Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs This Week
Marines Worry About Troop Levels, Is the National Draft Coming Back? China and India Sign a Nuclear Energy Trade Deal
Aired November 26, 2006 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(NEWS BREAK)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN GUEST HOST: Tonight, the head of the Marine Corps has said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are putting too much strain on our troops and more recruits may be needed.
Where will they come from? One high ranking democrat has an idea -- reinstate the national draft. How much support is there for that plan?
Cities across the country have passed laws to make it more difficult for illegal aliens to find housing and jobs. Now, some of those laws face legal challenges.
And he's good enough and smart enough to be our guest, but the folks in Minnesota may have an opportunity to add the title Senator to his name in a couple of years.
Al Franken joins us, as well, to talk about humor and politics and whether they can be combined. We'll have those stories and a great deal more straight ahead.
ANNOUNCER: This is "LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK," news, debate and opinion. Here now, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: Good evening, I'm Kitty Pilgrim sitting in for Lou Dobbs.
A stark warning from the top general in the Marine Corps. The war in Iraq and the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan are putting a critical strain on our forces. Jamie McIntyre reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With some Marine units headed back for a fourth tour of duty in Iraq, the grind has prompted the new Marine Corps commandant, just one week into the job, to warn the burden on Marine families is too much.
GEN. JAMES CONWAY, MARINE CORPS COMMANDANT: I think we may lose some of those folks. I think that the families, the young Marines, the sailors will say that's just more than I think I'm willing to bear. And it could have some negative consequences for us in that regard. MCINTYRE: General James Conway says something's got give. Either send fewer Marines to war or recruit more to increase the size of the corps.
Currently, there are roughly 180,000 Marines on active duty. And unlike ground troops in Army, they serve seven-month combat tours, not a year. They're supposed to get 14 months to recover. But the interval is more like seven or eight months, basically because the Unrelenting violence in Iraq has prevented planned U.S. troop withdrawals.
The strain is not just a personal hardship. It's forcing the Marine Corps to forgo other critical missions as it concentrates solely on counterinsurgency operations.
CONWAY: We're not providing to the nation some of the other things that we should be able to do, and in virtually any other nature of contingency. We're not sending battalions like we used to for the mountain warfare training, the jungle training. And we're not doing combined-arms exercises that we used to do for the foreign maneuver type of activities that we have to be prepared to do.
MCINTYRE: At his confirmation hearing this summer, General Conway found an ally in Democrat Carl Levin, who will soon take over as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
CARL LEVIN, (D) CHAIRMAN, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: I believe there is quite justifiable angst in the Marine Corps that the supplemental funding will not keep pace with its needs, especially as the war drags on and equipment is used up. I share those concerns.
MCINTYRE: Currently, there are about 23,000 Marines in Iraq, all in al-Anbar Province, one of the most dangerous parts of the country. That includes 2,200 reinforcement just dispatched to the area to try to help keep insurgents in check.
(on camera): General Conway is not ready to make any bold and expensive recommendations to increase the size of the Marine Corps. For one thing, he's waiting to see what new strategy might be in store for Iraq. If it calls for fewer Marines, instead of more, then he thinks he can manage with the Marines he's got.
Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: NATO's top commander in Afghanistan says the alliance doesn't have enough troops to keep the country secure. Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, commander of forces in Afghanistan, said NATO Nations have to provide more troops to keep the country secure. He wouldn't predict if the U.S. would send more troops to Afghanistan if NATO nations placed too many restrictions on the use of their troops.
Lebanon in turmoil again this week. A leading Lebanese government official was shot dead in Beirut Tuesday. The official Pierre Gemayel was the fifth anti-Syrian figure to be murdered in Lebanon over the last two years.
Syria has denied any role in Gemayel's murder. Brent Sadler reports from Beirut.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRENT SADLER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It was a highly organized professional assassination. The young Christian Lebanese M.P., Pierre Gemayel, died in a hail of bullets after his car was rammed. Shot at close range, in what's being described by many as a cold-blooded murder to ignite a political firestorm and topple the western-backed government.
Lebanon's national security may now be hanging on a thread in the wake of this latest murder of a leading anti-Syrian Lebanese politician.
FOUAD SINIORA, LEBANESE PRIME MINISTER (through translator): This attack against one of the symbols of freedom in Lebanon will make us more determined and committed to the freedom of this country and independence and sovereignty of this country.
SADLER: Embattled Prime Minister Fouad Siniora pledges to stand firm, but his government was already rocked by resignations from his cabinet, mostly by allies of Syria, and facing political assault by a Hezbollah-led opposition, threatening street protests to bring down the ruling coalition.
Leader of the parliamentary majority, Saad Hariri, was holding a news conference defending Siniora's government, when he received a handwritten note alerting him to the deadly attack.
SAAD HIRIRI, MAJORITY LEADER, LEBANESE PARLIAMENT (through translator): I've been told that the Minister Pierre Gemayel has been shot.
SADLER: Clearly shaken, he accused Syria of having a hand in the killing.
HARIRI: I am afraid that these assassinations will never stop until we have an international tribunal to prosecute the people who have killed, all those who died last year, and also Pierre Gemayel.
SADLER: Outside the hospital where the minister died, anger and sorrow, with promises from the pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud to hunt down what he called terrorists.
EMILE LAHOUD, PRESIDENT OF LEBANON (through translator): This terrorist attack will not pass unpunished. We'll do everything we can to unmask the criminals who carried out this crime against all Lebanese.
SADLER (on camera): Hariri's son and political heir, Saad Hariri, said he fears more attacks. But warns that the killers should fear justice. And justice, he insists, is on the way.
Brent Sadler, CNN, Beirut.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: The president of Iran is scheduled to meet with Iraq's prime minister this weekend in the Iranian capital Tehran. And Syria has been invited to join as well.
The United States sees Iran and Syria as destabilizing influences in the region. And Iraq's effort to sit down with neighboring states has not changed that view. Now, it's an alliance that worries many in the West. But Iran and Syria now seem closer than ever. And their attention is focused on Iraq.
The security situation in Iraq has taken a horrific turn. Over 200 Iraqis have been killed since Thursday. In October over 3,700 Iraqi civilians were killed. Suzanne Malveaux reports from the White House.
Suzanne, we see a flurry of diplomatic activity in the region. What might we expect going forward?
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kitty, you're absolutely right. You are seeing this diplomatic offensive that the Bush administration is fully engaged with here. Starting, of course, with the weekend, Vice President Dick Cheney going to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to talk to King Abdullah. And then, of course, President Bush on Wednesday traveling to Amman, Jordan. That is where he's going to be meeting with Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki. Rice is also going to be in the country at the same time, secretary of state.
And so, what they're trying to do here is simply bolster the Maliki government here. There is a lot of concern. Publicly, they say they're confident in Maliki's abilities. But privately, a lot of concern here that Maliki does not either have the political weight or the will to bring his government together or to create a peaceful situation here.
So they are bringing all of these players from outside, Iraq's neighbors, essentially, to try to bolster that government -- Kitty?
PILGRIM: Maliki's under enormous pressure from Muqtada al-Sadr. How do you see that playing out?
MALVEAUX: Certainly, Maliki's in a very difficult situation. He has competing loyalties here. You're talking about on the one hand, Sadr, who was really instrumental in placing him in that position of power. His own party, his own group, having occupied some of those critical seats within Maliki's coalition government, threatening to pull out in Maliki talks with President Bush this week.
On the other hand, Maliki, certainly indebted to the Bush administration for being in that position in the first place. So he is walking a very delicate fine line, a balance here.
And so what you're seeing the Bush administration try to do is, from the outside in, bolster his government by talking to the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Kuwaitis, all of the neighbors, minus, at this point, Iran and Syria. But that may change, but not at this time.
And then, also, trying to bolster the government within. And that's what you're going to see in the next couple of weeks. Those reports from the bipartisan commission, from the White House, from the Pentagon all trying to figure out, how do you give Maliki the tools he needs to protect his country and to build up his security forces, Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Suzanne Malveaux.
Coming up, another American city tired of federal inaction, taking steps on its own to rebuff illegal immigration. We'll have that report
Communities around the country are fighting illegal immigration. And now, they are being forced to take their case to federal court. We'll have a special report.
And red storm rising -- China is pledging nuclear cooperation with India. That's right. But the United States is also working on a nuclear deal with India. Will that give China, through India, access to our nuclear technology as well? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Across the country, towns and cities are dealing with this country's illegal immigration crisis. It's an issue that the federal government refuses to resolve.
Another community tonight says it will take action where the federal government will not. Casey Wian reports from Pahrump, Nevada.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Pahrump is a city of 33,000 about 60 miles west of Las Vegas, Nevada. It is seemingly light-years away from the nation's border security crisis.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The motion carries three-two.
WIAN: But this month, Pahrump's civic leaders jumped into the fray, approving an ordinance denying taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens, outlawing the display of a lone foreign flag and declaring English the town's official language.
MICHAEL MIRAGLIA, PAHRUMP BOARD MEMBER: We're in American. We're speaking American English. And that's the way it should be. If we go to Mexico, are they going to accommodate us?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is America, one language only.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Amen. WIAN: The debate in Pahrump has mirrored the nation's struggle to cope with the consequences of illegal immigration. Many in town say the measures go too far.
MARIA ANDERSON, PAHRUMP RESIDENT: I think it makes them look little. I think it is very un-American. Since, I said, this country has been founded by immigrants.
BILL WELDON, ASST. SHERIFF, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA: I don't know how they're going to get somebody to go out and enforce the statute like that that's so convoluted and broad.
WIAN: Foreign flags will be allowed to fly in Pahrump as long as they're below an American flag. The measure is a response to the street protests earlier this year where Mexican flags often outnumbered the stars and stripes.
Outside activists say the restriction is unconstitutional.
LEE ROWLAND, ACLU: Our freedom is based on our ability to express ourselves as Americans. And as Americans, that has a lot of meaning to a lot of people.
WIAN: Others have more practical concerns.
GABRIEL ADAME, PAHRUMP RESIDENT: Are we going to have a language cop around here? You know? So are you going to ticket me because I said a taco? How am I going to go and order a taco salad?
WIAN: Nevada state lawmakers are planning to introduce legislation statewide.
(on camera): One ordinance, supporter says, Pahrump's new laws are part of a groundswell intended to force the federal government to finally secure the borders of the United States.
Casey Wian, CNN, Pahrump, Nevada.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Well, as Casey just reported, the town of Pahrump town council passed a law making it illegal to fly the flag of a foreign nation alone or above the American flag.
Now, in the World War II generation, this etiquette was commonly known. But these days, a lot of people who are putting up flags across the country, may not know the correct display.
Federal law already protects the American flag from various forms of desecration. And the law is clear concerning the appropriate orientation and display of the American flag. Stating clearly, that no other flag or pennant may ever be placed above the flag of the United States.
Nashville, Tennessee, is joining the ranks of cities trying to tackle an influx of illegal aliens. The city council is considering three measures. One is an English-only ordinance. Another would hold landlords responsible for renting to illegal aliens. And a third would punish businesses that hire illegals. The city council needs to take one more vote to make the proposals law.
Such local efforts are deemed necessary because the federal government won't enforce the laws already on the books. But in an ironic turn, the feds may be able to overturn what the locals are trying to do in court. Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Escondido, California; Hazleton, Pennsylvania; Riverside, New Jersey; Farmer's Branch, Texas; even Pahrump, Nevada. In towns all across the country, local governments are passing ordinances aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration in their communities.
MARIE WALDRON, ESCONDIDO CITY COUNCIL: The effects of the government, the feds, not enforcing the law is 100 percent local. We have to deal with the overcrowding in our neighborhoods. We have to deal with the overcrowding of our schools and the diseases that our children are exposed to. Our police department has to fight the gangs.
TUCKER: But as these towns fight illegal immigration on their own, they're faced with Massive legal challenges. Challenges that come from a Variety of legal activists, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Each of these groups have their own lawyers, as well as attorneys from big law firms working pro bono, for free, arguing that the laws are unconstitutional.
The fight could end up being expensive. But the lawyer representing several towns say they're willing to go all the way.
KRIS KOBACH, IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE: Unlike so many small towns and cities across America, over the past few decades, that have rolled over whenever the ACLU marched into towns with their legions of attorneys, these Towns -- Hazleton, Pennsylvania; Valley park, Missouri; Escondido California -- have said, no, we're going to fight. We're going to pay the cost.
TUCKER: Hazleton has only half a dozen lawyers on its side, standing against 24 in opposition to its ordinances to fight illegal immigration.
The mayor of Hazleton says he's committed to taking the fight to the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary, in an effort to affirm the town's right to impose sanctions based on federal laws.
(on camera): Lawyers say, if these cases make it to the steps of the Supreme Court, they'll likely be consolidated into one. But it could take a couple of years before that happens.
Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: City governments are also taking on the federal government on the issue of illegal immigration. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is one of a nearly dozen governors demanding that the feds pay the costs that states incur, jailing criminal illegal aliens.
President Bush thought that was a good idea when he was governor of Texas. But he has, since, changed his position.
Coming up, Lou Dobbs asked Republican Congressman Pete King, outgoing chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, whether a much need border fence will ever be built.
Plus, President Bush courted India with a nuclear energy deal. And now, it's possible, India could turn around and share that information with China.
Also ahead, he's good enough, smart enough to appear on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." And in a couple of years, people in Minnesota could send Al Franken to the U.S. Senate. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Now, there's new evidence tonight of the rising challenge posed to the United States by Communist China.
In a direct move to counter Washington influence, the Chinese government is pledging nuclear cooperation with India, only days after the United States Senate approved the Bush administration's nuclear technology transfer deal with India.
Christine Romans reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Chinese President Hu Jintao in India, the first visit of a Chinese leader in a decade. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Hu pledging to double their already exploding trade to $40 billion in less than four years.
MANMAOHAN SINGH, INDIAN PRIME MINISTER: Cooperation between India and China transcends the bilateral and has global significance.
ROMANS: Their foreign ministers exchanging a stack of signed deals and a pledge to step up cooperation on civilian nuclear energy, just days after the Senate approved an American nuclear deal with India. A deal many saw as a giveaway to secure India as a counterweight to Chinese influence.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, INST. FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: Certainly, it contradicts some of the reasons why the United States wants a nuclear cooperation deal with India. Namely, to get India on our side in these foreign policy strategic debates and situations in Asia.
ROMANS: But the State Department downplayed the significance of India-China nuclear cooperation, saying it won't affect U.S. strategy.
Still, critics say nuclear ties between China and India allow Beijing to blunt American influence, and gives India some bargaining power with the United States.
LEONOR ROMERO, CTR. FOR ARMS CONTROL AND NON-PROLIFERATION: This is added leverage for India in pressing the U.S. to remove any provisions that are in legislation that India objects to.
ROMANS: Provisions, like inspections and restrictions on its ties to Iran. Indeed, India, eager to remain independent of the United States, and at the same time, counter Chinese influence in Pakistan. Hu Jintao heads straight there from India.
(on camera): The bottom line, says former weapons inspector, David Albright, who would have thought, when the U.S. inked its nuclear trade deal with India a year ago, that China would turn out to be the biggest beneficiary, potentially selling nuclear reactors to Pakistan and India?
Christine Romans, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Time now for some of your thoughts.
Ed in Ohio writes, "Riddle, what do you call an American who has lost an $18 per hour job with full benefits, as a result of free trade agreement, and is forced to take an $8 per hour job with no benefits? Answer: according to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, he is called an employed American.
Kevin in Kentucky writes, "There is one way to make absolutely certain that the border fence between the United States and Mexico is built -- promise the contract to Halliburton."
And Elaine in Washington wrote to us, "How can the president talk about protecting our homeland from terrorists and not protecting our borders? Homeland security is an oxymoron. You can't protect your land and leave its borders and ports wide open."
E-mail us at loudobbs.com. And we'll have more of your thoughts a little bit later in the broadcast.
Each of you, whose e-mail is read here, will receive a copy of Lou's new book "War on the Middle Class."
Coming up, he was instrumental in pushing the Secure Fence Act through Congress. But now, some questions about just how much fence will be built. Lou speaks with Congressman Pete King.
Also, he is an author, activist and possible candidate. Al Franken shares his views on the new Congress and a whole lot more. And three of the country's sharpest political minds will join me with their thoughts about the new Congress and the race for the White House. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: When President Bush signed the bill for a border fence, before the election, cynics called it an election year ploy. Well it turns out they may have had something, because they noted that Congress only had approved about 700-miles of fencing, covering just about a third of the border with Mexico. And it failed to fully fund it.
And now, with the election behind us, many say it will simply never be built. Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: The building of this fence along the U.S. border with Mexico is a construction project that is going nowhere fast. Congress authorized the building of the fence.
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN: The ayes are 83. The nays are 16.
TUCKER: Bush signed it into law. But no one wants to pay for it. Proof, critics of the administration say, that neither the President or Congress has any intention of building a fence or of cracking down on illegal immigration.
T.J. BONNER, NATL. BORDER CONTROL COUNCIL: I think it's clear that the American public has the will to secure or borders. The real question is, do our elected politicians share that will? And sadly the answer is no.
TUCKER: Incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson, has already made it clear that he doesn't want a physical fence along the border with Mexico. He believes in a virtual fence. That puts him on the same page with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who is also promoting technology as the answer to securing the border, an answer that one former INS agent finds questionable.
MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER INS AGENT: A virtual fence will stop virtually no illegal aliens. But yet, this is the way of playing the usual Washington shell game. You provide the public with an illusion that you're addressing the issue. It usually involves the expenditure of lots of taxpayer money. And you maintain the status quo all at the same time.
TUCKER: The official position from DHS is that it will build whatever Congress appropriates.
Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE) PILGRIM: One of the key players in pushing through that border fence legislation was the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Congressman Pete King sat down with Lou Dobbs this week. And Lou Dobbs noted that King is worried about the survival of the border fence concept.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. PETE KING, (R-NY) CHM., HOMELAND SEC. CMTE.: Lou, in the final ten days of the election, the president signed -- actually, my legislation, to build a double fence 700 miles long along the Mexican border, covering almost all of Arizona and part of Texas. And then when the Democrats took over, the incoming chairman, Bennie Thompson, was talking about scaling back the fence. And then apparently he met with Secretary Chertoff and then after that, there was a meeting with my staff and the Homeland Security Department staff. And they wanted to actually pursue legislation which would reduce the fence from 700 miles to 370 miles.
And then I had a subsequent meeting with Secretary Chertoff. And his belief is that he doesn't believe the department has the funding or the ability to do the 700 miles. And he wanted us to pass legislation to scale it back and include a virtual fence instead.
I told him I cannot support that, that we made a commitment to the American people for 700 miles. We had done this right before the election. So now within six weeks of the election -- a month of the election, to be reneging would be looked upon with outrage by the American people. It's bad politics, it's a bad signal to send, and it's bad policy.
We need that fence. And for some reason, money starts to drain out, next year or the following year, then come back and ask Congress for more money. But there's no way we can scale that back.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: So the Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, who talks about thing like operational security and the end of catch and release, when they're not catching about a million people a year on that border, wants to go back on legislation within just about a month of its having been passed?
KING: Well, listen, I think Mike Chertoff is well intentioned on this. He doesn't believe that 700 miles is possible. I believe it is. And not only that, we passed the legislation. We have to make it work.
And so I told him clearly that I would not support any attempt to scale it back. And I directed my staff not to even begin any negotiations or talks. As far as I'm concerned, this is over with. If there are objections, then we shouldn't have had the legislation signed. You know, you and I have discussed this before. I believe that illegal immigration is a homeland security issue, a national security issue, a social issue and an economic issue.
Maybe more important than all of that, it reflects a loss of faith in the American people in our government, and that would only be exacerbated if we ever reneged on a commitment that was made on such an important issue.
DOBBS: Well, let me ask you -- you're only going to be chairman for another six weeks. Let me ask -- let's talk truth here tonight. Truth to power. I'll talk with power about truth to power. How's that?
KING: I'm here.
DOBBS: We have $25 billion in drugs, as the DEA estimates, flowing into this country. Mexico the leading source of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana coming into this country. It is absolutely vulnerable, by any standard, to radical Islamist terrorists crossing that border. It is also the source of about -- pick the number -- but about a million illegal aliens entering this country every year.
How can we even pretend that Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security is presiding over anything other than an utter sham?
KING: Well, Secretary Chertoff has taken steps. He just doesn't believe the fence is that essential. I believe it is. We need more Border Patrol agents, more detention facilities. We have to go after employers. We have to have a fence. We have to use UAVs. We have to use the military.
DOBBS: Let's assume -- let's assume that the fence doesn't work. How can you be the secretary of Homeland Security and leave 300 million Americans vulnerable to terrorist attack and actually help perpetuate a losing war on drugs in this country, as well as just by tacit -- by inaction condone illegal entry of a million people into this country a year?
KING: Actually, I mean, Secretary Chertoff has improved the situation. I'll give him credit for that. I really do. I mean, he's trying. I just think that he doesn't realize the importance of having the fence, and also the absolute anger and rage of the American people...
DOBBS: He has...
KING: And Lou, so I'm not...
DOBBS: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
KING: No, I'm just saying that I think it's important that Congress has to keep the pressure on. Whether I'm in the majority or the minority, as I'll be six weeks from now, we have to keep this fight going. You have to keep it going.
But I don't know if everyone at all levels of government realizes the homeland security impact so much as they believe that we have to have better relations with Mexico and we have worry about the 12 million who are now here illegally. And we have to worry about the people who, quote/unquote, are doing jobs that Americans won't do.
I think that logic is totally faulty, that thinking is totally faulty. And we have to correct it. So I can only speak for myself. I was one of those that led the fight against the president's legislation. I was the one who secured the fence going through the Congress. I'm not going to allow it to be repealed.
And we have to go after employers and we have to have strict sanctions on employers who hire these people.
DOBBS: Congressman Pete King, always a pleasure talking to you. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Taking over for Pete King, Democrat Bennie Thompson of Mississippi believes that the border fence is part of a patchwork approach to homeland security. Thompson favors a more comprehensive approach to illegal immigration policy and border security. He says it's all one package.
Still ahead, humorist, best-selling author, talk radio host and possible candidate for public office Al Franken joins Lou Dobbs to talk politics.
And three of the nation's sharpest political minds analyze the latest polling about who Americans might put in the White House in 2008.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Al Franken is an author, political action committee founder, liberal talk radio guru activist, best-selling author and a possible candidate for public office. Lou spoke with him about his Midwest values, political action committee work and its support of Senators Elect Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester. And he asked him what quality those candidates share, aside from being Democrats.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AL FRANKEN, RADIO PERSONALITY: That was it. That was almost good enough. We gave the Democrats who we thought had a chance of winning. I liked all the people that you talked about and I like the people -- to Webb we gave what I like -- and proudly, we gave pre- macaca money.
DOBBS: Pre...
FRANKEN: Pre-macaca...
DOBBS: .. broken down as prima -- but go ahead.
FRANKEN: No. There was money pre-macaca. And then he got money post-macaca. But we gave that valuable pre-macaca money.
We gave the people we thought had a chance to win. We wanted to get the majority of the House and the Senate.
DOBBS: Is there any definition, any label you would attach to those people, other than Democrat going in? Are they anti-war? Is there any common stand on principal issues of the day?
FRANKEN: We didn't want to give to jerks, you know, but we liked all of them. You know, and all of them were Democratic and progressives. You know, people say about Webb that he served under a Republican, but he wrote that "Wall Street Journal" piece about inequality in this country. I think he's a great economic progressive.
DOBBS: A progressive. Now...
FRANKEN: Liberal.
DOBBS: The word liberal, I was going to ask you.
FRANKEN: I use liberal all the time.
DOBBS: It's amazing, the aversion, and sort of the fondness, the apparent new fondness for progressive rather than liberal.
FRANKEN: Right. I like to use liberal. We use liberal on the show. I think economic progressive speaks to a specific thing, whereas -- no, I'm a liberal. And I think America -- I think basically Americans are liberal. And the president, I think, saw that after a 60 day tour, a 60 city tour for -- to privatize Social Security.
DOBBS: Right.
FRANKEN: I think he saw that Americans are liberal.
DOBBS: Well, I think -- I would agree with one thing, during that tour, he certainly probably was introduced to the -- I hope -- lasting notion that the American people are a lot smarter than they're given credit for by, in my humble opinion, both political parties.
Charlie Rangel, who I happen to like a lot, is being just roasted in the national media for suggesting national service and a military draft. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, soon to be running the joint, backing away from it.
And I thought -- I'd just love to hear what you think about his logic. How can you support the war in Iraq if you don't support the draft, in terms of sharing the burden, sharing the sacrifice in this egalitarian society of ours?
FRANKEN: Well, I think what he's saying is that before you go to war, the people are deciding whether to go to war or not should have a dog in the fight, or maybe a son or a daughter. And I think that's what he's saying.
DOBBS: That's precisely what he's saying. FRANKEN: Yes. We might not be so quick to go to war. Now, I saw Ike Skelton and he was saying that the volunteer Army does work. In a way, it does.
DOBBS: Of course it does.
FRANKEN: Because those guys are in for longer. They're easier to train.
DOBBS: These are some of the best.
FRANKEN: There's all kinds of reasons for that.
DOBBS: Right.
But that doesn't speak to the issue of...
FRANKEN: Mutual sacrifice.
DOBBS: ... of shared burdens and shared sacrifice. Whether we're arguing about taxes, whether we're talking about our commitment to war...
FRANKEN: Well, taxes, I mean -- I don't mean -- I'll come back to the subject, which is a difficult one, the draft. But we -- this is the first time in history that we have ever cut taxes in a time of war. And I'm not talking about American history. I'm talking about history, the history of civilization. And that is just ridiculous.
But as far as the draft is concerned, I like Kennedy's idea that you talked about, which is you can either go into the Peace Corps or teach or some kind of thing, or go into the military.
DOBBS: What struck me, Al, is the number of Democratic leaders who immediately went, whoa, this is radioactive. But they didn't -- it felt like they didn't give Charlie a fair hearing, because he was talking about not only the draft, but also national service. And that's compelling to me.
FRANKEN: Why not go into a committee with it and why not hash it out?
DOBBS: Democrats, running for president, very quickly. Let's take a look at a poll and get your read on a few of these candidates.
Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Obama and, at the top, one Hillary Clinton.
FRANKEN: Sure that's Hillary?
DOBBS: That's Hillary Clinton.
FRANKEN: OK.
DOBBS: Absolutely.
FRANKEN: All right. DOBBS: We double checked it. Would you rank them that way? Who, amongst those, do you think has the best chance and would be the best candidate? If you want to make a declaration this early.
FRANKEN: I certainly don't want. I like them all. I'd like to see a big field. I'd like to see all those people out on a stage. And I'd like Joe Biden out there and Tom Vilsack. And I'd like Americans to see all these great Democrats.
Obviously Hillary, I think, is well-known. See, I kind of -- there is the possibility -- her husband cannot be elected again. But he can become president again.
So if, like, I ran as president and he was my running mate, and I pledged to resign as soon as I...
DOBBS: Fascinating.
FRANKEN: ... took the oath...
DOBBS: Let's talk about another oath. The Senate...
FRANKEN: Yes?
DOBBS: Minnesota, are you going to run?
FRANKEN: I don't know. Actually, we're deciding, I think, this weekend, the family, my family.
DOBBS: OK, I'll give you the number, and I want you to let me know immediately.
FRANKEN: I think if I tell someone, it might be somebody in Minnesota.
DOBBS: You've got it.
All right. Well, we wish you a lot of luck. Look forward to your decision.
FRANKEN: Thank you.
DOBBS: Whatever you do, stay yourself. Those people...
FRANKEN: No, I'm going to change, Lou. If I run, I'm going to change.
DOBBS: See, there's your new campaign slogan.
FRANKEN: That's right.
Not the same old Al.
DOBBS: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE) PILGRIM: Just ahead, the race for the presidency in 2008, already taking shape. Our distinguished panel will size up the potential candidates next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Joining me now, Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman, "New York Daily News" columnist Errol Louis and syndicated columnist Miguel Perez.
And welcome to all of you gentlemen.
Let's start with Iraq. We've had a big week of strategy meetings. We have a big diplomatic push going forward, which we've just discussed on the program. Two hundred Iraqis have been killed this week, 3,700 last month, civilians killed in Iraq. This is unbelievable, the sectarian violence. Is this, in your opinion, degenerating into civil war at this point, Miguel?
MIGUEL PEREZ, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: How do you not call it a civil war? That's what the Bush administration insists that it's not. But I mean, it's ridiculous not to call it a civil war at this point. And I think that, you know, we're trying -- we're getting involved, we're in the middle, we're trying to mediate when some of them are clearly our enemies. So how do you negotiate with the enemy? It is absurd to me.
PILGRIM: Also the nature of the killing seems particularly brutal: blindfolded victims, tortured victims found on the streets.
PEREZ: Absolutely.
ERROL LOUIS, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": That's right. People pulled out of mosques, people set on fire, that sort of -- kind of savagery goes well beyond the numbers. And it tells you something that the numbers don't. As horrifying as the numbers are, the reality is you're inflicting a kind of damage that will take generations to repair. And that's the beginnings of a civil war.
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I think the reality, too, is that when the United States began this very ill-conceived and tragically poorly executed invasion into Iraq, the reality was they were planning for an insurgency. And now it is a civil war. And in fact, our intelligence officers and our military advisers have told us for a long time it was a civil war.
And the fact that this administration has not come to grips with that is endemic of a much bigger problem, their failure to deal with the reality. And it has truly hampered us dramatically, in terms of fighting the war on terrorism.
PILGRIM: Let's talk about the political side. We have Muqtada al-Sadr threatening to boycott the al-Maliki government at this point. Do you think that politically it's falling apart? One of the great high points of this whole effort was the election that was held very successfully. And now it seems that the gains from that are deteriorating rapidly.
PEREZ: Well, we certainly cannot cave into their demands either. I think it would be a mistake for President Bush. If he said he's going to go, he has to go and meet with the guy.
LOUIS: The steps to getting back on the road to some kind of stability are going to be primarily military. I mean, whether they meet or whether they don't meet is not as important as holding together the situation on the ground. I mean, we're describing it as civil war here today, but the military describes it as chaos is what they're trying to avoid and what they're slipping towards slowly but surely.
PILGRIM: Do you think the Bush meeting will have any impact?
ZIMMERMAN: Well, the very fact that both President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki are meeting in Jordan -- they can't even meet in Iraq -- tells you a story by itself.
But I think there's another issue too here that has to be considered. And that is, you know, as we reflect on the holiday weekend about the situation there, it's important for us to remember that our country has faced much more profound and dangerous threats and obstacles.
And the fact that our governments, whether it was President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis or President Reagan during the Cold War, they never were afraid to engage in dialogue. And having the strength to have a dialogue is critical. Therefore, the concept of perhaps engaging in a dialogue or opening up channels of communication with Iran and Syria may be a critical path to look at.
But we have the Pentagon looking at new plans, we have the Baker- Hamilton commission looking at new options. And we have to take a fresh approach to this.
PILGRIM: Let me read you something that General Abizaid said this week. And he said, "I could see a series of options coming together where you might have a short-term increase for a good reason." -- increase in troops -- "It would have to be tied to a specific plan."
As you suggested, there are many plans. The Pentagon has one, the go big, go long, go home. Do you believe that General Abizaid is signalling that he wants to go big, bring in more troops and that he sees this as perhaps the way to go?
PEREZ: I think that going big is the way out. And I think that's the signal that he's sending, absolutely.
LOUIS: There are, I think, a lot of maneuver type questions as well. Whether or not -- where are you going to put those -- if you go big, where do you put those troops? Are they going to be on the Syrian border? Are they going to be trying to make a statement to Iran? Are they going to be supporting the Kurdish development in the northern part of the country? Where they go is almost as important as how many are there.
PILGRIM: And you have Charlie Rangel suggesting perhaps a draft on top of this. Is the political will there of the Americans?
ZIMMERMAN: You know, I must tell you the American people have shown repeatedly the strength and courage and commitment to fight the war on terror. What we're not seeing from our political and civilian leaders is the proper planning and execution of the plans to fight the war effectively.
It's really not a question of -- to me -- where the military goes. It brings back memories to me of what our military leaders said in Vietnam, just a bit more escalation. If we're going to get there, we need to have a plan in place and we need to have an accountability in place to get the job done.
PILGRIM: All right, gentlemen. We'll take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: We're back now with our panel. Gentlemen, a little bit earlier in the broadcast we had Congressman Pete King talking to Lou Dobbs about the border security fence. Do you believe that there's going to be a -- the Democrats will even buy on to this when we get back?
PEREZ: I think they might buy into it if there's a comprehensive immigration reform plan. That's what the Democrats -- most of the Democrats have been pushing for all along. I don't think enforcement only will work and certainly not among Democrats. And that's what they're -- Peter King and the Republicans have been pushing for all along. Unless there's a plan for legalization -- some people want to call it amnesty, I don't think it's amnesty -- but a legalization plan for the immigrants who are already here and a workers program for guest workers to come in. That's the comprehensive plan that we need.
LOUIS: I wouldn't -- despite the fact that Pete King won a resounding victory in the last election, I would not understate the importance of trying to be in line with where the general mood of the country is.
I mean, he fought back fierce attacks from "News Day". Lou talked about that with him in the interview. I don't think many politicians out there want to go head to head with the local newspaper over and over and over again.
So I think we're going to see some movement on this issue. I mean, Pete King stood firm, stood tall, didn't change his opinion at all. I don't think we're going to see a lot of politicians stay that firm as we go forward.
ZIMMERMAN: You cannot begin to address the issue in our country of illegal immigration until you put the proper security in place. This fence along the Mexican border was, in fact, a compact between the American people, the Congress and the president. There was commitment made by many Democrats in the Congress with the president and many Republicans in the Congress, too.
I admire Pete King's sincerity on this issue profoundly. And clearly this fence has to be constructed. What troubles me, though, is the way the legislation was finally crafted and Bill Tucker exposed this on your show. The way this legislation was crafted, it can't be constructed until, in fact, you have Congressional approval, local government, state government, Native American tribe approval. By that I mean, they've written this legislation to truly, truly limit the opportunity to build this fence. And that would be a travesty.
PILGRIM: We have a couple minutes left. I'd like to pop through some polls pretty fast. And let's take a look at the Republicans. Mayor Giuliani started to file papers to create a presidential exploratory committee, John McCain. So here's registered Republicans, their choice for nominee. You've got Giuliani at 33 percent, at the top. McCain, 30 percent. Gingrich, Romney and Frist. Quick reaction?
PEREZ: Well, as a Hispanic American and one who wants some kind of really good immigration reform, I would support a moderate Republican, and Mr. Giuliani and Senator McCain both meet with my approval.
PILGRIM: OK.
LOUIS: The fact that the moderates are in the lead right now I think doesn't mean that much. I think you're going to see the evangelical empire strike back. They haven't decided who they're going to get behind, but that number's going to be big.
PILGRIM: OK, Bob?
ZIMMERMAN: The moderate Republicans in the last election were bordering on extinction. And I think in this presidential primary process, you're going to see moderate Republicans become extinct. The party is so controlled by the right wing Southern conservatives, it's just not going to happen.
PILGRIM: OK. We've got to pop through the Democratic one. And we did this a little bit earlier. Lou did it with Al Franken. Let's take a look. Clinton: 33 percent. Obama: 15 percent. Edwards: 14. Gore: 14. And Kerry: 7.
Interesting lineup?
Quick.
PEREZ: Hillary has a very good shot, I think. But I would like not to vote for her. I would like for a moderate Republican to step up.
LOUIS: They're all senators or ex-senators. Many of them have served together. The question will be who will take first shot at Hillary Clinton, the front runner?
ZIMMERMAN: That poll showed the field is wide open. Hillary Clinton does have the lead and that's name recognition to her credit. But you see the other people emerging, like Barack Obama, who has just come -- really, who's not even declared, and Al Gore, who says he's not planning to run. It shows the fact that they're so strong in this poll. Democrats are looking at a wide range of options. And I'm going to work hard to convince to you support Hillary Clinton if she's the Democratic nominee.
PILGRIM: All right. You can work that out a little bit later. Thanks very much, gentlemen. Robert Zimmerman, Errol Louis, and Miguel Perez. Thanks for being with us.
And we thank you for being with us tonight. For all of us here, good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
