Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs This Week
White House, Pentagon Back Off The Accusation That Iranian Authorities Knew Qods Forces Are Operating In Iraq; Drug Abuse Discussed
Aired February 18, 2007 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(NEWSBREAK)
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR, LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK: Tonight, the White House and the Pentagon are backing away from their claims that top levels of the Iranian government are involved in sending sophisticated deadly weaponry to Iraqi insurgents to kill our troops.
And America's teens have to go no further than the medicine cabinet at home to get high. A new study shows abuse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs are popular choices for teens as the war within continues to present a crisis for this nation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSEPH CALIFANO, CASA: Drug abuse in this country, and substance abuse in this country, is unquestionably our biggest health problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK, news, debate, and opinion for Saturday February 17. Here now, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening, everybody. President Bush, this week, publicly defended his strategy for sending more troops to Iraq. And the administration and Pentagon also spent much of the week clarifying their positions on new deadly weapons from Iran, that they say have been killing our troops in Iraq.
At first, there were claims the arms were sent with the approval of the highest levels of the Iranian government, but by week's end, there were concessions that those claims weren't correct. Jamie McIntyre has the report -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, it was quite a week for the U.S. military. First of all, there was the beginning of the security crackdown in Baghdad, and then after waiting for weeks to make this presentation about Iranian influence in Iraq, promising they were going to get it right, the U.S. military essentially got it wrong.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice over): Defense Secretary Robert Gates made it clear what he was expecting from last Sunday's Baghdad briefing was facts, not conjecture. ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: To the degree I had any involvement, it was to say I want factual statements, I don't want adjectives. I don't want add verbs. I want declarative sentences. And make it exactly clear what we know and what we don't know.
MCINTYRE: But an anonymous U.S. intelligence analyst crossed the line offering his assessment that deadly Iranian-made bombs were being sent to Iraq under the orders of the highest levels of the Iranian government. That forced everyone in the chain of command, from the president on down to the joint chiefs chairman, to disavow the charge, and try to explain what went wrong.
GEN. PETER PACE, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: I wasn't there. I don't know. Either those who were speaking didn't make a clear enough break between fact and assessment, or those listening didn't hear the break between fact and assessment.
MCINTYRE: General Pace insisted the Pentagon worked hard on the briefing to ensure the data that was going to be put out was accurate. But while professing the need for precision, Gates and Pace were at a lot to explain why such an important presentation was conducted by low-level officials under a cloak of anonymity.
(On camera): Why use anonymous officials, and then not allow a taped transcript to be made, so everyone nose exactly what was said?
GATES: I don't know what the circumstances were, why it was anonymous, why it wasn't allowed to be taped. I don't know.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: Defense Secretary Gates said he hoped the way the evidence was presented wouldn't take away from the U.S. case that Iran was, in fact, supplying weapons at some level to Iraq. He said he thought the evidence speaks for itself -- Lou.
DOBBS: Jamie, as best you understand it, is there greater embarrassment at the Pentagon or the White House?
MCINTYRE: Nobody is really taking accountability for what happened in this briefing, in which a very low-level intelligence officer offered his assessment. An assessment, by the way, that most people in the U.S. government believe, that this is coming from the highest levels, just not something that they can prove. Nobody's taking responsibility for why this was handled so badly.
DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much. Jamie McIntyre reporting from the Pentagon.
President Bush this week announced he's sending more troops to Afghanistan. The Taliban has been making gains there lately, and a wider offensive is expected in Afghanistan this spring. President Bush also wants almost $12 billion more to bolster the Afghan government. Elaine Quijano has the report from the White House -- Elaine.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Lou, in remarks to the American Enterprise Institute, President Bush outlined progress in Afghanistan, progress on several fronts, including women's rights, health care, and education. But he also acknowledged that the Taliban, the group that, of course, U.S. forces toppled back in 2001, has reemerged.
The president noted last year, 2006, was the most violent in Afghanistan since U.S. forces were deployed there more than five years ago. Commanders are expecting a renewed spring offensive by Taliban fighters, so President Bush is asking Congress for more money for Afghanistan, $11.8 billion, as well as more U.S. troops.
Yet, at a time when he is facing continued questions about the future of U.S. troops in Iraq, Mr. Bush offered no timetable and no specifics on U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, which are now holding at roughly 27,000.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I've ordered an increase in U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. We've extended the stay of 3,200 troops now in the country for four months. And we'll deploy a replacement force that will sustain this be increase for the foreseeable future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Now, the president also pressed NATO allies to send additional troops to Afghanistan, and to allow their soldiers to fight in the most violent areas, particularly in the south.
Meantime, this coming week, President Bush will be turning his attention to his domestic agenda, including his health care initiatives, as well as his energy proposals that he laid out in his State of the Union Address. He'll be traveling to North Carolina to talk about those energy initiatives -- Lou.
DOBBS: Elaine Quijano reporting.
Congressman John Murtha leading opponent of the war in Iraq, says he will introduce legislation that could prevent the president from sending more troops to Iraq. The Democrat from Pennsylvania, a former Marine, wants to tie future troop deployments to Iraq to a vigorous training program and mandatory time between tours of duty for our troops. Murtha says the Army can't meet those standards, and he says it would effectively block deployment of the troops to Iraq.
The president's recent moves to bolster troop strength in both Iraq and Afghanistan comes at a time when the American public and Congress are voicing strong opposition to increased involvement in Iraq. Now support for the war in Afghanistan appears to be waning, as well. Bill Schneider has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST (voice over): The war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, after 9/11, had broad public support in the United States, and across the world. President Bush sees implications for Iraq.
BUSH: In Afghanistan, we saw how terrorists and extremists can use those safe havens, safe havens in a failed state, to bring death and destruction to our people here at home.
SCHNEIDER: But Iraq lost public support, so did Afghanistan. Approval of U.S. military action in Afghanistan fell from over 80 percent in September 2002 when the Iraq war rollout began, to 56 percent in August, 2006.
A month later, people were asked whether they favored the war rather than the military action in Afghanistan. The public was split. The word "war" may have increased the resonance with Iraq. The latest poll, taken in January, shows Americans turning against the war in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, NATO has joined the fight.
BUSH: This spring, there's going to be a new offensive in Afghanistan and it's going to be a NATO offensive.
SCHNEIDER: But support from our European allies may be flagging along with support from the American public.
REP. TOM LANTOS (D), CALIFORNIA: It is an outrage that this gigantic military alliance cannot provide the troops necessary to win this battle.
SCHNEIDER: Democrats complain, the administration's priorities are backwards.
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We should be adding more American military forces, and we should be requiring the NATO countries to fulfill their commitments to the forces that they had promised us. In Iraq, the prescription is the opposite.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHNEIDER: President Bush hopes the consensus in Afghanistan can be carried over to Iraq, instead, dissension over Iraq seems to be undermining the consensus in Afghanistan -- Lou.
DOBBS: Bill, thank you very much. Bill Schneider from Washington.
Up next here an unbelievable policy decision as one of the country's largest banks decides to make credit cards available to illegal aliens. A brand new market for the Bank of America. We'll have that report. And a recruiting ad for the U.S. Border Patrol deemed far too controversial to be included in the NFL's "Super Bowl" program. We'll tell you why.
And Time Warner, Google, Verizon and more, according to the U.S. government, are all small businesses. What? We'll have that story, a great deal more. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DOBBS: This past week, outrage, controversy over the Bank America's shocking decision to offer bank accounts and credit cards to illegal aliens in this country. Many in Congress say it's an extremely dangerous precedent, one that poses serious security risks to the nation. Kitty Pilgrim has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Los Angeles County, one of the largest concentrations of illegal aliens in the country. Bank of America is reaching out to the community, to help people open bank accounts, and then qualify for a credit card.
REP TED POE (R-TX): The Bank of America is tapping a resource of people in our country, and knowing that they deal only on the cash economy, is going after that money and making a profit off it making a profit of illegal entry into the United States.
PILGRIM: For identification, Bank of America accepts the ITIN, a taxpayer ID number that illegal aliens commonly use instead of a Social Security number.
Officials at the office of the controller of the currency, confirmed that an ITIN, along with name, address, and date of birth is allowed to open a bank account. The bank then has to verify the information with another government-issued photo I.D. document, but that can be issued by any government. So illegals often use Matricular Consular, issued by the Mexican government, easily forged or available on the black market.
No passport is required, no visa is required. And once a bank account is opened, ID does not have to be rechecked for a credit card. Senator Richard Shelby, the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, release this had statement:
"Senator Shelby wants to ensure that the financial service industry is not offering products or services that facilitate, encourage, or even reward illegal immigration."
Fifty-one branches of Bank of America in Los Angeles County are launching the promotion.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R-CO): The bank of America is saying, I don't care what our immigration laws are. There's a niche market and we're going to go after it.
PILGRIM: Bank of America says they are simply going after an existing customer base in the Los Angeles area.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Now, officials at the government regulator of national banks, the OCC, said they have no position on whether banks should allow illegal aliens to open checking accounts or have credit cards adding, that's immigration issue -- Lou. DOBBS: Well, it certainly might be styled that. It's also a national security issue. Do you mean to tell me that these regulators and these banks there's no requirement that a passport and visa be presented by the citizen of another nation, for the purposes of opening up credit card accounts and checking accounts?
PILGRIM: They absolutely do not need a passport or a Visa.
DOBBS: Unbelievable.
Well, we want everybody to know, we did invite Kenneth Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America to join us here to explain this decision. Based on our -- on the reaction to this be story, I would have to say that Bank of America needs to explain its position.
The offer to join us here to discuss this issue, of course, to Mr. Kenneth Lewis, CEO of Bank of America remains wide open. You're welcome anytime here.
The National Football League has a little explaining of its own to do. It's under fire for its decision to reject an advertisement from the U.S. Border Patrol for its "Super Bowl" program. The NFL claiming the recruitment ad was simply too controversial. And it didn't want to enter into the national immigration debate. Jeanne Meserve has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The Department of Homeland Security scanned every truck making a delivery to "Super Bowl XLI. Its canine team sniffed for bombs. It's helicopters helped police the skies.
But when one of its agencies, the Border Patrol, tried to place a recruiting ad in the official "Super Bowl" program, the National Football League said, no way. It was a little too hard hitting for our fans says an NFL spokesman. We weren't comfortable with some of the language.
The ad copy says Border Patrol agents, quote, "Prevent the entry of terrorists and their weapons into the United States, detect and prevent the unlawful entry of undocumented aliens, and apprehend violators of our immigration laws."
In 2005, the NFL held a regular season game in Mexico City. Part of an effort to cultivate an Hispanic audience. Some believe the border patrol ad was rejected because it could have undercut that the effort.
T.J. BONNER, NAT'L. BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: They're courting the Latino audience but they're ignoring the fact that, for example, the Border Patrol is comprised 40 percent Latinos, American citizens, most American citizens regardless of their race, regardless of their ethnicity, support the Border Patrol and support secure borders.
MESERVE: The Border Patrol ad has been accepted to run in programs for the NBA All-Star game, at the NCAA Final Four, and a professional bull riding magazine. Homeland Security says its grateful to those organizations for helping them recruit frontline personnel to help secure the nation's borders.
Reaction to the rejection by the NFL, "We are disappointed," says a DHS spokesman.
(On camera): When it comes to issues like immigration, the NFL says we don't take positions. We sit on the 50 yard line. Jeanne Meserve, CNN, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Still ahead tonight, shocking new delays in the case of two border patrol agents sent to prison for shooting an illegal-alien, Mexican drug smuggler. And billions of dollars in government benefits for small business in this country. Some of that money going instead to large corporations, that report coming up. And its the biggest single health care problem facing this nation. Our special report on "The War Within" next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Every year, billions of dollars in government contracts intended for small businesses go instead to large corporations. The result is billions of dollars in losses for those small business, the biggest source of jobs in this country, by the way. And the reason? A classic Washington mix of lax oversight, bad policy, and poor management. Bill Tucker has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Microsoft, Boeing, Google, Time Warner, all are small businesses according to the U.S. government, which awarded these companies, and 62 more just like them, contracts as small business.
REP. NYDIA VALESQUEZ (D-NY) CHMN., SMALL BUSSINESS CMTE.: We are talking about the Microsofts of the world, and the Rolls Royce, and Lockheed Martin that has no business in getting -- contracting dollars that are supposed to go to small businesses.
TUCKER: It's a practice that costs small businesses an estimated $12 billion in 2005. And hurts small business owners like Belinda Guadarrama, who owns a small hardware and software company.
BELINDA GUADARRAMA, PRESIDENT, G.C. MICRO: When we get a government contract, we hire more individuals from our local community. We give back into the communities. We're actually supporting the local economies.
TUCKER: She says there's a simple reason why Washington competitive landscape favors larger businesses.
GUADARRAMA: Small businesses, we're not really organized well enough to be lobbying that strongly. I think, clearly, when you look at who has the attention of Congress and the government, it's probably the large corporations.
TUCKER: The inspector general for the Small Business Administration, the agency which advises the federal government on these rules, says numerous issues are to blame.
Regulatory loopholes allow companies that have grown, or have been acquired by larger corporations, to count as small businesses, and hold onto long-term contracts for up to 20 years.
Fraud is another component. But one of the biggest reasons is bureaucratic error. Administrators, marking contracts to big businesses as having gone to small businesses.
The SBA denied a request for an on-camera interview, but a spokesman defended their record of advocating for small business.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And the Small Business Administration did announce an important rule change in November requiring that all small businesses now must recertify their status as small businesses, every five years. Instead of every 20 as the old rule allowed, Lou.
DOBBS: Five years?
TUCKER: Five years.
DOBBS: That seems to leave a lot of room still, doesn't it?
TUCKER: Well, they want them to grow, Lou. The logic is we don't want push --
(CROSS TALK)
TUCKER: It's certainly better than 20 years.
DOBBS: I'll give them that. Bill, by Washington standards, terrific. Baffo. Hooray. Thank you very much, Bill Tucker.
Let's take a look at some of your thoughts now. Maria in Pennsylvania said: "Lou, let me get this right. Bush is accusing Iran of smuggling weapons across it's border into Iraq. Wow, this is coming from an administration that's done virtually nothing to secure it's borders and has no idea who or what is being smuggled into this country? What a pathetic state of affairs our country is in. For the first time in my life, I'm scared for our country."
Howard in Wyoming said, "Lou, I canceled my Bank of America credit card after hearing your report. If others would do the same it might send a message that many Americans still value principle above profit, despite the deplorable example of our government and our business leaders."
And Ron, in New Jersey, says, "Bank of America's plan to offer credit cards to illegal immigrants is a great idea. What's next, free checking for terrorists?" Send us your thoughts at LouDobbs.com. Each of you whose e-mail is read here receives a copy of my book "War on the Middle Class."
Up next, God and politics. Why Kansas is once again rewriting its standards about the origin of life. We'll hear both sides of this debate here.
And then explosive revelations in the case against two imprisoned former Border Patrol agents. Transcripts of the trial highlight the outrageous miscarriage of justice against Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, that special report.
And "The War Within", this country's addiction to drugs, millions of lives are lost and millions of others torn apart by our devastating drug crises. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight in our special report "The War Within", this country's war against pervasive drug abuse. The problem is deadly. It is costly, and the numbers are staggering by any measure you apply. Christine Romans reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Almost 25 million people in this country are substance abusers. Yet, only 3 million get treatment. Joseph Califano runs the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
JOSEPH CALIFANO, NAT'L. CNTR. ADDICTION & SUBSTANCE ABUSE: We Americans are 4 percent of the world's population. We consume two- thirds of the world's illegal drugs. Drug abuse in this country, and substance abuse in this country, is unquestionably our biggest health problem. Addiction and substance abuse are our number one disease.
ROMANS: The top drug of choice, 25.5 million people aged 12 and older used marijuana in the past year. The fastest growing category, prescription drugs, last year 6.4 million used them to get high. Abuse of alcohol, even more widespread. Some 40 percent of college students engage in dangerous binge drinking.
Drug offenses are the fastest growing category of crime. Drug offenders are the largest group of inmates in federal prisons. It costs $3 billion a year to house them.
That's at the federal level. States pay $17 million a day to incarcerate drug criminals. But that's a fraction of the billions spent over the past 30 years on the government's war on drugs.
SANHO TREE, INST. FOR POLICY STUDY: If you add in state and local spending, it's close to $35 to $40 billion a year. And yet drugs are more easily available than ever before. They're of higher purity, even of lower price. So those three indicators tell us that the drug war is absolutely failing. ROMANS: Then there are human costs, almost 20,000 people died from accidental drug overdoses in 2004, second only to fatal car crashes. On our roads each year, an estimated 2 million drive under influence. Drunk drivers killing 17,000.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS (on camera): Government data show overall drug use down marginally over the past few years but still up dramatically over the past 10, 13 years. But there are some disturbing trends here in the near term. Club drugs like ecstasy are still popular with teenagers. Prescription drug abuse is exploding. An alarming new twist, Lou, teens are using cough and cold medicines to get high.
DOBBS: Now, and that medicine is available in drugstores, almost everywhere.
ROMANS: That's exactly right. And what the experts are telling us, it used to be you want to lock your liquor cabinet. Now they're really telling people you should think about locking your medicine cabinet as well especially if you have grandparents or older people in the home. Because there's a lot of drugs there. People are afraid to throw them away because they paid a lot of money for them. So you've got some really powerful, powerful painkillers that are hanging around that are just pretty tempting to kids. A lot of kids are looking for them in school, too, asking their friends to go home and try to find them.
DOBBS: And these kids. How many are starting out on drugs and alcohol every day?
ROMANS: It's remarkable. About a million a year trying marijuana, some 13,000 ...
DOBBS: For the first time.
ROMANS: For the first time, some 13,000 a day are trying alcohol. When you look at prescription drugs, depending what age group, something like 850,000 abusing a prescription drug on purpose to get high every year. It's remarkable.
DOBBS: Christine, thank you very much. Christine Romans.
We'll have more on this country's war within. We'll be reporting Monday on the powerful marijuana advocacy movement in this country. Which many, many experts tell us are simply making their job to deal with addiction and to confront the treatment of abusers of both alcohol and substances even more difficult than it already is.
That's Monday at 6:00 p.m. Eastern here on CNN.
New revelations this week about the outrageous miscarriage of justice against two imprisoned Border Patrol agents. Transcripts of that trial finally release released after almost a year after the end of the trial show an investigation that was seriously flawed while damaging evidence against the key prosecution witness was literally covered up. Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison for shooting an illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler, U.S. attorney Johnny Sutton held a press conference. He defended his decision to prosecute the agents. And give Oscar Aldrete Davala (ph) immunity for smuggling about 750 pounds of marijuana across the Texas border.
JOHNNY SUTTON, U.S. ATTORNEY: We have no evidence -- if someone has some evidence that this van driver, that this illegal alien committed a crime, because I would be happy to have it because I would be happy to put this guy in prison for as long as we possibly can.
WIAN: Trial transcripts reveal there was plenty of evidence that Aldrete Davala in fact had been transporting marijuana that day and again several months later.
T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: The transcripts have actually weakened the government's case. It shows the behind the scenes maneuverings of the Justice Department. It shows that the Justice Department clearly knew that Aldrete Davala was not just a small time drug dealer but a big time cartel member who smuggled numerous times.
WIAN: Aldrete Davala admitted to another Border Patrol agent, a friend of the family, that he was smuggling a load of dope the day he was shot. That admission came several days before prosecutors gave Aldrete Davala immunity.
Also a Homeland Security Department investigator testified at the trial that the smuggler violated the terms of his immunity agreement and the transcripts show prosecutors knew Aldrete Davala was connected to a second drug smuggling attempt.
BONNER: They had him in custody. He was in a federal courtroom. It would have been a very simple matter to have one of the U.S. marshals put the cuffs on him and lead him out, charge him with those offenses. And they failed to do that.
WIAN: In fact, prosecutors worked diligently to keep the jury from hearing anything about Aldrete Davala's drug smuggling history.
SUTTON: If someone has some evidence that Aldrete has committed a crime, I would love to have it and we would be happy to prosecute.
WIAN: To this day, the government continues to target the agents, not the smuggler.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN (on camera): A spokesman for former agent Compean's family tells us the Justice Department is now opposing a motion to release the agents on bond pending their appeal. That is significant, Lou, because just several weeks ago, the Justice Department was taking no position on efforts by the agents to stay out of prison pending their appeal.
Lou?
DOBBS: And any indication why their change of position?
WIAN: No indication from the attorneys representing the agents. It seems to me they may be digging in their heels because of all the criticism that they've been receiving now that these transcripts are out there, Lou.
DOBBS: Well, these transcripts, I mean, it took almost a year to get these transcripts of this trial. Any explanation as to the reason for such an inexcusable delay?
WIAN: The simple explanation is that the transcripts were not requested until after the verdict was handed down and after the agents were sentenced.
So it's a small, relatively small court in El Paso. They say the person who does the transcripts is simply overwhelmed and that that person met the deadline imposed upon him by the appeals court.
DOBBS: So we have a situation now where it appears that both the U.S. attorney lied about the time reference for granting limited use immunity, is that correct, Casey?
WIAN: That appears to be correct, Lou, according to the documents, the evidence introduced in the case, absolutely.
DOBBS: And it appears that the inspector general in homeland security lied to the United States Congress about is the background for this whole case and as to where it started. And to be what these agents had admitted to.
WIAN: T.J. Bonner of the National Border Patrol Council told me just yesterday that he thinks the only way this can be unraveled and that the truth can really come out is for an independent counsel to be appointed with subpoena powers to get at some of those secret documents that have been kept from the jury and kept from the public in this case, Lou.
DOBBS: And we want to point out that LOU DOBBS TONIGRHT is actually trying to get those documents unsealed. We'll be going -- we'll be going before the court with motions to unseal that evidence and making every effort to do so in the coming days.
Casey, thank you for outstanding reporting on this case. Troubling and really a case that is just it seems like every week leads to just further, further mounting evidence of a just highly questionable prosecution and result in the trial.
Thank you very much. Casey Wian.
Up next, for Kansas schoolchildren, intelligent design is out and evolution is in. But the political battle over the origin of life is far from over. We'll have two guests back for the debate.
And three prominent political analysts join us. Who's leading the pack in the race for the White House? Why in the world is the race for the White House this is 2008 already underway for crying out loud? Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Another shift this week in how the State of Kansas will handle the evolution debate in its public schools. Kansas approved new evolution friendly science standards, marking the fifth change in direction in eight years in that state.
Joining me now from Kansas City, Missouri, are Jack Krebs, he is the president of the Kansas Citizens for Science and Kris Kobach, law professor at the University of Missouri. Both of you welcome here.
Jack Krebs, let me just turn to you. As a member of the school board standards, is what's going on here make sense to you?
JACK KREBS, PRESIDENT, KANSAS CITIZENS FOR SCIENCE: Well, yes, the short story is that c the committee was appointed to revise the standards several years ago, but the previous school board let intelligent design advocates take over the agenda. And now that we have a new school board based on elections from last year, the committee standards have been brought back to be adopted by the state.
So really what we're finally doing is completing the proper process that got started a number of years ago.
DOBBS: Let me ask you this. Is Kansas just -- are you going to keep moving back and forth depending who gets elected here?
KREBS: Well, this is a democracy.
DOBBS: Yeah. But it's also education, for crying out loud.
KREBS: That's right. And we certainly hope that the public as they become increasingly aware of the issues and the way in which the intelligent design movement is trying to abuse the educational system, my hope, of course, is that the citizens of Kansas will get tired of this issue and will stick with mainstream science.
DOBBS: Kris Kobach, you're a law professor at the University of Missouri. Is teaching intelligent design in schools a violation of the students' First Amendment rights?
KRIS KOBACH, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR: Well, there's clearly no First Amendment violation here. But Lou, a couple years ago, I was asked to look the at the 2005 standards as a lawyer. And hearing the public debate, I thought I was going to see references to intelligent design and God. And in fact, none of that is in there.
The standards of 2005 make no mention of intelligent design, no mention of God, they embrace evolution. They simply allow students to ask questions and take those questions wherever the facts lead them. All explanations are on the table.
Now these new narrower standards say that only certain answers are allowed. In my mind, that's the opposite of scientific inquiry. But as far as a First Amendment question, I don't think there's any serious legal argument that these standards would pose a First Amendment problem. That's why they were never sued, the subject of any lawsuit in the past two years.
DOBBS: Let me ask you this, Kris, the idea that intelligent design is just another way of introducing religion itself into a science curriculum. Do you accept that as a reasonable charge?
KOBACH: No, I don't. I've started looking into this issue. And intelligent design is basically just a slight twist on evolution. It basically says there are still some unanswered questions, questions that Darwin himself brought up in his own "On the Origin of Species."
And he himself said, well, random genetic mutation might not explain some things. But right now evolution is being taught in some classrooms as having to involve random genetic mutations. So it's really a narrow debate within evolution and people like to call intelligent design creationism warmed over. But the more I've learned, the more I've seen, is it's basically a scientific inquiry where we ask some of the questions that still haven't been answered.
DOBBS: Do you accept that, Jack Krebs.
KREBS: No, I think that this is really not the issue. If you read what's being said in Kansas, the issue is that the former school board feels that science by looking for natural explanations is essentially atheistic and the previous standards wanted to allow supernatural, action by God, action by supernatural agency into science. And our science standards merely describe science as it is understood the world over. Those other things just don't have any place in a set of science standards.
KOBACH: Actually, the 2005 standards mirror almost exactly the National Science Standards. They say they search for adequate explanation of observed phenomena. There's nothing that directs someone toward religion or directs someone toward God. It's just a broader definition and a broader inquiry.
And in the law, we look at the facts and we allow the facts to take us where they lead. And we don't forbid certain conclusions. And that's one thing as lawyer. I look at these new standards and they say you can only go to certain conclusions. And that to me seems odd if we're trying to teach students to use the scientific method and engage in serious inquiry. We should put all possibilities on the table.
DOBBS: Jack Krebs, your thoughts.
KOBACH: The role of the standards is to describe mainstream consensus science. And at this point in our world, intelligent design and the arguments being put forth by the intelligence design advocates are not in any way, shape or form mainstream science. Students can ask questions. Students can think for themselves. Teachers can bring up other issues.
The standards are merely an outline of core understandings from mainstream science. The intelligent design people have really tried to hijack the idea of science standards to push a different form of agenda.
KOBACH: I think I would just urge folks to look at the actual standards. This rhetoric about hijacking, I mean, the standards are a slight definitional changes to reflect the national science standards and say we look at all possible explanations for observed phenomena. It's not a religious hijacking of any sort at all.
DOBBS: Kris - I'm sorry, go ahead.
KREBS: And yet, if you look at the language that's being put out this very day in pres releases, what is being said is that the current science standards are indoctrinating Kansas students in materialism and atheism and that is an extremely false charge.
DOBBS: We thank you very much, Jack Krebs from the Kansas Citizens for Science and Kris Kobach, law professor, University of Missouri. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
KOBACH: My pleasure.
DOBBS: And new evidence tonight of underground water on Mars. Orbiting spacecraft capturing spectacular pictures showing discolored ridges and a giant canyon. Scientists say that discoloration proves that a fluid flowed down the rocks. That is not consensus science but it is a very strong scientific view. Previous NASA probes have shown that water once flowed on the surface of Mars and may in fact have formed lakes and even oceans.
Coming up here next, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vows Democrats will do their best to block any war with Iran. Three of our best political analysts join us for that and a great deal more still ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me now Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, columnist "New York Daily News" Errol Louis, syndicated columnist Miguel Perez. Gentlemen, good to have you here.
Nonbinding resolution, the Congress is asserting itself.
HANK SHEINKOPF, DEMOCRATIC STATEGIST: Not. When they start -- when they start changing the budget of the military to try to stop outlays that fund this war, then you'll know they're serious. They're not serious. This is a way for them to make the folks back home feel warm and bubbly and even the Republicans who know some of them may be in trouble joined with the gang in Washington to vote for this resolution that has absolutely no power.
DOBBS: Do you agree, Errol? ERROL LOUIS, "NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": On one level it's just like a public opinion poll. These just happen to be 435 more people who are agreeing in roughly the same proportions with what the American public wants.
You're right though. If they actually put some teeth behind it, it would look like something else.
They didn't need this shot across the bow for the administration. The administration already knows where the public is, the administration already knew where the Congress is. So it does have kind of an empty kind of ring to it.
MIGUEL PEREZ, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: And I don't see anybody feeling warm and bubbly because people see through this. Everybody sees what's going on. Nonbinding. It doesn't mean anything.
DOBBS: Well, and John Murtha, Hank, he's laying it out there pretty clearly where he is on Iraq.
SHEINKOPF: He got there this morning -- excuse me, he got there -- it was Friday morning "The New York Times". He was pretty clear about it, and he got in front of the speaker and he said no troops so long as he's around going to Iran.
DOBBS: What does that do to Nancy Pelosi?
SHEINKOPF: Well, it kind of shows who's trying to be boss, doesn't it? You don't usually don't get in front of the speaker in a very controlled way. You just don't do that. But Murtha did.
DOBBS: Is there bad blood between these two?
SHEINKOPF: Based upon the previous leadership battles, I would suspect it's not the most lovey-dovey environment you've ever been in.
DOBBS: The idea that there would be this kind of friction, do you think it will have an effect on the way this Democratic Congress is led?
LOUIS: Absolutely. Well, not just in the Congress but even beyond. On this whole question what to do about Iran, those who have been saying it's time for diplomatic outreach, diplomacy means talking, they've got something to talk about now. When you've got hard proof of Iranian munitions being used to attack American troops, it's going to be a very different kind of discussion than it would have been otherwise.
DOBBS: It's a very different discussion but yet, Murtha is sitting here drawing a pretty strong line and as this evidence mounts, the real questions are now because as our Michael Ware reported, there is be indisputable evidence that Iranian munitions are there, that the Qud force from the -- from Iran is moving this stuff in.
PEREZ: And all options have to be left on the table. The president has to have the military option. I understand what Ms. Pelosi is saying about him having to consult Congress if he's going to invade Iran. But at the same time, you can't tie his hands and say only a diplomatic solution here. Because then Iran knows this.
DOBBS: But at the same time, Miguel, we have the question, either way this breaks, there's some serious questions for people in this administration to answer. And in the Pentagon. One, why are you saying that you will absolutely categorically not attack Iran if indeed, they are killing our troops and facilitating their murders?
What are -- I mean, they're in a no-win position here that I can see in any way.
PEREZ: And the president has to take a stand on this. I mean, what our government is doing is basically, you know, shutting their eyes to what's going on with Iran. I mean, they keep doing things that obviously they're involved in Iraq up to here. And you know, we don't do anything about it. Our administration just basically wants to ignore this.
DOBBS: Is this a trap for the Democrats in Congress, as well?
SHEINKOPF: This may be a trap for the Democrats in Congress but it's consistent with American political history. Americans consistently for the last 50 years in public opinion polling are not happy about wars that take a long time to conclude. They weren't happy with the Second World War when it didn't look like we were winning. They're not happy with anything that is a longer term adventure.
DOBBS: Well, this is the five-day a week Congress, Errol. And yet, with President's Day Monday, Congress takes five days off. What's going on?
LOUIS: We, it's their version of a long weekend. I guess since they figure they'll be back home, why not just take off the remaining three days. And that's probably the most charitable way could you put it.
DOBBS: Wouldn't it be the remaining four days?
LOUIS: Well, Friday, I never bought into the Friday thing. Friday's travel day. And just the fact that this gets to be such a big issue, whether or not they're going to even do any work I think tells you kind of where we're at with the Congress.
PEREZ: And you're talking about the new Democratic leadership, the controlling Congress that was going to do all these things and basically all they're thinking about is vacation.
SHEINKOPF: I got to pass on this one, guys, and I'll tell you why. Because part of what goes on when you're in the district is hard work. There's enough research and data to prove the fact, those guys do casework, they've got to see people. You've got to get home.
DOBBS: And that's why that previous Congress led by the Republicans didn't have time to get much done I suppose. SHEINKOPF: I'm not going to fight you, Lou.
DOBBS: Hank, thanks a lot. Errol, thank you very much, Miguel, thank you. We'll be right back with our panel. Stay right with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We're back with Hank Sheinkopf, Errol Lewis, Miguel Perez.
Let's turn to you, Miguel, we've got a big old field now of people who want to be president of the United States. Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, the newest entries. Getting pretty exciting?
PEREZ: Yeah, I like Mr. Guiliani. I'm glad he finally made up his mind. What's interesting about Mr. Giuliani is that people around the country -- those of us who live in New York know a different Giuliani, know the guy who really fixed up New York if you go to Times Square in Manhattan, you know the difference.
But around the country, people only know him for 9/11. And you're talking about a guy who's a real take action leader. I think Mr. Guiliani will do very well.
DOBBS: Do you agree, Hank?
SHEINKOPF: I certainly do. He had the best week of all the candidates. Why? Because the movement of primaries in industrial states up earlier on calendar makes it more likely he will have momentum going into the South with social issues -- frankly, as mayor of New York, you've got to be a little bit to the left -- are not going to be used against him.
DOBBS: Errol?
LOUIS: We in New York who followed him, he was at an all-time low right before September 11th in local polls.
It's interesting. There is plenty of stuff all over the Web, a lot of his internal campaign documents have been found and published and they document in exquisite detail all of his weaknesses, all kinds of different problems, family problems, political problems. A draft problem. He sort of got his way out of the draft during the Vietnam era.
DOBBS: Sure.
LOUIS: And it seems in a way like he might be inoculated. Because it's all out there. Anybody who's going to do anything would have done it by now.
DOBBS: Whatever anybody thinks about Bill Clinton, he provided considerable inoculation over inhaling, the draft, any number of issues.
SHEINKOPF: But it proves that frankly that public performance far outweighs private problems. And the public knows that and they want to see real action.
DOBBS: I couldn't agree with you more. I think the public really doesn't care about all this personal stuff. They want to see somebody of capacity, character, vision, principle and some energy, irrespective of the party, irrespective of the candidate, I think.
Let me ask you this. Let's take a look at that USA -- we've got that "USA Today"/Gallup poll we'd like to show you now showing Guiliani against Clinton. Now, Hank, you're the Democratic strategist here. Is this a problem?
SHEINKOPF: It is a problem. But the real issue in 2008 will be the income and wage gap, it will be the economics of this country, it will be really the economics of the auto industry and everything related to it, the halo effect of all of that, Democrats tend to do better on economic arguments than Republicans do but this will be a close race. Rudy Giuliani would be well-advised to grab economic arguments early and hold on to them.
DOBBS: We're hearing less and less of John McCain. I don't know if this is some sort of recession on his part ...
PEREZ: I think one point you missed is the war in Iraq and possibly in Iran in 2008. I think that will still be a valid issue and Mr. McCain, Senator McCain has a lot to gain or to lose depending on how this troop surge goes. He is the one that advocated the surge all along and if it fails he's doomed.
LOUIS: I think that accounts for his decline in the polls actually.
DOBBS: The surge plus ...
LOUIS: Absolutely. He is the only major national candidate who has been calling for more and more troops into Iraq at a time when most of the public wants exactly the opposite.
DOBBS: Al Franken wants to be senator from the State of Minnesota. Good idea?
LOUIS: Great idea. Great idea.
DOBBS: We just want to get a little straw poll for the folks in Minnesota.
PEREZ: I think it's a great idea. I don't know if I agree with him on everything ...
SHEINKOPF: Let him run, let's see what the people of Minnesota decide.
DOBBS: There you go. All right. Thank you very much, Hank, Errol, thank you very much, Miguel, thank you very much.
And we thank you for being with us tonight. Please join us tomorrow. For all of us, thanks for watching. Enjoy your weekend. Good night from New York. THIS WEEK AT WAR begins now with John Roberts.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com
