Return to Transcripts main page

Lou Dobbs This Week

Dems Decry White House-Penned September Iraq Report; Mattel Toy Recall Fallout

Aired August 19, 2007 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(SHOW BEGINS IN PROGRESS DUE TO EXTENDED NEWSBREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The paratroopers launch a series of air assaults. It's about 1 a.m. this night. Relentless, as the soldiers move among families, searching for weapons and fighters. With the daylight, the hunt continues, as the Iraqi summer almost becomes unbearable, the temperature rising to more than 120 degrees -- so intense, the searchers must rest.

In 48 hours, five suspected insurgents here killed, 10 captured and two boobie-trapped houses destroyed. It's an end to one more operation, on just one of many Iraqi battlefields. Beyond the surge for Baghdad, America's true success against al Qaeda will be measured here, in places like the DRV.

Michael Ware, CNN, the Diyala River valley.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KITTY PILGRIM, CNN HOST: Joining us now is Michael Ware in Baghdad, Barbara Starr at the Pentagon and Suzanne Malveaux with the president in Crawford, Texas.

Michael, we're all anticipating a report in September on the state of Iraq. General Petraeus may suggest shipping troops away from secure areas, where things have improved. You have considerable time to the ground. What's your assessment of that?

WARE: Now we know for a start that simply, even with the surge, the escalation of U.S. troop numbers in this country to 160 thousand- odd, there's not enough boots on the ground to fight this war. There are still pockets of this country where al Qaeda rule.

PILGRIM: The commander of the U.S. forces in al Anbar said that you need a persistent presence on the ground to maintain stability in stable areas. Do you think that there will be a fight over how this strategy might play out?

WARE: I honestly don't think for one nanosecond that General Petraeus envisages removing all U.S. combat forces out of al Anbar. I mean, that's just asking for trouble. So the Marine Corps general who is in control of western Iraq is correct. Okay, you might be out able to shift some troops out to more dangerous or hostile areas, but you're going to need to keep some kind of U.S. presence. But the thing to bear in mind, now and when the report comes out in September, there are successes here in Iraq. But who's looking at what those successes cost and what the long-term implications are going to be?

PILGRIM: And Barbara, at the Pentagon, there's discussion -- General Petraeus says he didn't think there would be anything definitive in his September report, that it would require more time, perhaps until the spring. And we're going get a series of reports, actually, in September. What do you think the assessment will be?

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Iraq is moving at a pace on its own, in terms of military issues and the security picture. What it may be is a political make or break moment. When Congress comes back in September and they see that the surge is at least going have to continue through the spring of '08 -- it runs out after that, there aren't enough troops -- when they see that these reports say there is still not political progress in Iraq, the question will be, What will be the pressure on the generals and on the White House from Capitol Hill, Kitty.

PILGRIM: It's been suggested that Ambassador Crocker and General David Petraeus give their briefings in private, and then Condoleezza Rice and Secretary Gates come forward as the public persona of this report. That, of course, is raising all sorts of hue and cry about a private session and what kind of message will actually come into the public, under those circumstances.

Suzanne, do you see that this may be this moment of crisis for the White House on who actually presents this report?

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kitty, it's really amazing -- this debate is already taking place here. Both sides are really trying to figure out a way to get across the message that is most palatable to the American people, to put out the person that is most credible. But we have heard the president, time and time again, talking about, It's up to General David Petraeus -- he's the guy on the ground, his main man. He is the one who is going to bring forth and talk about this kind of do-or-die assessment, that he is the one with the most credibility.

So as you can imagine, congressional aides telling the Washington Post, as well as CNN, that when the White House, they claim, suggested that David Petraeus give a private briefing, and instead bring out Secretaries Rice and Gates, they were having none of that. They say that is not following the rules here, and they say that, We need to have him, front and center, before the microphones.

Now, I spoke with National Security Council Spokesman Gordon Johndroe, who said, Look, that is absolutely not true, that the Democrats are trying to make hay, if you will, that they will comply with the legislation, that you will see General Petraeus testifying publicly, as well as Ambassador Crocker. You will also see the secretaries weighing in on all of this.

But there are two other really important points here: first, the latest CNN opinion research poll shows that even General Petraeus doesn't really enjoy the confidence of the American people. There are 53 percent in this poll that say they don't trust that he's going to tell the truth. Forty-three percent say, yes, we believe that he is going to give the truth, but most Americans believe it's going to be a sugar-coated scenario either way.

And why do they believe that? That's the second point, and that's because General Petraeus is not the one who writes up this report. He essentially gives his assessment, as well as Ambassador Crocker and others, all to the Pentagon. The Pentagon then gives it to the White House and the National Security Council, and they're the ones who write up this assessment.

PILGRIM: Let me turn back to you, Michael. There's been a good deal of discussion about Iran, in recent days, and it looks very likely to build, as we approach this September moment of truth for Iraq. What do you see as the Iranian involvement? What are you perceiving in the war zone, where you are posted?

WARE: They're fostering business, but they're also involved militarily and politically, and therein lies the rub. Indeed, it's not hard to argue that Tehran had much more influence with the building blocks of this current Iraqi government that America created, than does Washington itself.

And let's not forget, the American command here is now saying that more American troops are dying at the hands of Iranian-supplied weapons, to Iranian-trained Iraqi Shia militias, than they are dying at the hands of the Sunnis or al Qaeda.

Iran has no reason to back off. There's no incentive for them to take their foot off the accelerator, particularly leading --

(VIDEO GAP)

PILGRIM: (In progress) ...for you, and weigh in a bit on this whole question of Iran, and how much of a factor this will be in the upcoming discussion in September?

STARR: We heard a lot of discussion about trying to clamp down, with new financial sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, against its al-Quds force. But what we're really talking about now is an institutionalized part of the Iranian economy. Just consider this, Kitty: the Iranians are looking at trying to establish a bank in Baghdad. If they are able to do that, with the support of the Iraqi government, it gives them an unprecedented financial toehold in that country and that means power. Kitty?

PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Michael Ware, Barbara Starr, Suzanne Malveaux. Thank you all for your analysis this evening.

Still to come, rising anger over dangerous toys imported from Communist China. Three top safety experts will join us.

Also, an illegal alien fugitive, who's defied our immigration laws for a whole year, has a new strategy to resist deportation. And an illegal alien is accused of three horrific murders in Newark, New Jersey, one of this nation's so-called sanctuary cities for illegal aliens.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: The search continues for two more suspects in the brutal murders of three college students in New Jersey. Those murders took place in the sanctuary city of Newark. One of the three suspects already in custody is an illegal alien from Peru. Jose Carranza was freed on bail for assault and child rape at the time of the murders. Newark's sanctuary policies protect illegal aliens, even those charged with crimes. And now one city councilman wants to change the sanctuary policy.

Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Newark, New Jersey, is a don't ask/don't tell city when it comes to the question of immigration status. City Councilman Ronald Rice wants that policy ended where criminals are concerned. He has introduced legislation to require the city to work with federal immigration authorities.

RONALD RICE, NEWARK CITY COUNCIL: I think it just covers some of the gaps that exist in terms of intelligence sharing, information sharing about folks that are in our community. And I think part of the problem that we had in this situation was we had something that may have potentially fallen through the cracks.

TUCKER: It wasn't just a matter of cracks. The prosecutors in Essex County, where Newark is located, knew full well that Jose Carranza is an illegal alien.

TOM MCTIDE, ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR, ESSEX COUNTY, NEW JERSEY: We determined that this person was an undocumented alien as we were conducting a homicide investigation. I'm just going to leave it at that. The procedure is complex.

TUCKER: That attitude is not surprising. New Jersey's governor, Jon Corzine, does not support having state or local police involved in immigration enforcement under the federal authority known as 287(g) on the grounds that it will hinder law enforcement. Corzine has been sharply critical of the Morristown, New Jersey, mayor who supports 287(g) authority, is seeking it and calls it necessary.

MAYOR DON CRESITELLO, MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY: If this is the individual who committed the murders, then those children would be alive today. And I call upon every mayor in New Jersey and every county sheriff to make sure that they request that 287(g) be instituted and implemented in their communities and their counties so that the people of this state can be safe.

TUCKER: Jose Carranza had been indicted twice this year by grand juries for aggravated assault and weapons charges and on aggravated sexual assault of a child. He was free on bond in both cases.

(on camera): There is a second adult suspect in this case who is a legal permanent resident with a long record of aggravated felony arrests. The state pled those felony arrests down to lesser charges, and a legal permanent resident, guilty of felony charges, is deportable.

Bill Tucker, CNN, Newark, New Jersey.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Elvira Arellano, an illegal alien ordered deported over a year ago says she's taking her cause to the nation's capital. Arellano took sanctuary in a Chicago church last August 15th. Now Arellano's 8-year-old son, Saul (ph) has been used as a pawn by her and by open border advocates.

He will now travel with his mother to Washington.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM (voice-over): The newest lobbyist in Washington, illegal alien Elvira Arellano. The Mexican woman, holed up in a Chicago church for the past year, says she is now taking her fight to Washington.

ELVIRA ARELLANO, ILLEGAL ALIEN: We cannot wait until the next election. The Congress must act in September. I will go to Washington, D.C. I will go to pray and fast in front of the Congress.

PILGRIM: Arellano is hoping her 8-year-old son won't be the only child held out of school on September 12th. Illegal alien advocates are calling for a prayer vigil on the Mall in Washington, D.C., that day and ask for those who can't be there to join a national strike.

EMMA LOZANO, PUEBLO SIN FRONTERAS: We call on all people of good conscience, on September 12th, to join us in a national strike. Do not consume anything. No school. No work.

PILGRIM: Arellano entered the country illegally 10 years ago and was deported to Mexico. She re-crossed the border and was arrested during an immigration sweep while working at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002. She was then ordered deported after being convicted of Social Security fraud. She never left.

Arellano said U.S. trade policy brought her here originally.

ARELLANO: I came to the United States to work. I came because of what NAFTA and other U.S. economic policies have done to my country, in which I could no longer find work that pay a living wage.

PILGRIM: Immigration authorities have not yet tried to address Arellano while seeking sanctuary in the church in Chicago.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: When asked by "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" if Immigration and Customs Enforcement will arrest Arellano when she leaves the church to travel to Washington, ICE responded with a statement. And here it is: "Ms. Arellano is one of more than 600,000 immigration fugitives residing in the U.S. illegally after having been ordered deported. ICE has the authority to arrest illegal aliens in all locales and prioritizes its enforcement efforts based on investigative leads, intelligence and consideration of officer and public safety."

Still ahead, more U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are blamed on Iranian bombs. We'll talk to the former CIA director, Jim Woolsey, about Iran's growing threat to our national security.

Also, Mexican drug traffickers are operating deep inside the United States. We'll have exclusive video.

And Mattel recalls millions more toys made in communist China. Why can't the federal government protect us from these dangerous imports?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: There are dire new warnings about Iran's growing threat to U.S. national security. One former CIA director says the United States may have to take strong action to protect our interests.

He says we may even have to bomb Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LOU DOBBS, HOST, "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT": Former CIA director James Woolsey joins us tonight.

JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Good to be with you, Lou.

DOBBS: Let's begin with the issue of -- the administration has stated categorically, you know, our generals have stated categorically that as many of the third of the deaths last month, for example, were caused by Iranian support of the insurgency and the provision of those shaped charges killing so many of our troops.

Why is there no reaction by this government and this military?

WOOLSEY: I don't know. The Persians invented chess and the Iranians are doing a pretty good job of moving their pieces, Muqtada al-Sadr and those explosive devices, and Hamas and Hezbollah around to protect their queen, which is their most lethal piece, their nuclear weapons program.

And I suppose the administration is focused on that. But the way it has chosen to work on is to, for years, turn it over to the Europeans, who have been stalled by the Iranians and the Iranians continue to work on getting enriched uranium.

I'm afraid within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they could have a bomb.

DOBBS: And that bomb should be of concern to everyone, European, Asian, South American, African, as well as American. Why is there not more energy behind those international strictures against Iran and demands to end that program?

WOOLSEY: I think it's because the administration has put too much confidence in the diplomatic process. They keep using the word engagement. But while they're engaged, I think they're being abused by the Iranians.

The Iranians are playing this game very cleverly. And if they got fissile material from the North Koreans, with whom they effectively have a joint missile development program, they could have a bomb in relatively short order.

DOBBS: And a deepening relationship, of course, with communist China.

WOOLSEY: Yes.

DOBBS: The idea that the United States would be conducting military policy without offering its troops absolute protection against interference and the support of a state government killing our troops, it seems reprehensible to me, Jim, just to put it straightforwardly.

And it seems to me that if we cannot assure force security, which is the minimum this nation should provide those men and women fighting for us, that we ought to withdraw or we should end the murder of our troops by a foreign state.

WOOLSEY: Well, some of these explosive devices clearly have Iranian fingerprints on them. And they're supplying them to Muqtada al-Sadr. They may have been supplying some, also, to al Qaeda, on the Sunni side of the divide within Islam.

So they are a huge problem. And I share your worries, your concerns. I don't know why we can't effectively stop that, more troops on the border, even strikes on -- at the border, something to keep that from happening.

DOBBS: You believe that in order to stop the nuclear weapons program, that the United States should, in point of fact, bomb Iran if that program is not halted.

WOOLSEY: If it's not halted. I don't think we have to make that decision yet. My view is the same as John McCain's, which is that using force, air force, presumably, air power, is the worst option in dealing with Iran except for one other, and that's letting them have a nuclear weapon.

Once they get a nuclear weapon, the Sunni states, six of them, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have declared they want nuclear programs, too. And everyone who believes -- anyone who believes that those are going to be for electricity, you know, there's a bridge in Brooklyn they ought to put a bid in on.

DOBBS: And, Jim, the conduct of policy, we are awaiting now next month David Petraeus -- General David Petraeus' assessment of the surge and report to Congress, as well as the president. What do you think of the conduct of the war to this point and, most recently, the surge and its effectiveness?

WOOLSEY: Well, up until Petraeus' takeover, I thought it was not being fought well. It was being fought very much the way Westmoreland fought search and destroy in Vietnam, and for about the same amount of time. Once Abrams came in, we made some real progress, at least against the Viet Cong in Vietnam.

And now that Petraeus is in, he's fighting this the way Abrams did and he's making substantial progress on the ground in Diyala province, in Anbar province, attacking al Qaeda and the rest. The problem, I think, is more at the national level and the politics of the Iraqis, not being able to come together in a coherent government.

The -- our troops and some of the Iraqi troops are actually doing, I think, considerably better than was the case a few months ago.

DOBBS: Thank you very much. Jim Woolsey, the former CIA director. Good to have you here.

WOOLSEY: Good to be with, you Lou.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Coming up, a new political showdown over the president's conduct of the war in Iraq. Three of the best political minds join me for more on the war and all of the week's top political stories.

Also, Mexican drug traffickers are producing drugs inside this country. And those drugs are a growing threat to our nation's students.

And Mattel recalls more toys made in communist China. Why are dangerous imports still flooding into the United States. Three top safety experts will be here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK -- news, debate, and opinion. Here again, Kitty Pilgrim.

PILGRIM: Now this country's largest toy company, Mattel, recalled around 9 million dangerous toys made in communist China. Those toys contained magnets that can be swallowed by children or lead paint that can cause serious injury, even death. Well, this recall raises new questions about the federal government's system to protect Americans from dangerous imports.

Allan Chernoff has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Courtney (ph), mother of a 2-year-old boy, says she just bought her toddler one of the toy Jeeps that's now being recalled.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's unbelievable that they still do that today, with all that we know about how much it hurts your children.

CHERNOFF: Mattel's Sarge Jeep, made in China, indeed is coated with lead paint, prompting the company to issue a recall just two weeks after recalling "Sesame Street" characters that also had lead paint.

NANCY NORD, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION: There is absolutely no excuse for lead to be found in toys entering this country. It is totally unacceptable and it needs to stop.

CHERNOFF: Mattel says it discovered a Chinese supplier had subcontracted painting of the Jeeps to another Chinese company, which improperly used lead paint. The other toys Mattel is recalling have small magnets that can come loose, posing the danger that small children might ingest them. The company is recalling Polli Pocket toys, Doggie Daycare and Barbie and her dog Tanner.

It turns out, Tanner's pooper scooper has a magnet that can come loose.

ROBERT ECKERT, CHMN. & CEO, MATTEL, INC.: We have worked with others in the toy industry, with the CPSC and with other regulators to create new standards to lock in the magnets into a toy.

CHERNOFF: The company is offering vouchers to allow consumers to get replacement toys of their choice.

Allan Chernoff, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Joining me now to discuss this massive recall and what we can do to ensure the products we buy are safe, Don Mays, senior director of product safety for Consumer Reports. In Washington, Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch. And Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at U.S. Public Interest Group. And just to be clear to our viewers, we did invite the toy industry representatives to join us, they were not available.

But let's start, Don, with you. This 9 million toy recall, that's a seriously large recall. And put it in perspective for us. How at risk are our children in the United States?

DON MAYS, CONSUMER REPORTS: Well, there are two different problems with the toys that are involved in this recall. One is with tiny magnets that can fall out and be ingested by children. If a child ingests two or more, they can combine and actually close off the intestines and cause serious health complications, even death.

The other issue is one of lead paint. Now lead paint is not supposed to be used above a trace amount in toys. And, in fact, lead paint, if ingested by children, can cause toxic poisoning, it can cause learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and even in acute dosages, death.

PILGRIM: Ed, let me ask you, how can we protect our children from these dire consequences that Don just outlined? Why are we letting this into the country? What needs to be done?

ED MIERZWINSKI, U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP: Well, Kitty, the same multinational corporations that have stretched their supply chains all the way to China to get a low price have lobbied against giving the Consumer Products Safety Commission the money and the power that it needs to enforce the laws.

The CPSC does not test toys. That's up to the manufacturers. But the CPSC has only got 15 people watching toys at the border. The companies are nor afraid of Wal-Mart than they are of the CPSC.

PILGRIM: The powerful business community. But, Lori, let me ask you this, the CPSC has just held up these recalls as an example of how well our system is working. I don't take that interpretation. And I don't think most American consumers would. What is your reaction to that?

LORI WALLACH, GLOBAL TRADE WATCH: Well, it's pretty outrageous. The products are in the marketplace. We have to make sure that, number one, wherever a product is produced, it's done safely. And number two, if there's an unsafe product, it doesn't get into our market.

A recall is a situation of the horses being out of the barn, the danger already in our homes. We need to change our trade rules as well as our domestic laws as Ed described, to ensure a different system to make sure we don't have to take back unsafe things, but that our kids aren't being exposed to dangerous products.

PILGRIM: Well, let me point out some of the denial that's going on. The Toy Industry Association declined to come on the program. They did, however, issue a statement. Let me read it. We'll put it up for you.

"The toy industry works continuously to strengthen our rigorous testing and inspection procedures, and ensure safe toys. While no one likes to see recalls, our ability to identify problems and recall products is one of the safety valves of the process. The recent recalls are product- and company-specific and do not reflect the fundamental safety of toys on the shelves."

PILGRIM: Don, do you buy that?

MAYS: No. Not completely. First of all, I think that the responsibility for product safety can't be placed only on the manufacturers, nor only on our federal government. The people that import these products, distribute those products and sell products at retail also have to be culpable for the safety of the products they put in the hands of consumers. What's interesting in this whole story is that nobody is really talking about Wal-Mart and the other large retailers of toys. Why didn't they catch the problem? Why weren't they doing the testing that was required to ensure that products were safe before they were sold?

PILGRIM: Many of these companies, Ed, I'll ask you, say that they have internal testing systems. Why do they suddenly fail?

MIERZWINSKI: Well, it's very simple. I think they're looking at the cheap price point and they're presuming that a piece of paper that says the tests were done means the tests were done. We need third- party inspections and we need a bigger hammer to hit the companies all along the supply chain with, whether it's the retailer or the manufacturer that brands the toy with monetary penalties, with civil penalties when they break the law.

But they're not afraid of that. They simply are not afraid of being sued by the government because the government doesn't seem to care as much about safety as it should.

PILGRIM: You know, I'm sure there are very many conscientious parents out there thinking that they should be blaming themselves or worrying what more they can do. Lori, what is your advice to them?

WALLACH: Well, for one thing, they should keep in touch with the different Web sites, like Consumers Union and PIRG and Public Citizen, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, that list recalls. But number two is actually, they need to be very careful to look at where a product is coming from, the country of origin labeling.

And to some degree the best solution is for parents to be pounding on Congress to make these policy changes. Because parent by parent, house by house, we can't make the change in how we consume alone. But we can make the change if we make Congress change the policies.

PILGRIM: Don, as senior director of product safety at Consumer Reports, you might have some advice for parents out there.

MAYS: Well, if you think your child has been exposed to lead paint, one thing you can do is bring your child into a doctor, have the blood tested to see what lead level there is. If, in fact, the lead level is high, then you want to look through your home to see if there are sources of lead. It might not be the toys necessarily in the toy box. It could be even lead paint on the walls.

Also, if you suspect that your child has ingested a -- loose magnets, again, seek medical treatment immediately.

PILGRIM: Mm-hmm. That sounds like the most serious problem. Thanks very much for your sage advice. Don Mays, Lori Wallach and Ed Mierzwinski, thank you all for being here this evening.

Coming up next, Mexican drug traffickers are operating deep in the United States. We'll have an exclusive report. And I'll also speak with Joseph Califano, who has new alarming information about drugs in our schools.

And is the Bush administration trying to influence a key report about the war in Iraq? Three of the best political minds will join me, stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: Mexican drug traffickers are responsible for most of the illegal drugs brought into this country. They are now producing many of their products right here in the United States. Mexican criminal organizations have built methamphetamine super-labs in California. Now the Drug Enforcement Administration says the Mexican drug gangs are also growing high-potency marijuana.

As Christine Romans reports, these drug gangs are growing the marijuana in our national parks and forests.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): California's Sierra National Forest is home to more than 1.3 million acres of pristine mountain scenery. It is also home to marijuana growing operations, with miles of irrigation, fertilizer, and armed camps of cultivators.

Law enforcement put this plot out of business earlier this week.

SCOTT BURNS, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY: Right here alone is over $300,000, at a minimum, worth of marijuana. And they are all relating to Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

ROMANS: Some 300 plants here, there are a least a half-dozen other plots connected to it. Surrounded by forest on all sides, it's the perfect location for what state and federal officials call marijuana gardens.

MICHAEL JOHNSON, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Profit. I mean, it's pure profit. This is pure money out here.

ROMANS: Drug trafficking organizations are prepared to protect their crop at all costs.

JOHNSON: We have a half-a-dozen at least of incidents within the last three or four years where people were shot and killed. I have people every year that are confronted, like I say, by armed individuals in these gardens.

ROMANS: It is a dangerous situation, to say nothing of the deforestation, the trash and the chemicals washing into mountain streams. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mexican drug traffickers cultivate marijuana in national parks and forests in at least eight states.

Right now, late summer is high season in the battle against illegal marijuana on public lands. SCOTT HINSON, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: These are lands set aside by Congress for the American people to enjoy for generations. And they're being desecrated by these Mexican national drug traffic organizations.

ROMANS: One plant at a time, law enforcement is trying to take back the public's land. And the deputy drug policy chief has a message for Americans.

BURNS: People in America that are buying and smoking dope, they should know that this is where it comes from. It doesn't come from some nice little garden in somebody's backyard. It comes from drug traffickers. And there's violence involved, weapons involved, shootings every year.

ROMANS: Law enforcement officials say the same brutal organizations that move billions of dollars of drugs through American ports and borders are becoming more entrenched inside the border as well.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROMANS: Authorities made one arrest at the site we just showed you. But often by the time the helicopters land, the workers have scattered, moving onto the next location. Officials say the drug traffickers often smuggle people into the country, who then work several seasons to pay back their smuggling fees -- Kitty.

PILGRIM: That's astonishing. Thanks very much, Christine Romans.

Well, an alarming new report on drug abuse in our nation's schools. The National Center on Addiction and Substance says an astonishing 80 percent of high school students are exposed to drugs and alcohol, 44 percent of middle schoolers also say they've encountered drugs and alcohol.

Joseph Califano, the president and chairman of CASA, says it's important that lawmakers, parents, and school administrators work together on this drug crisis.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOSEPH CALIFANO, PRESIDENT, CASA: We're talking about 11 million high school students and 5 million middle school students that will return this September to high schools and middle schools where drugs will be used, dealt. They'll see students drunk and high. And we can't have a situation like that.

PILGRIM: You know, the next statistics I would like to show our audience and share, which the research on this is quite good, the frequency that students encounter drugs at school, 4 million high school students, 1 million middle school students.

Millions of kids are just encountering the drugs in the school. CALIFANO: Every week. I mean, that's every single week they're going to see that. And, you know, in this country, where you have to send your kid to school, it's against the law. The kids are truants in middle school and high school, what the states are doing is saying, you must send your kid to a school even though it's riddled with drugs, even though it's infested with drugs.

PILGRIM: It's very disturbing. Now, you often hear the excuse, oh, there were always drugs around, you know, the previous generations dabbled extensively with drugs, that this is not -- but look at the statistics on this. And, again, this research is definitive.

You had, in 1979, 3.3 million. It went down and now it is back up again. In 2005, 2.6 million people -- 6 million teens -- illegal drug users in the country.

CALIFANO: And teenage illegal drug users.

PILGRIM: Teenagers. Why are we seeing -- do you know -- have you done some guesses on why this is really blossoming again?

CALIFANO: Well, I think drugs are -- marijuana, particularly, is much more available. Our -- what our survey showed was that 17 percent of the kids in high school and middle school, the 12- to 17- year-olds in this country, can buy marijuana in an hour on their school grounds. Thirty-seven percent can buy it within a day.

PILGRIM: As a mother two of teenagers, I find this extremely disturbing. You wrote a book, "High Society."

CALIFANO: Yes.

PILGRIM: It was released in May. And you focus on preventing drugs and alcohol use among our children. Let me just take a quote from that. And if they would put it up. "Parent power is the most potent, least appreciated and most under-utilized resource available in the struggle to raise children free of drugs and alcohol abuse."

And you go on to say: "The front line for America's drug problem is not only in legislative hearing rooms, it is in living rooms, dining rooms and in the hands of parents and families."

Give some advice to everyone listening here, what can they really do?

CALIFANO: OK. Well, Kitty, here's what they can do. One, they can be engaged in their kids' lives. They can have frequent dinners with their kids. We know that the more often kids have dinner with their parents, the less likely they are to smoke, drink and use drugs.

And they can raise hell about the situation in the schools their kids go to. Now, if there's asbestos in the ceiling of the school, parents wouldn't send their kids to school until all the dust is out. Well, why don't they get as angry about drugs in school as they are about asbestos in school? I think they've got to put pressure on the school authorities, the teachers, the school boards to clean the drugs out of the schools. And I think, also -- I mean, we know that every level of parental engagement is important. And kids read them. And they also have to send a clear message to their kids. And the message is basically Nancy Reagan's message, no. You just say no to drugs.

And, also, incidentally, interestingly for these teenagers, a sense that it is not moral for a kid their age to use drugs is more important to them than a sense that it's illegal.

PILGRIM: The illegality of it does not impress them?

CALIFANO: At that age. When you get towards high school -- towards college students, they begin to worry about the illegality. But for these kids, it's -- you know, the greatest influence on these kids is parents. This is a mom and pop operation. And if you're engaged with your kids, you greatly reduce the likelihood.

But, also, you've got to say to your state and your city and your school board, you cannot put my kids in a situation where they have to spend six hours a day, five days a week in an environment where they're going to see students high, students drunk, drugs dealt, drugs used, drugs kept.

PILGRIM: Extraordinarily disturbing report. And we applaud your efforts in pushing on this. And we encourage every parent out there to join the fight. Thanks very much.

CALIFANO: Thank you.

PILGRIM: Joseph Califano.

CALIFANO: Thank you, Kitty.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PILGRIM: Just ahead, Democrats say the White House is trying to influence a major progress report on the war in Iraq. Joining me next, three of the country's best political minds. We'll discuss that story and a lot more. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: Now a key report on the progress of the war in Iraq is due out next month. There are already questions about the report's validity. Joining me for the weekend's political roundtable to discuss it, Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf; Diana West with The Washington Times; and in Miami, Miguel Perez, syndicated columnist.

And thank you all for being here. You know, this report that's about to come out about mid-month in September will be followed by a series of other reports that assess both the reconstruction, the training of Iraqi forces, a lot of different components of the Iraq War. This is supposed to be the definitive moment of assessing where we stand in the war, although there has already been some downplaying of how important this moment will be.

What is your assessment, Hank? Is this a critical moment for the Bush administration?

HANK SHEINKOPF, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: We're post critical moments for the Bush administration, which is really on life support. The Constitution guarantees them a certain number of days, if that were not the case, they'd be gone. And the problem is that that will weigh heavily on whether the reports have any validity whatsoever coming from the administration.

PILGRIM: That's a political analysis, and yet we still have the military reality on the ground. Diana, this -- we can't dismiss it with a political sort of comment. We have to understand what's actually happening in Iraq and then make a decision that's almost outside of politics because, after all, there are young men and women on the ground in Iraq at this point. What is to be done?

DIANA WEST, THE WASHINGTON TIMES: Well, I think we need to remember that there is a law requiring the president to make such a report. I'm not sure it can be dismissed so handily. I don't think it should be.

That said, there's plenty to dispute in terms of the strategy. And I'm hoping that we can debate more maturely the actual strategy of what is going on with the surge. So I'm not dismissing the report until I get it -- until Americans get it, and I think we need to go from there.

PILGRIM: Well, Diana, you raise a very interesting point. Because there is some question of how Americans will receive this information. Now, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are tasked with presenting the facts to the Bush administration. However, those facts will be formatted by those inside the administration.

Miguel, how much of a factual-based testimony do you think the American public is going to get?

MIGUEL PEREZ, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: I agree with Diana. I'm not dismissing the report until we get it. There is some skepticism, of course, because politically the Bush administration wants to tell us that progress is being made. The military, I tend to believe a little more than the Bush administration right now.

And the military -- our military commanders in Iraq are telling us that even though some of them believe that some progress is being made, military progress is being made, not political progress. And unless the Shias and the Sunnis get together, all of this time that we're buying militarily is going to go to waste anyway.

The idea is reconciliation and it's not happening.

PILGRIM: Hank?

SHEINKOPF: I'm an expert in propaganda and politics, that I can say, not in military affairs. People who look at these reports will think Vietnam and they'll wonder where it's all going. The trust the military had has really been dissipated over the last 40 years. So this had better we very good and it had better be provable.

PILGRIM: And very important. Let's move on to a couple of opinion polls. And let's look at the Bush administration's success or failure. This is a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. The Bush presidency has been a success, 40 percent, or a failure, 57 percent.

A big mark on failure. And the Democratic Congress, just to spread things around a bit, has been a success, 37 percent, or a failure, 55 percent. When we see this kind of negative review, what does this say about our government? What are Americans to do with a government that they cannot believe in and now there's some discussion of whether they can believe the military reports? This is a crisis of belief in the country.

SHEINKOPF: This is a crisis of belief. In the past what we've seen with a crises in belief when it comes to American politics is that voters have opted for more moral or more religious kinds of candidates, for more moral arguments to explain what went wrong. But don't be fooled by the congressional numbers. Ultimately the Congress may be bad, but individual congressmen are seen as being particularly good in their own districts.

PILGRIM: OK. Diana, quickly, a thought on this?

WEST: Well, I think that the mirror images here are something to take into account regardless of whether individuals in Congress are doing well. Americans know that we are not prevailing in the way we want to prevail and I think that that is the source of their frustration.

PILGRIM: Miguel?

PEREZ: Well, that's what elections are for. If we're dissatisfied with our elected officials, we wait for the next time in 2008. We're going to have a great opportunity to change things around. The Democratic Congress has disappointed us because we expected more out of them and it hasn't happened.

PILGRIM: Well, we'll wade into the election season, which has already begun, in just a moment. But we'll be right back with more with our panel -- roundtable. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PILGRIM: Now we're back with our distinguished political panel. Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf; Diana West with The Washington Times; and in Miami, Miguel Perez, syndicated columnist.

Let's get into the immigration issue. It seems like it's going to be a big one in the presidential race. And we have Senator Mel Martinez this week blasting the two presidential front-runners, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney for opposing the amnesty agenda. This immigration issue, how big do you think it will be in this upcoming campaign? SHEINKOPF: It depends on what else is important at the moment. If Iraq is not resolved, that will be there. The economic problems some people are going to experience will be significant. And immigration will depend on which state you're operating in.

PILGRIM: Diana, do you think it's important that each candidate establish their position on immigration early and repeat it often?

WEST: Oh, absolutely. I think this is the great unfinished business of the Bush administration. I found it absolutely outrageous that Mr. Martinez was chiding Republican front-runner candidates for their positions on border security and against the comprehensive immigration reform because that's something that Republican voters are supposed to decide on, not GOP chairmen.

PILGRIM: Yes. It's an interesting power equation right there. And you know, the American public is pretty much uniform on their opinions about immigration, Miguel?

PEREZ: I give Mr. Martinez a standing ovation. I thought it was terrific. Not only are Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani competing to take the hardest line against immigrants, but they're also competing to see who is the biggest hypocrite. Mr. Giuliani was pro-immigrant when he was mayor of New York. And Mr. Romney, when he was the governor of Massachusetts, allowed three cities to have similar policies as New York, also had illegal immigrants mowing his lawn.

PILGRIM: Yes.

WEST: But Mr. Martinez is not the arbiter of what constitutes a good Republican candidate. That's something that should go to the voters.

PILGRIM: You know, we also have another behind-the-scenes player -- not-so-behind-the-scenes player, Karl Rove, was a big driving force behind the president's amnesty immigration bill. Now that he's withdrawing, resigning, what does that mean for President Bush's vision of this issue? Miguel, any thoughts on that?

PEREZ: What vision? I think it was all Karl Rove and wondering what the president is going to do without his brain.

PILGRIM: So there's a vacuum you're saying. Diana?

WEST: Well, I've never bought into the brain notion. But I think that Karl Rove's legacy is a mixed legacy for conservatives, just as President Bush's legacy will be such a thing.

PILGRIM: And, Hank, the domestic agenda, I mean, the way some people call it, was set by Karl Rove. Do you think that's an overstatement? What do you think his absence will mean?

SHEINKOPF: It may be an overstatement. He is to be commended for electing his guy as president of the United States and doing that, pretty significantly, not once but twice. The facts are no one will remember Karl Rove's name next week, what they will remember is a Bush administration that couldn't get much done almost to the end.

And the Democrats and others in the House and the Senate are heaving a sigh of relief because immigration is now on the way-back- burner, so far out they'll never find it.

PILGRIM: Do you think that domestic policy will have a direction with Rove's absence?

SHEINKOPF: Absolutely, to get through the next few months and then get on with the next presidency.

PILGRIM: Thank you very so much for being with us, and with your analysis. Diana West, Miguel Perez, and Hank Sheinkopf, thank you. And thank you for joining us. Please join us tomorrow. For all of us here, thanks for watching. Enjoy your weekend. Good night from New York. "THIS WEEK AT WAR" starts right now with Tom Foreman.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com