that they don't go across the Mexican side. The fence is not actually built on the border. It is built several feet back from the border on the U.S. side.
So they should still be able to get the fence constructed. But any American crossing into Mexican territory is seized on by Mexican opponents of the fence. They call the fence an insult to Mexico. However, the Mexican government, as we've often pointed out, has done nothing but encourage its citizens from illegally crossing that border, and hence the necessity of a fence -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much.
Casey Wian.
Well, that brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Do you believe it is hypocritical of the Mexican government to criticize U.S. border security efforts while allowing millions of Mexican citizens to cross the U.S. border illegally?
That's a yes or no vote here. And cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll bring you the results a little bit later in the broadcast.
Many states are still unhappy over mandatory federal standards for issuing driver's licenses. The Department of Homeland Security is expected to issue new guidelines this week, and states have just over a year to put them in place.
Now, Jeanne Meserve tells us why states are putting up resistance to the law.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I definitely don't think this is going to work.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice over): But it does. The prankster goes into the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and comes out with a valid driver's license, silly picture and all.
From a security perspective, it is not a laughing matter. After 9/11, Congress mandated tough new federal standards for driver's licenses called Real ID. States are supposed to implement them in little more than a year.
Every one of the 245 million license holders in the United States will have to reapply in person with documents that prove they are citizens or legal residents. The states predict it will swamp motor vehicle offices, creating long waits. Currently, each state issues licenses following their own security standards and with their own features.
KAREN JOHNSON, ARIZONA STATE SENATE: They have no business in our state's business. And that's what they're doing.
MESERVE: Arizona state senator Karen Johnson is sponsoring legislation saying her state will not comply. She says Real ID would invade privacy by creating a large national database of driver information.
JOHNSON: I mean, Homeland Security is the one that's going to be running this database? Give me a break.
MESERVE: Arizona is one of 24 states that has passed or proposed legislation opposing Real ID. The big complaint, the cost -- an estimated $11 billion over five years. The biggest expense is likely to be a requirement that states verify the authenticity of identity documents used to get a license.
DAVID QUAM, NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION: It's verification that not even the federal government can complete for its own employees.
MESERVE: Rody Marshall just got his license renewed in Phoenix in 20 minutes. If Real ID lengthens his wait, it's fine with him.
RODY MARSHALL, PHOENIX RESIDENT: I don't think everybody should just automatically get a driver's license. If it takes -- if it takes a day of your time, that's what it takes.
MESERVE: Homeland Security is taking an even harder line.
MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: If we don't get it done now, someone is going to be sitting around in three or four years explaining to the next 9/11 Commission why we didn't do it.
MESERVE: Because the next person who tries to get a driver's license may want to do harm to the country, not just get a laugh.
Jeanne Meserve, CNN, Phoenix.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MESERVE: As you mentioned, Kitty, the Department of Homeland security is expected to issue long-awaited regulations perhaps this week that will lay out the specifics of what states have to do to comply with Real ID. Some are guessing that will fuel the uproar rather than dampen it -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Jeanne, what are the consequences to the states of not complying with this law?
MESERVE: Well, what the law says, if you do not comply, then your licenses can't be used as federal IDs. That means you can't use them to get into federal buildings, you can't use them to board airplanes. So consequence for the citizens.
PILGRIM: Yes. It seems like it.
Thanks very much.
Jeanne Meserve.
And coming up, a new arms buildup in Latin America. Venezuela's anti-American government is on a weapon's spending spree.
We'll have a report on that.
Methadone used to treat addicts now being used to feed their addiction. Sometimes with deadly results.
We'll have a report of "The War Within."
A juror gets bounced from the CIA leak trial, but the case goes on.
We'll have the very latest on that.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PILGRIM: Venezuela's strongman, Hugo Chavez, is pouring his nation's oil wealth into new weapon's purchases. In the last two years, he spent more than $4 billion on arms.
And as Christine Romans tells us, the spending spree is raising new concerns for regional stability.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez puts his country's oil money where his mouth is. He's called the president "the devil" and says a U.S. invasion of his country is imminent. He's styling himself a socialist revolutionary and spending billions on weapons from Iran, China and Russia.
PETER DESHAZO, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES; These arms purchases to strengthen what he considers the defense of his country would be part and parcel with this image that he wants to create.
ROMANS: Since 2005, signing contracts for 24 Russian-made Sukhoi modern jets, the most modern in the region; 50 transport and attack helicopters; and 100,000 assault rifles, even building a plant to manufacture Kalashnikovs at home.
JOHN PIKE, GLOBALSECURITY.ORG: That certainly has to be of concern because it's going to be producing an awful lot of assault rifles that are going to have to wind up somewhere in addition to Venezuela.
ROMANS: All together, spending $4.3 billion on arms over the past two years. Almost as much as Pakistan and Iran combined.
Chavez is determined to neutralize American influence in the hemisphere and to spread his socialist revolution. An upcoming trip by President Bush to the region he calls an attempt to stir up trouble between Venezuela and its neighbors. Chavez Sunday said he respected the decision by other Latin American nations to "receive this little gentleman," but in Venezuela...
HUGO CHAVEZ, VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT (through translator): We would not welcome him because he know who he is. This is nothing personal. It is the meaning of his persona as president of the United States.
ROMANS: The State Department has stayed above the name-calling, but the secretary of state earlier this month accused Chavez of attacking his own country's democracy and its economy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: The United States will not sell arms to him. So Chavez has turned elsewhere to spend his country's oil money. His defense spending up 12.5 percent alone last year -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: You know, this war of words has been going on, but now it's a bit more substantive, as you point out, Christine. There has been the perception that there was a little bit of U.S. neglect to the region. Are we paying the price for that? And what we might see on the Bush trip?
ROMANS: Well, our neighbors in Latin America think that we have neglected the region, and he's going there now for the most extensive trip to Latin America since he's been in office for some six years. He will not be going to Venezuela, as far as we know. I doubt he will be going to Venezuela.
Going there to talk to our allies, our border allies. Venezuela's president would say we're going there to drive a wedge between Hugo Chavez and his strong allies in the region. But it will be an important trip, indeed, for our foreign policy.
PILGRIM: And we'll be watching closely.
Thanks very much.
Christine Romans.
Time now for some of your thoughts.
And V.R. in Indiana writes to us, "Mr. Dobbs, you're right about the need for President Bush to come up with an effective Mideast policy that the U.S. citizens can understand. And as you said, mere bluster and bluff isn't working in Iran, Iraq or anywhere else. The GOP, the Dems, the media, nobody dares to address this in rational terms."
And we have Gil in Colorado. "I bet that if Scooter Libby is guilty he will get an immediate presidential pardon, unless, of course, he was a border agent one time in his life."
And we have Jim in New Jersey. "I hear this new North American union will be called something like the Security and Prosperity Partnership. I feel those initials are perfect to describe what the government must think of us if they expect us to swallow this garbage. They think that each and every one of us is a SAPP."
E-mail us at loudobbs.com. We'll have more of your thoughts later in the broadcast. And each of you whose e-mail is read here will receive a copy of Lou's book, "War on the Middle Class."
Coming up, we'll introduce you to a possible presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul. And he says a nation without secure borders is no nation at all.
Also, worrying concerns about a painkiller that is actually killing some patients.
We'll have a special report, "The War Within."
And extraordinary new developments in the CIA leak trial after a leak to one of the jurors.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: A dramatic development in the criminal trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby today. Now, a juror was dismissed from the case after she admitted to knowing more about the case than was revealed in the courtroom.
And joining me now for more, our Brian Todd, who is outside the courthouse in Washington. And here in New York, senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
Let's begin with Brian Todd with the very latest developments -- Brian.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kitty, more than 29 hours now into deliberations and the judge has made a very strong statement. He would rather go with fewer jurors than set this process back.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TODD (voice over): Showing obvious disappointment, Judge Reggie Walton declares about one juror, "...what she had exposure to obviously disqualifies her." A reference to information on the case the juror had received outside the courthouse.
With that, a woman who'd worked as a museum curator is thrown off of the jury and not replaced, despite the concerns of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who worried out loud that the pool is getting dangerously low. The judge's reason for not seating an alternate? He didn't want to start from scratch and waste more than two days of deliberations.
The fate of former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with lying to investigators about the leak of a CIA's officer's covert identity, now in the hands of 11 people.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: It's certainly unusual to have a verdict from 11 jurors, but it's not unprecedented, and it's certainly treated the same way as the verdict would be from 12.
TODD: It's unclear what kind of information the juror, who's now an arts researcher, was exposed to, but she has gone her own way before in this case. On Valentine's Day, when jurors came in wearing identical red T-shirts, and one read a note of thanks to the judge, she was the only one who didn't play along.
And in jury selection, she told of being mugged in Washington. And said when she later recognized her mugger on the streets, she did not notify the police because, quote, "I would have lost my whole day of research at work to probably no avail."
JONATHAN TURLEY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: She's also something of a character. She was self assured. She was different from a lot of the jurors, and she really stood out in refusing to wear a Valentine's shirt. All those things made her a point of considerable interest.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TODD: Now when the judge first heard about this juror's exposure, he feared that whatever information it was might have tainted the other jurors. After interviewing them and speaking to the jury foreperson, he concluded it had not. But he emphatically warned the panel again not to have contact with any outside information -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Brian, OK, stay with us for a second. And for more on how all this could affect the trial, we're joined by CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
Jeffrey, what do you make of this? And what is the significance of this development? Is this case in any way compromised by the diminished jury?
TOOBIN: No, the defense agreed with removing her, in fact, enthusiastically saw her -- wanted her off of the jury. So they've waived any objection in case this case -- in case there's a conviction and they have to appeal.
What's curious to me is that the defense usually wants eccentrics, holdouts. And the defense wanted her off the jury. That may be because there was something about her they didn't like, or it may be that the alternates looked more pro-prosecution.
There's a lot of strategizing going on here from a position of ignorance of what people really think.
PILGRIM: That's interesting that the alternates may have been a worse choice for them.
Brian, I wanted to ask you a quick question. They said that the remaining seven men and four men were not affected. How can they determine that?
TODD: Well, he was -- the judge, after finding out that there was a problem with this juror today and letting us know that there was a problem with her, went back into chambers for at least an hour. And at that point, it seemed to be undergoing some -- they were doing some pretty extensive interviewing, and he was probably really kind of reading them the riot act as far as what did you all see? What did you all hear? What might you have read?
Still not clear at this point what kind of information this woman got. But whatever he was told in that intervening hour, he came out. He was satisfied that they had not been tainted.
Now, as for what, you know, typically goes on during that kind of interview process, maybe Jeffrey knows a little bit more. But clearly the judge was satisfied when he came out again.
PILGRIM: But, Jeff, they're not sequestered. TOOBIN: They're not. And this is why some judges prefer sequestrations so they can avoid these kind of problems. But jurors hate being sequestered, and you really limit your jury pool if you limit yourself to people who'll agree to that.
These things are actually not all that complicated. Each juror is brought in one at a time to be asked, did you see anything? Did you discuss anything with the juror who did see some kind of news report? Jurors are basically good about this, I think. They're conscientious.
And also they've invested a good deal of time, about a month in this case already. They don't want all to be for not. Because they know they might get thrown off of the jury.
So I think once we get a verdict in this case, assuming we do, assuming there's no hung jury, it will be -- this won't figure very large.
PILGRIM: Brian, quick question, when do we expect a verdict? Any thoughts?
TODD: Well, you know, the handicapping's been going back and forth. Many people expected it today. I think it'll come soon. I mean, if I had to judge it, I think that they're ready to probably render something, maybe tomorrow or the next day.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Brian Todd, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you very much.
Still ahead, Congressman Ron Paul may be a long shot for the White House, but he's testing the waters for the race in '08. His six-point plan to secure our borders and stop the outsourcing of American jobs, next.
And later, an explosive new book on former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The book reveals his need for control may be costing us the war in Iraq. Andrew -- author Andrew Cockburn joins us for one of his first interviews since the book was published.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: The feel for candidates for the 2008 presidential race continues to grow. Now this past weekend, Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas announced that he is forming a presidential exploratory committee, and Congressman Paul hopes his strong opposition to illegal immigration and the war in Iraq will set him apart from other Republican candidates. And he joins us now from Houston, Texas.
Thanks for taking the time, sir.
REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, it's nice to be with you.
PILGRIM: You are one of only six Republicans who voted against the war. You also stood against sending 21,000 more troops to Iraq. What should the Iraq strategy be, now that you are declaring yourself in the race?
PAUL: I think we should come home as quickly as possible. There were a lot of -- a lot of false information on the reasons we went in there, and there's no good reason to stay right now.
They say that the main reason for staying now, after given numerous reasons, we're supposed to stay now, because if we leave there will be chaos. My argument is there's plenty of chaos right there now, and a lot of Americans are being killed. And it was never in our national security interest to go over there.
Besides, one of the reasons that was given for us going there was to enforce U.N. resolutions. And I'm a stickler for the Constitution. I was annoyed because they wouldn't declare war. They thought it was important to go to war. The people's representatives should declare war, and they should fight it and get it over with and win. So I didn't like the way they went, and I didn't think we were ever threatened by Iraq.
PILGRIM: Let me -- let me just play for you, President Bush said something today. So let's listen to that for a second.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we leave before that country can govern itself and sustain itself and defend itself there, will be chaos. And out of chaos will come vacuums, and out of vacuums will become an emboldened enemy that would like to do us harm.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: Sir, that is a real worry. What do you say about that?
PAUL: Well, I think he's very sincere, and he believes it. But he believes it just as sincerely as I do, that the al Qaeda is there now, and it is a problem. But they weren't there before.
And it's our foreign policy that I object to. We used to be allies with Osama bin Laden. Now he's our enemy. We used to be allies with Saddam Hussein. Now he's our enemy. This on again/off again thing is what bothers me.
You know, 9/11 was not -- had nothing to do with Iraq. 15 of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia. So there are our bosom buddies, and we're their best friends. Pakistan is probably where Osama bin Laden is. We have essentially forgotten about him. So it's the foreign policy overall.
But yes, there's going to be problems and chaos. But my argument is that it's time that American soldiers quit being killed, and it's time for us to quit killing a lot of other people that have not attacked us.
PILGRIM: Your Iraq policy is very clearly defined. Let's move to the domestic front. You ran for president in 1988 on the libertarian line. And you now say there are two parties in Congress right now: big government conservatives and big government liberals. And the only difference is what they want to spend money on.
Now are you running because you think that there are, of the declared candidates, the true conservatives are not coming out of this pack?
PAUL: Well, certainly the Republican leadership in the last six, eight, even 10 years, and especially in these last six years, we have been the big party, a big spender party. We have spent more money on subsidies than ever before. We have -- we've doubled the size of the Department of Education.
We brought in one of the biggest new entitlement programs, the prescription drug programs, big, huge highway expenditures. So I would say that in some ways, yes, they have some differences. But in other ways, I think Republicans have grown to act just like Democrats.
In the foreign policy, certainly, we can't afford $700 billion in protecting an empire. That has to come to an end, because the truth is as we're flat out broke and we have to borrow every single penny to fight that war from the Chinese.
PILGRIM: Yes.
Sir, I really can't -- we're almost out of time but I want to get to your immigration platform. You're calling for action and not talk. And here's a couple of points for our viewers that you want.
You want to physically secure our borders and coastlines, enforce visa rules. No amnesty. No welfare for illegal aliens. You want to end the birthright citizenship and pass true immigration reform. Would true immigration reform include a guest worker program, in your judgment?
PAUL: Well, you know, those words are tricky, because some times if you say you're for a guest worker program, all of a sudden they construe that now, the conventional wisdom is that there will be amnesty.
You know, we've always had workers come to this country, but they have to be legal.
And we have to deal with the welfare state. We can't allow the illegal immigrants to qualify for Social Security after working here for 18 months. We just can't flat out afford it.
PILGRIM: All right, thank you very much, for laying it out so clearly for us, Representative Ron Paul. Thank you, sir.
PAUL: Thank you, thank you.
PILGRIM: A reminder now to vote in tonight's poll. Do you believe it's hypocritical of the Mexican government to criticize U.S. border security efforts while allowing millions of Mexican citizens to cross the U.S. border illegally? Yes or no? Cast your vote at LouDobbs.com, and we'll bring you the results in just a few minutes.
Well, tonight, "The War Within". It's our special report looking at this country's battle against drugs and alcohol abuse.
Methadone is long used to treat heroin addicts. It's now being abused by drug users looking for a new high, and it's being sold on the streets, sometimes with deadly results.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM (voice-over): Methadone has long been a treatment for heroin addiction. Traditionally, patients in clinics received the drug in place of heroin.
Now, methadone is being called the largest growing drug problem in the country. It is being used much more by both addicts and also medical patients under a doctor's orders.
Deaths are rising. About five years ago, doctors started routinely prescribing it for chronic pain, such as back pain. While addicts were able to tolerate drug, many average patients couldn't handle it.
What we see is some people don't tolerate it well at all. And even after just a few doses, they die.
PILGRIM: With increasing deaths, the FDA had to put a black box warning on methadone. Experts warn the drug is too unpredictable and is being over prescribed by doctors.
BRUCE GOLDBERGER, DIRECTOR OF TOXICOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: The time at which it stays in one's body is the problem. It's unpredictable. So in my body is may only stay for half a day, and in someone else's body it may be three days. So depending on the dose and the frequency of use, one could easily overdose on the drug.
PILGRIM: Another problem is addicts are likely to abuse it. Methadone is a cheap second choice when other illegal drugs aren't available. But mixed with other drugs, like Valium or Xanax, it can kill.
In Florida, emergency rooms have seen a flood of admissions with this kind of toxic mix. In 2005, methadone was second behind cocaine in drug-related deaths.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
A recently-published study by the CDC ranks overdose or abuse with prescription and illegal drugs as the second highest cause of accidental deaths. That's second only to car accidents.
Coming up, a Medal of Honor awarded 41 years after the heroic actions of an Army helicopter pilot in Vietnam.
And is Donald Rumsfeld responsible for the military's failure to secure Iraq? Well, a new book says he is. Author Andrew Cockburn will be here after the break. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Haled by President Bush, assailed by his critics, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been a focal point for criticism of the war in Iraq. And now Rumsfeld's tenure is scrutinized in a new book. Andrew Cockburn is the author of "Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall and Catastrophic Legacy". He joins me to discuss the impact of former defense secretary and the current and future U.S. policy in Iraq.
And thanks for being with us.
ANDREW COCKBURN, AUTHOR, "RUMSFELD": You're welcome.
PILGRIM: It is, without question, an interesting read. You do not hide your sentiment in any respect. You are no fan of Donald Rumsfeld.
COCKBURN: This is true.
PILGRIM: Tell me what you think are -- is the lasting legacy of Donald Rumsfeld.
COCKBURN: Well, let me count the ways. You know, it's -- the war, obviously, is the thing that'll feature most in history. Both the fact that they -- he led the charge for the war in the first place. First enabled it, if you like and then did it so badly. Made such an incredible hash of it.
PILGRIM: I wanted to go to a clip that we have, because many people blame a lot of things on Rumsfeld. And one thing, in 2004, Rumsfeld held a very widely publicized town hall meeting in Kuwait. And a soldier from Tennessee National Guard confronted him on the lack of armor and equipment for U.S. forces. Let's listen to that and then we'll respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD RUMSFELD, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: He was roundly criticized for this remark. It did seem at the time a little bit insensitive, given they were talking about body armor. But was, in fact, he stuck with an army that was inappropriately structured for the conflict that he was facing?
COCKBURN: Well, in a way, yes. The Army could have been different. But he -- he did nothing about it. I mean, you know, this was -- this was December '04. He sent these -- these men had been in Iraq without enough body armor, without armor on their vehicles.
And at that point in fact the soldier complained about it. They were having to forage in scrap heaps for armor for their Humvee. And that's uncomfortable that he was -- that he was permitting that to happen. And furthermore, it seems to come as a big surprise to him, which is Rumsfeld all over.
PILGRIM: Yes. Let me go to another point, and you bring up September 11. And when the Pentagon was hit. You say senior White House official described the defense secretary actions on that day. And we have the description.
"What was Rumsfeld doing on 9/11? He deserted his post. He disappeared. The country was under attack. Who was the guy who controls America's defense? Out of touch!"
Now, Rumsfeld was, I think, reportedly helping people, but...
COCKBURN: Well, he was the secretary of defense. You know, there were many people -- there were many people on hand who are very, you know, valiantly assisting -- assisting the injured.
What Rumsfeld did, when the plane hit the building, he set off, really without telling anyone -- in fact, definitely without telling anyone, and marched along with his frantic bodyguards tailing him, trying to stop him, to the scene of the crash, which was you know, we'd all want to see what's going on, true.
And then he did help push one injured person across the grass, and it then finally dawned on him that maybe he had a job do.
The point was he was completely out of touch for 20 minutes, which may not sound like long, but the country was under attack. And the secretary of defense is there to supervise the defense of the nation, which he wasn't doing. And serious things were happening, and he was absent, missing in action.
PILGRIM: Let's talk about the -- something that you bring up that I find very interesting. You called secret meetings with President Bush. And you say that Rumsfeld met secretly with the president on an almost daily basis after 9/11.
Personally, I would think, well, I'd hope the secretary of defense would meet with the president every day after 9/11.
COCKBURN: Well, yes, you know, meeting with the president is fine. But he was having these -- these were like -- no one knew about them. He would sneak over -- you know, he was having meetings that people knew about with the president and other people would be present, maybe Condoleezza Rice, but these were separate meetings. They were -- he would almost sneak over to the White House.
And they were so secret, for instance, that the secretary of state, Colin Powell, it took a year for him to find out this was going on. It's a measure of the influence Rumsfeld has over this president and over the war and everything else.
PILGRIM: That seems to be the sort of main indictment of the book, that he had simply too much influence. Is that your conclusion? COCKBURN: It's one, first of all, he had too much influence, but the reason that's very bad is that he was such a bad manager. I mean, he planned the war, and he sort of messed up the whole deployment plan. He refused to plan for reconstruction. When the insurgency started, he made a hash of that, too.
He left -- he didn't transform the military, despite all his claims. And he left us with the same -- still, we're still in quite a good position to fight the Soviet Union. But the problem is the Soviet Union's disappeared, and we're fighting someone else.
PILGRIM: And going forward, do you think all of these things are fixable?
COCKBURN: Not for a while and very expensively. I mean, thanks in large and due to him, the Army and the Marines are worn out. The equipment's worn out. The men are, you know, are getting very -- almost to the end of their tether. We're running out of people.
We're committed to spending $1.5 trillion on weapons that were designed, as I say, to fight the Cold War, which we never got around to canceling.
PILGRIM: Thank you very much for coming on the show.
Andrew Cockburn is the author of "Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy". Thanks very much for joining us.
COCKBURN: You're welcome.
PILGRIM: And coming up at the top of the hour, "THE SITUATION ROOM" with Wolf Blitzer -- Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST, "THE SITUATION ROOM": Thanks, Kitty.
Al Gore's Hollywood star is shining bright, with his documentary winning two Academy Awards, raising new questions about his political star. Could he -- could we still see another run for the White House?
Also, explosive charges about U.S. intentions toward Iran. I'll talk to the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hirsch. He said the U.S. is ready to attack with a day's notice.
Plus, the controversy over questions that strike at the heart of Christianity. We'll talk to the makers of a documentary about the earthly remains of Jesus, whether there is DNA evidence he had a wife and child.
All of that, Kitty, coming right up here on "THE SITUATION ROOM".
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Wolf.
A true war hero finally recognized for his bravery at the White House today. Army pilot Bruce Crandall saved dozens of soldiers in Vietnam. Now Crandall's life was even immortalized on film, but it was a long road to the nation's highest military honor. Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr has his story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRUCE CRANDALL, MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT: The top row, that's a Distinguished Service Cross.
BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Bruce Crandall is already a Hollywood war hero. Greg Kinnear played him in the Mel Gibson Vietnam War film "We Were Soldiers".
GREG KINNEAR, ACTOR: I suppose I don't have a choice in all this.
MEL GIBSON, ACTOR: You sure don't.
STARR: But Vietnam was real for Bruce Crandall. Forty years later, President Bush has awarded this man, who repeatedly put his life at risk to save others, the Medal of Honor, the highest military recognition.
BUSH: Bruce always put his men before himself. Today, his men are here for him.
STARR: It was November 1965, U.S. troops dropped by helicopter into a remote area of South Vietnam. Crandall is in the lead helicopter when hell erupts on the landing zone below.
CRANDALL: I had -- my crew chief shot through the throat. The radio operator was hit and killed before he could unhook.
STARR: For hours, Crandall flew wounded troops out of the killing zone. Fourteen times he landed, no matter how heavy the enemy fire became.
CRANDALL: It was the longest day I've ever experienced in any aircraft.
STARR: Crandall and his wingman saved more than 70 men. Each time his helicopter got too shot up to fly, he switched to a new one, taking troops out, bringing in more ammunition to the stranded troops there.
BUSH: For the soldiers rescued, for the men who came home, for the children they had and the lives they made, America is in debt to Bruce Crandall.
STARR: At a time when the nation is again focused on an unpopular war, Crandall speaks to today's young pilots with modesty most of us cannot fathom.
CRANDALL: Most of the young aviators have the question of how they're going to react if they haven't been in combat yet. I found out I didn't like to get shot at, but it was part of the job.
STARR: Many of Crandall's aging comrades wrote letters to the Pentagon, detailing their memories of a man who risked his life to make sure no one was left behind. This man, they say, deserves the Medal of Honor.
Barbara Starr, CNN, the Pentagon.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Still ahead, the results of tonight's poll. More of your thoughts on banks issuing credit cards to illegal aliens. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Now the results of tonight's poll. Ninety-seven percent of you say it's hypocritical of the Mexican government to criticize U.S. border security efforts while allowing millions of Mexican citizens to cross the U.S. border illegally.
OK. More of your thoughts. And we have quite a few e-mails.
David in -- Joseph in New Hampshire: "I want to thank you for telling the true story of the dangers of marijuana use. It seems to have become politically correct to understate the hazards of this drug. By disclosing all the facts people will have the knowledge needed to understand these dangers."
And now David in California: "Why is it that the ACLU can step in and litigate all sorts of immigration issues on behalf of the illegal aliens and there is no organization that can file a law suit that will force our federal government to enforce the laws concerning illegal immigration?"
Dominic in Georgia: "Hello, Lou. Visa cards for illegal aliens? How about them applying for work visas first? Bank of America should be ashamed of themselves. Wachovia, here I come!"
Kent in Virginia: "Sadly for Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean this administration seems unable to bring itself to perform a single noble or ethical act to right a wrong. Only 694 days until this group is out of office. But who's counting?"
Thanks for being with us tonight. Good night from New York. "THE SITUATION ROOM" starts right now with Wolf Blitzer.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
