updated 4/11/2006 12:28:47 PM ET 2006-04-11T16:28:47

Guests: Brent Wilkes, Steve Abrams, Tom Kuiper

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks for tuning in.  Good to have you with us.  Tonight, we‘re in Washington, D.C., where a massive pro-immigration demonstration filled the National Mall today.  Similar scenes were repeated in cities across the country.  Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators cheering, chanting and demanding citizenship for illegal immigrants in scenes that reminded some of the anti-war protests of the 1960s. 

But many in the crowd tonight on the National Mall wouldn‘t catch that

reference, because they‘re public high school students, and they‘re getting

credit for attending the demonstration.  Critics are outraged.  One of the officials who approved that controversial plan joins us tonight to defend it. 

Plus, Hillary Clinton may wish she eats her own words, especially after she sees some of the quotes in a new book about her.  We‘ll talk to the author of “I‘ve Always Been a Yankees Fan.”

And the 911 outrage.  A 5-year-old calls to save his mother‘s life and is ignored.  We‘ve got the story on 911 calls gone awry.

But first, some scenes from a day of protests.  We were in the thick of it here in Washington.  But demonstrators took center stage across the country.  In Los Angeles, thousands of protestors marched between San Diego and Sacramento.  In Phoenix, some 50,000 turned out in a crowd that at one point stretched for two miles. 

On the National Mall where I spent the entire afternoon, Ted Kennedy, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, one of the speakers, invoking the protests of the 1960s. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED KENNEDY (D), MASSACHUSETTS:  More than four decades ago, near this place, Martin Luther King called on the nation to let freedom ring.  Freedom did ring, and freedom can ring again.

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

CARLSON:  Unfortunately, we don‘t have the terrific tape of Senator Kennedy attempting to speak Spanish.  (speaking foreign language), he said, to confused cheers from the throngs.

But we did talk to a number of protestors today.  Most of them, I should add, were perfectly pleasant and very nice to us and our crew.  They did articulate, though, some of maybe more clearly than they intended, the rationale behind this protest today.  Listen to some of them. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  A good American doesn‘t keep people back to unemployment, poverty, oppression.  A good American shares his country and leads us to freedom, to real freedom.  That‘s the good American.

CARLSON:  Some people say in Congress, especially, “”Look, these are people who came here breaking the law.”  What do you think of that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I know.  I know.  That‘s a difficult situation, because—but also, they had no other options.  I mean, it was really because to go back to their original countries and to be able to come here legally, it‘s very difficult.  I mean, you go to the embassies.  They have no visas.  So they have no other option but to come, you know, illegally. 

CARLSON:  You‘ve got a Mexican flag.  You‘ve got an American flag. 

Why are they together?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  We‘re together.  There‘s no difference, man.  It‘s the same as one nation, man, from Argentina to Canada, it‘s America, man.  There‘s no boundaries, man.  It‘s one whole nation. 

CARLSON:  So I should be able to go to Mexico and just up?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  No problem, man.  You should be anywhere, man. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  There‘s only one America.  We‘re born in America. 

CARLSON:  so what do you think about the borders.  I mean, there‘s a border with Mexico.  There‘s a border with El Salvador and Guatemala and Nicaragua.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  This country.  This country, we make it for America, only immigrants.  Only immigrants.

CARLSON:  Wait, wait, wait.  Should I be able to go to any other country in the continent of America and say I live here now?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Yes, we can.  No problem.  No problem.  Who make this America, this USA?  Who make it?  Only immigrants. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON:  Show up in Mexico without your papers, good luck with that. 

Joining me now one of the organizers of today‘s rallies.  He‘s Brent Wilkes.  He‘s the executive director of LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, joining me here in Washington.

Brent, thanks a lot for coming. 

BRENT WILKES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LULAC:  Delighted to be here.

CARLSON:  So to put it bluntly, why should Congress listen to rallies of a lot of people who can‘t even vote because they‘re not even here legally?

WILKES:  I think because they can see that there was a tremendous outpouring of humanity today throughout the country. 

These are people that are working hard in our nation.  They‘re picking our food.  They‘re building our homes.  They‘re taking dare of our children.  They‘re cleaning our offices.  And all they want is the same opportunity that your ancestors and my ancestors had. 

CARLSON:  Look, one thing I was reminded of today is something I knew as a child, growing up next to Mexico, which a lot of people who come here illegally are nice people, and they want to work and I admire that.  And I always have admired that.

However, it‘s a bit much to sneak into a country illegally, breaking its laws by definition, and then start lecturing that country on what kind of country it should be. 

WILKES:  That‘s not what‘s happened at all.  And let‘s just start from the beginning.

CARLSON:  Sure it is.

WILKES:  Right now, we offer about 5,000 visas per year to about a million people coming in, taking these jobs that we‘re all too willing to offer throughout this country, doing these very needed things for our economy.  Helping us, Tucker.  You‘re benefiting and I‘m benefiting from their labor. 

And instead of thanking them, we punish them.  We take away their driver‘s licenses.  We say they can‘t have bank accounts.  We persecute them throughout the country. 

CARLSON:  Persecute?  Wait a second.

WILKES:  Because they are illegal, they—one misdemeanor violation of the immigration law and we think that means anything goes, we can punish them as much as we want. 

CARLSON:  They‘re not here...

WILKES:  That‘s wrong, Tucker, and you know it. 

CARLSON:  You‘ve got to be kidding.  They‘re here illegally.  If I show up in Salvador, Guatemala or Mexico, which is a prime offender in this way, without papers and say, you know, “I‘m taking this job, and I want you to speak English, and I actually want a driver‘s license,” they‘ll say, “Shut up, pal,” and if I don‘t shut up, they‘ll put me in jail.  Because that‘s what sovereign countries do.  They control their borders.  Or we don‘t.

WILKES:  Tucker, there are plenty of Americans living in Mexico right now.  They‘ve retired.  They‘re having a great life down there.  Mexico allows people to come across legally.  We do not.  We do not provide them a legal avenue, and that‘s what‘s created the problem in the first place. 

CARLSON:  Wait.  I‘m sorry, but not to—not to counter your spin with facts here, but Mexico has put thousands of Central American immigrants in prison.  It is a crime punishable by prison in Mexico to sneak into that country without documentation.  Period.  They‘re in prison right now.

WILKES:  Tucker, look me in the eyes and you tell me that we are not benefiting from these immigrants‘ labor. 

CARLSON:  You‘re—you‘re dodging the question. 

WILKES:  We need to give them an opportunity to come here legally.  That‘s all we‘re asking.  You give them that legal opportunity and they will take it.  We‘re forcing them to take an illegal path. 

CARLSON:  You‘re—to some extent you‘re right.  And you‘re also dodging my previous question.  But isn‘t it our right to decide who comes here and who does not?

WILKES:  Yes.

CARLSON:  We‘re America.  It‘s our country.  Now, you may want to see more immigrants come here.  I might want to see more immigrants come here.  But it‘s up to Congress.  We elect them to make those decisions.  And they have said we have this many slots open.  These people are ignoring that and coming here anyway.  Don‘t we have the right to punish them?

WILKES:  We have the right to decide how to change our immigration laws.

CARLSON:  Right.

WILKES:  That‘s clearly the case.  And they are letting us know how they feel about how we‘ve been treating them up until this point. 

CARLSON:  But where do they get the right to weigh in on a political process of which they are not a part?  They are not American citizens.  I can‘t go to Mexico and organize a rally with a million of my closest buddies and say the Mexican government ought to change.  They would—they‘d turn the fire hoses on me. 

WILKES:  We talk—we talk about Mexico‘s government all the time and give them advice.  Listen, there are human rights.  There are higher laws than just the Constitution... 

CARLSON:  It‘s God‘s law.  I got the clergyman the other day: it‘s God‘s law.

WILKES:  No, Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence said that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And he meant, by pursuit of happiness, he meant the right to work.  That‘s the natural law.  You cannot violate that.

CARLSON:  So once you show up in this country, even though we don‘t invite you and we don‘t want you, you suddenly have a right to tell us how to live and how to...

WILKES:  No.

CARLSON:  You get to force our government to bend the will, simply because you got here?  See, that‘s what these people dislike immigrants when you say things like that. 

WILKES:  I‘m not saying that.           What I‘m saying is they‘re letting us know how they feel.  These are people working for us, helping us.  All we have to do is give them a legal opportunity to come.  What‘s wrong with that?  Why won‘t we give them that legal opportunity? 

CARLSON:  But what if we don‘t...

WILKES:  Because folks like you try to get the public riled up, saying... 

CARLSON:  What do you mean get the public riled up?  I started this conversation by saying what I really think, as I always do, and that is that immigrants are admirable.  I like immigrants.  OK?

WILKES:  Give them a chance then.

CARLSON:  These are—and I even like illegal immigrants, personally.  You don‘t see them begging, which I admire, and they‘ve always been nice when I‘ve dealt with them. 

However, they are illegal.  So I need you to concede this point.  We have a right to say to people, “This is our law.  If you don‘t abide by it, we can boot you out, because it‘s our country, not yours.”  Don‘t we have the right to say that?  You seem to be suggesting we don‘t have that right.

WILKES:  We have that right, but Tucker, we have to be reasonable and practical.  And the thing is, if they‘re helping us, why would we want to do that?  Just to be mean-spirited?

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t know.  Your contention is illegal immigration is a net gain to this country. 

WILKES:  Yes, it is.

CARLSON:  A lot of people—you represent an interest group that has an interest in saying that, but a lot of people... 

WILKES:  No, not illegal immigration.  Immigration is a net gain.  We wish they were legal.  You‘re the one who wants them to be illegal, because you refuse to change the law.

CARLSON:  But they‘re not legal, and that‘s the point. 

WILKES:  Because you‘ve made it impossible for them not.

CARLSON:  And a lot of people—a lot of people disagree with you, actually.  A lot of people say, and there‘s some evidence to support that, that illegal immigrants bring a disproportionate amount of crime to this country, that they tax our health care system along the border.  And that‘s inarguably true.  You‘re ignoring that. 

The people who live in Arizona, if they don‘t want illegals there, I think they want to be able to say, “Leave, it‘s not your country.  You have the right to determine what happens within your borders.  We have the right to determine what happens within ours.”

WILKES:  Look it, you‘re ignoring the big benefit, which is the value of their labor.  That‘s $890 billion worth of economic stimulus to the United States every year.  That more than makes up for the small amount of expenses that we pay on health care and on education.  That‘s only about $43 billion... 

CARLSON:  Well, it kind of—it kind of depends who you are.  It kind of depends who you are.  If you‘re, like...

WILKES:  It‘s 20 times the amount.

CARLSON:  If you‘re the executive director of LUMAC...

WILKES:  Twenty times the value.

CARLSON:  Hold on.  Your job isn‘t going to be taken by an illegal immigrant.  If you‘re a talk show host, you‘re similarly safe.  But there are Americans who believe, and they may be correct, that their jobs are taken by people who will work for cheaper, because they‘re illegal.  And that does hurt Americans.

WILKES:  They might believe that, but they‘re mistaken.  And here‘s why.   We‘re in a global economy.  Those jobs could easily go over the seas in the blink of an eye.  Those immigrants that are coming here are helping keep certain occupations here in the United States, like agriculture that‘s dominated by immigrant labor.  If we lost those immigrant workers, you could kiss all those agricultural jobs good-bye and with it the positive trade deficit situation. 

CARLSON:  And they‘d be replaced. I mean, those are bad jobs in the first place.  I wish—I do wish we had time to argue the economic intricacies of this, but we don‘t.  But I appreciate your coming on.

WILKES:  Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Good to have you on.

WILKES:  All right.

CARLSON:  Still to come, much more on illegal immigration debate. 

Plus President Bush is downplaying speculation he might nuke Iran.  Will anything stop him from bringing down a man calls, quote, “a potential Adolph Hitler”?  An interesting story.

Plus, a 911 call sparks outrage in Detroit.  Why did a dispatcher ignore a 5-year-old boy‘s plea to help his dying mother, who subsequently died?  Find out when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still to come, students in Maryland get community service credit for attending today‘s immigration protests.  Will they give you the same credit for going to an anti-abortion rally or an NRA convention?  I don‘t think so. 

Plus, a new twist in the Duke lacrosse scandal.  Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Tonight‘s “Under the Radar” segment comes to us from Montgomery County, just outside Washington, D.C., in the state of Maryland, where today‘s massive demonstrations, were they educational? 

That‘s the contention of one Maryland public school system, where students will get community service credit for attending the rallies today.  It‘s a policy that generated a lot of controversy.  And one of the officials who approved it is here to defend his positions: Steve Abrams.  He‘s a member of the Montgomery County, Maryland, board of education.  He joins us from Chicago, where he is traveling on business. 

Mr. Abrams, thanks for coming on. 

STEVE ABRAMS, MEMBER, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, BOARD OF EDUCATION: 

Tucker, delighted to be here. 

CARLSON:  This almost sounds, with all due respect, like a parody, like something out of “The Onion”.  And you go march on the Mall for illegal immigration, you get high school credit?  How does that work?

ABRAMS:  Well, we figured it was fair because we also allowed them to march on the Mall for pro-life demonstrations, for gun control and NRA activities.

CARLSON:  OK.

ABRAMS:  And for other political activities.  We don‘t discriminate between the activities as long as it falls within the guidelines. 

CARLSON:  Well, what are the guidelines?  This was—in addition to what else that this was, it was something of an ethnic pride event, which may be good, it may be bad.  But it seems like something a school ought to hesitate before endorsing.  I mean, people were out there talking about...

ABRAMS:  We didn‘t—now I want to be very clear.  It‘s not something that we endorse. 

CARLSON:  OK.

ABRAMS:  What we have in the state of Maryland is a 60-hour public service requirement for graduation, something that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend pushed through when she was the lieutenant governor.  And as a result, each one of the school districts in Maryland has to figure out ways that they‘re going to be able to implement the 60 hours. 

CARLSON:  OK.

ABRAMS:  We chose in Montgomery County to implement it in the following way. 

No. 1, it would be done by outside organizations.  In order to qualify for public service, students have to work through a secular, not-for-profit corporation. 

CARLSON:  All right.

ABRAMS:  And in order to qualify, there are three criteria.  The activities can be typical volunteer work: the soup kitchen volunteer, the tutoring activities.

CARLSON:  Right.

ABRAMS:  Students in Montgomery County can participate, as long as it‘s not during school hours, on political campaigns.  Both the Republican Party, which I formerly chaired, and the Democratic Party have used student volunteers through—through this program.  And if they satisfy the requirements, we recommend them for—for credit.  But...

CARLSON:  OK.  So if David Duke relocated to Montgomery County, and he wouldn‘t get a warm welcome.  I mean, I‘ll be honest for you.  But let‘s say he did and decided to run for Congress again.  And you had students who wanted to volunteer on David Duke‘s campaign, would they get high school credit for that?            

ABRAMS:  Would he be a legitimate candidate?  If he‘s a legitimate candidate, properly filed, of course—and students chose to do that, they could. 

CARLSON:  OK.  So next time some wacko white supremacist, next time the Aryan Nation decides to have a rally on the Mall and kids want to go and volunteer to help them, I mean, why wouldn‘t they get credit for that?

ABRAMS:  For a very simple reason, Tucker, because you just defined it.  You defined it David Duke running for public office on the ballot.

CARLSON:  Right.

ABRAMS:  And that‘s the qualification.  All right?  Now advocacy still has to be within the realm of mainstream.  And so we can make choices in terms of deciding what that... 

CARLSON:  There you go, Mr. Abrams.  See, isn‘t that the problem?  I mean, mainstream in Montgomery County is not mainstream in other—I mean, who‘s to say what mainstream is?  Who‘s to—do you know what I mean?

ABRAMS:  Tucker, I‘ll tell you—I‘ll tell you what—what I think mainstream is.  I think if Potter Stuart could tell you what obscenity was without defining it, I don‘t we have too much trouble coming up to a consensus as to what mainstream is. 

CARLSON:  Is that right?  Because I saw—it‘s interesting you say that, because today as I was at the march, I saw a bunch of Montgomery County school kids standing there, you know, watching the demonstration.  And directly behind them, literally right behind them were placards going up and down in the air from a group called ANSWERS. 

ANSWER is a left-wing group that officially—and you can check the web site—on the side of North Korea.  Now, that‘s not a mainstream group, as far as I‘m concerned.  They were, according to them, one of the sponsors of today‘s events.  So the kids are participating in an event that‘s partly sponsored by a group that endorses the North Korea government.  That doesn‘t sound like mainstream to me.

ABRAMS:  Tucker, now first of all, that‘s not what I said to you. 

CARLSON:  OK.

ABRAMS:  What I said was the group that the students were working through, in this case, it was Casa (ph) of Maryland, is a mainstream group. 

CARLSON:  Right.  OK.

ABRAMS:  This ANSWER is not—this ANSWER group, which may be affiliated in some way, is not a group that was authorized by Montgomery County.  Had they requested the ability to give community service credit, they wouldn‘t have had that opportunity. 

CARLSON:  Here‘s my bottom line question.  Wouldn‘t it just be easier

look, if the kids want to go, as in the rest of normal America, want to spend their time volunteering, good for them.  Wouldn‘t it just be better to teach them how to read and do math, rather than getting into controversies, time wasted controversies like this one?

ABRAMS:  Tucker, I—I might agree with you.  But unfortunately, I live in the state of Maryland, where we have a law that calls for 60 hours of community service. 

CARLSON:  OK.  I‘m sorry.

ABRAMS:  So I‘m focusing right here...

CARLSON:  Right.

ABRAMS:  ... in that requirement of 60 hours of community service.  I can assure you that in our schools we require our kids to take courses in reading and mathematics and all the things that you would expect.

CARLSON:  Then Mr. Abrams...

ABRAMS:  But I‘m not so sure that‘s the issue that we‘re talking about right here. 

CARLSON:  It‘s the law in the state of Maryland.

ABRAMS:  But I guess my final question is wouldn‘t it just be easier to move to Virginia?

ABRAMS:  I‘m sorry?  I didn‘t hear that.

CARLSON:  I‘m just kidding, Mr. Abrams.  I‘m sorry; I‘m just joking.  Thanks a lot.  Wouldn‘t it be easier to move to Virginia, but that‘s not a joke that people of Maryland laugh at.  I find it amusing anyway, but I appreciate your coming on.  Thanks. 

ABRAMS:  Besides, you can‘t get to Virginia from Maryland.  The transportation won‘t let you. 

CARLSON:  Good point.  Thanks.

Coming up, the price of positive press at Page Six.  We‘ll tell you about an alleged extortion plot involving a billionaire, a bachelor party and big bucks.  Much alliteration, great story.  Stay tuned. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back to THE SITUATION, from Washington tonight. 

Here‘s a question: is Iran next?

According to the latest issue of “The New Yorker” magazine, as well as the “Washington Post”, the White House now stepping up plans for possible air strikes against Iran, air strikes that could include nuclear tipped bunker buster bombs. 

During an appearance at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C.  earlier today, President Bush warned people not to jump to any conclusions about the use of military force against Iran.  Here‘s what he had to say. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Here in Washington, prevention means force.  It doesn‘t mean force, necessarily.  In this case, it means diplomacy.  And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend.  It was just wild speculation, by the way.  What you‘re reading is wild speculation. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Well, here with more wild speculation to join me and my wild speculation, wild speculator and Air America radio host, Rachel Maddow.

Rachel, welcome.

RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO HOST:  Hi, Tucker.  I made some phone calls from your office since you‘re in D.C.  I hope you don‘t mind. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t mine at all.  Drink the coffee and use my stationary.  I don‘t mind.

MADDOW:  Very good.

CARLSON:  You know, this—I read this piece.  This is all—this all begins with, it‘s predicated on Sy Hirsch piece in the “New Yorker”, which is a very interesting story.  Much less scary than I had heard, right?  The idea that we‘re going to use nuclear force against Iran.  I don‘t know whether we should or whether we shouldn‘t use nuclear tipped bunker busting bombs.

But the fact is Iran is on its way to getting nuclear weapons.  We actually can‘t have that.  That is bad for everybody: Israel, Europe, us, the rest of the Middle East.  And a credible show of force, or a credible threat of force against Iran is one of our few levers to force them to knock it off, and I think it‘s good to exercise that lever. 

MADDOW:  Well, credible is the problematic word there for the U.S.  right now, is that there‘s not much that we say about other countries and the threat of the use of force that is very credible any more.  But it‘s kind of...

CARLSON:  We threatened to invade Iraq and we did. 

MADDOW:  Yes, but we threatened to invade Iraq and asked the rest of the world on the basis to come along with us on of the basic of the fact that we said there were weapons there that weren‘t there.  I mean, all credibility in terms of what we say about other countries, particularly in the Middle East, is at its low point. 

CARLSON:  But does that even—does that even matter?  Because the point is not “are we right in our intelligence estimates?”  The question is, are we crazy enough to do it?  Are we tough enough to do what we hint we‘re going to do?  And that‘s what matters. 

MADDOW:  Right.

CARLSON:  I think you‘ve got a loaded gun and may use it, I‘m awfully polite to you.

MADDOW:  It‘s kind of “steal your lunch money” politics, right?  I‘m not going to get your lunch money off you unless you think I‘m really going to kick your butt. 

CARLSON:  That‘s the way the world works.

MADDOW:  But here‘s the problem, Tucker.  What makes anybody think—what makes you think that we‘re being fake crazy about Iran?  I mean, we were real crazy about Iraq.  And with Iran right now, if we‘re saying, you know, we‘re going to get in there and have this kookie idea that we‘re someone going to cause regime change.  We‘re going to liberate you with nuclear weapons.  Well, you know what?  That is the rationale that we took to Iraq.  I‘m not so sure this is fake crazy. 

CARLSON:  But in this case—the difference in this case is, nobody is now talking about liberating Iran or bringing democracy to Iran. 

MADDOW:  Yes, they are.

CARLSON:  Look, maybe some—you know, the dumbest of the neocons may still be talking that way.  But that‘s not the point in this case.  You know, I wouldn‘t put it past them.

But the bottom line is, nuclear weapons in Iran, terrible for the world and terrible for us.  And so, if Iran fears us enough to stop its nuclear program, that is a good thing. 

Meanwhile, Western Europe, the so-called international community, the nuclear regulatory community doing absolutely nothing.  So why shouldn‘t we do this?

MADDOW:  Tucker, nobody is in disagreement about whether or not it would be a good thing for the world to have—for Iran to have nuclear weapons.  Nobody was in disagreement about whether or not Saddam Hussein was a good guy for the world.

CARLSON:  Right.

MADDOW:  But the question is what you do about it.  And what you accomplish by bombing another country.  And the neocon doctrine that drove us into Iraq, which sounds like it may be the same thing that‘s driving us towards Iran is this idea that if you bomb people, then magically, somehow, you get what you want.  You get that bad thing to stop. 

CARLSON:  No, no, no.  Because look, first of all—I am about as far from neocon as you get.  I‘m about as Paglio (ph) as they come these days.  The idea is not to make Iran a better place but to physically destroy its nuclear program. 

MADDOW:  No, it‘s to get regime change.  No, no, somehow we‘ll get—we‘ll get Ahmadinejad out of there, and somehow Thomas Jefferson will rise up and...

CARLSON:  According—no, according to this story, the idea under consideration is bombing these underground nuclear facilities with nuclear tipped bunker buster missiles.  And why is that—I mean, I understand the fear of using nuclear weapons, but in theory the idea we could destroy these nuclear program sites, that‘s good. 

MADDOW:  Yes, well, you know what?  We don‘t have nuclear buster bombs right now.  We‘re trying to develop them.  That‘s the whole rationale for us developing new nuclear bombs.

But at some, you‘ve got to step back from the details of this debate and look at it and say, you know what?  Is the United States going to make the world a safer place, a place with less nuclear weapons, a place where our national security is more secured, by bombing more Muslim countries?  By turning 1.2 Muslims across the world, some of whom are from countries that already have nuclear weapons, and bombing Iran?  How is that going to make us safer?

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  It might prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. 

MADDOW:  And how would Pakistan respond?

CARLSON:  That‘s a good—in itself.  Well, one hopes General Musharraf can hold on long enough to keep his country together.  But if we had done something about it before, if the Clinton administration had prevented Pakistan from getting nuclear weapons, maybe we wouldn‘t have to worry about it.  Maybe that‘s the deep listen.

MADDOW:  It‘s Clinton‘s fault, so that when Pakistan responds with a nuclear weapon they are already have, to the fact that we‘ve bombed another Muslim country.  We can all turn around and blame Bill Clinton. 

CARLSON:  I‘m kidding.  We‘re out of time.  So we can‘t continue this debate.  Let me just end with, General Musharraf is not going to attack the United States with nuclear weapons because we bomb Iran?  Thank God.

ABRAMS:  Well, if you want to hang on your hopes on General Musharraf I will hide in the bunker and wait for you to come to your sentences.

MADDOW:  Good luck.  We‘ll have a party.  Thanks.  Rachel Maddow, thank you.

Still to come, did Duke‘s lacrosse team rape a stripper?  The DNA tests are in.  We‘ll have details on those in just a moment. 

Plus, a new book catalogues Hillary Clinton‘s hypocrisy and her flip flops and her pandering.  You‘ll meet one of the world‘s foremost Hillary Clinton experts.  A Hillary Clintonian will joining us when we come back. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Still to come, what did little Hilary Clinton say that could jeopardize her run for president?  Plus, a Christian fights for the right to speak out against gay?  Those stories in just a minute. But first, here‘s what‘s also going on in the world tonight. 

(NEWSBREAK)

CARLSON:  Now on to a story that may get you hot and bothered: Hillary Clinton‘s hypocrisy.  Tom Kuiper compiled what could be the single largest collection of Hillary Clinton quotes ever put on paper.  He‘s composited them to a witty book called “I‘ve Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words”.  Tom Kuiper joins us tonight from San Francisco to talk about the book and what may—what it may do to the senator‘s bid for the presidency. 

Mr. Kuiper, thanks for coming on. 

TOM KUIPER, AUTHOR, “I‘VE ALWAYS BEEN A YANKEES FAN”:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  “I‘ve Always Been a Yankees Fan”.  I love the title.  Where does that come from?

KUIPER:  Hillary was on the “Today” show in 1999 and she just declared her candidacy for the Senate, and she said that—I believe she was on the street talking with Katie Couric. 

The funny thing about that is, as you can see in the book cover, just a few months earlier, she had taken a picture in the Cubs hat, very proudly wearing her Cubs hat, because the Chicago Cubs had just clinched the division championship in October of ‘98. 

CARLSON:  Does that—does that make here—I mean, I think of, having covered a lot of campaigns, all politicians as kind of phony.  Do you think Hillary Clinton is more phony than the average bear, than the average politician?

KUIPER:  Yes, in my opinion.  I just have, you know, numerous examples of her either political pandering or outright lies, or you know, little white lies, things like that, or obviously, some very shocking statements.  There are lots of things in the book I can‘t get into. 

CARLSON:  Well, you‘ve got one here that contains profanity.  But we can sort of dance around it. 

KUIPER:  OK.

CARLSON:  This is Hillary Clinton on living in Arkansas, from your book: “I‘ve never before lived in a place so small, so friendly, so Southern, and I loved it.  I went to Arkansas Razorback football games and learned to call the hogs.  That‘s what she said in public.

Here‘s what she said to a friend after that friend gave her a pair of Razorback earrings, after a support did.  She said, quote, “This is the kind of blank”—crap, basically—“I have to put up with.”

KUIPER:  Right.

CARLSON:  Where did you get that?

KUIPER:  Right.  Actually, that came from Susan McDougal.  It was some female Arkansas supporter actually gave those earrings to Hillary, and Hillary was very gracious, thanked her and then she turned around to Susan McDougal, and said, you know, “This is the crap I have to put up with around here.” 

So you know, there‘s numerous statements of her in Arkansas and Washington, D.C., where she just basically contradicts herself. 

CARLSON:  So the idea is that Arkansas is too small, too backward, not cosmopolitan enough for someone of Hillary Clinton‘s temperament and abilities?

KUIPER:  Right.  The kind of words she used, “rednecks”, you know, blank kickers, things I can‘t say on TV.  But yea, those things.

CARLSON:  Here‘s one that really resonated with me.  This is Hillary Clinton on money, according to your book.  “Too many people have made too much money,” she complained, talking about the health care industry. 

KUIPER:  Right.  Right.

CARLSON:  And she goes back right a couple of years ago and says to the ethics committee, “I‘m pleased that the Senate Ethics Committee has found that my agreement with Simon & Schuster fully complies with Senate Ethics rules.”  That‘s the $8 million she made on her autobiography.

I mean, can the Clintons even at this point claim that they don‘t care about money?  I mean, her husband is traveling the world, taking all this money from—you know, $4 million a speech for foreigners.  They‘re into money. 

KUIPER:  Right.  Well, you know, I‘ve just learned that the rules don‘t apply to the Clintons, basically.  You remember when Newt Gingrich signed his book deal in—what was it -- 1994 or 1995 for $4.5 million, I believe.  And he was obviously condemned.

And even Bill Clinton said, “I don‘t even know how to think in those kinds of terms.  And of course, Hillary signs her book deal for $8 million.  Bill Clinton signs his book deal for $12 million.  And God bless them.  But you know, why is there hypocrisy there? 

CARLSON:  Well, because the left feels like it has to attack people who makes money and has to sort of hold themselves out as people who are above commerce and above, you know, filthy cash.  But in fact, like everyone, they‘re greedheads.

And finally, the Secret Service—and this resonates, I think, with anybody who lives in Washington or who has spent time around Secret Service agents. 

KUIPER:  Right.

CARLSON:  “We have nothing but praise for their courage, their integrity, their professionalism.  We feel lucky to remain friends with the many agents who have protected us. 

And there you have something—I don‘t know where you got this quote.  This is an actual quote, you say, from Hillary Clinton to a Secret Service agent.  She says, “If you want to remain on this detail, get your ass over here and grab those bags.”

KUIPER:  Right.

CARLSON:  Where‘d you get that?

KUIPER:  That was actually reported in Joyce Milton‘s book, “The First Partner.”  And Hillary was upset with a Secret Service agent.  He was obviously reluctant to—you know, he wanted to keep his hands free in case there was some kind of an incident, and Hillary just basically used this guy and others as her own private sherpas.  And even your colleague, Chris Matthews, says he witnessed an example of that on the New York to Washington, D.C. shuttle.

CARLSON:  Why is it people that spend all their time loving humanity have trouble being nice to individual people?  I don‘t know why that is.

KUIPER:  You have more experience.

CARLSON:  Yes, I don‘t—you know, I don‘t know.  But it‘s a syndrome.  I‘ve seen it quite a book.

Tom Kuiper.  The book is out tomorrow, “I‘ve Always Been a Yankees Fan.”  I love that.  Thank you for joining us.

KUIPER:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Speaking of quotes, we now join a man known for quoting literary giants as Dr. Seuss and Judy Bloom, author of “Forever”.  He‘s “The Outsider,” ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host, Max Kellerman. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  I may have once quoted Dr. Seuss.  I don‘t think I‘ve ever quoted Judy Bloom.

Tucker, there‘s something different—have you lost weight?  Have you shaved or something?  I can‘t tell.  There‘s something different.

CARLSON:  I don‘t know what it is.  Something about me, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  I can‘t—something‘s going on there. 

CARLSON:  I‘ll leave it to the viewers.

First up, the story of a 22-year-old Ruth Malhotra.  She‘s a Georgia Tech student who says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. 

The problem is, her school bans speech that offends gay people, officially.  She‘s now suing the school.  She‘s demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its, quote, “tolerance policy.” 

So do policies intended to protect gays from discrimination wind up discriminating against Christians?  That‘s the question. 

And it seems to me, Max, first of all, you know, offending someone should not be against any official code.  You shouldn‘t be punished for saying what you think.  Any thought you have is likely to offend someone else. 

But I think this woman raises a really interesting point.  I‘m not out there attacking gays, but people have a right to have divergent opinions on anything, including homosexuality.  And this woman ought to be allowed to speak her mind. 

KELLERMAN:  I agree.  Here‘s the devil‘s advocate position.

We live in a Christian country.  The country is predominantly Christian.  It was, you know, founded by Christians.  The default position in this country for what is normal, the status quo, is Christian.  Anything that deviates from that therefore feels like, to many people, an attack on Christianity.  And you hear this a lot now: Christianity is under attack. 

Really, what this is—this is an issue—where does—there‘s the espousal of belief on the one hand.  And then there‘s harassment on the other, and where does that line cross?  In this country you‘re free to believe what you will, so long as you don‘t try to impose that belief on me, because I have my own beliefs.  Now... 

CARLSON:  Hold on.  Articulating a belief is not imposing it on someone.  Saying “I believe this” is not the same as forcing it on you.  It‘s merely airing it, right?

KELLERMAN:  But we do protect against harassment.  So the question here is many Christians feel that they are under attack by homosexuals.  Some of the, for instance.  And simply because—because that behavior is not Christian or, according on them, not Christian.

Whereas the homosexuals—some of them—feel that they‘re under

attack by the evangelicals.  That‘s really what‘s going on right now.  The

evangelicals‘ job is to convert.  That is their job, Tucker.  So it is very

it‘s much easier to make the argument that that crosses from espousal of belief to harassment, especially if you‘re going around saying you are evil or you are living in sin.

CARLSON:  If you want to know—if you want to know who‘s in the harassed minority group, answer this question.  Are there more colleges that have policies preventing people from criticizing homosexuality, or are there more colleges that have policies preventing people from complimenting homosexuality?

Obviously, the former, so in fact, the evangelicals are the one with the repressed minority view in this case. 

KELLERMAN:  Perhaps.  If the issue were Jews, though, or Muslims, I think it would be framed a little bit differently, or received a little bit differently.  And that‘s also just a different...

CARLSON:  I would make the same argument on principle.  I would never want Muslims to be forced to eat pork or whatever, obviously. 

KELLERMAN:  Agreed.

CARLSON:  Next up, Jared Paul Stern, a gossip columnist for the New York Post for Page Six.  He was, anyway.  Now he‘s under investigation by the FBI for trying to extort over $200 grand from billionaire supermarket businessman Ron Berkle.  In exchange for the money, Stern allegedly offered Berkle protection against false items on that gossip page. 

“The Daily News of New York” reports that “Girls Gone Wild” creator Joe Francis is frequently mentioned on Page Six in a positive way, recently threw a $50,000 bachelor party in Mexico for that page‘s editor, Richard Johnson. 

So is extorting billionaires for positive press an honorable notion? 

I say Gerald Paul Stern should be tossed in prison if he‘s found guilty. 

Max, on the on the other hand, feels positive P.R. should come at a cost. 

Look, Max, if the “New York Post” were a P.R. operation this wouldn‘t be a problem.  P.R. by definition is spin.  Sometimes it‘s honest; sometimes it‘s not.  You pay for it in either case.

A newspaper ought to be in the business of printing things that are true and only things that are true or at least things that that paper believes to be true when it prints them, right?  So this is completely subversive of the mission of journalism and the paper.  And it is extortion by definition. 

KELLERMAN:  But not if you‘re picking up the “New York Post”, Tucker, because the “New York Post” barely had even the pretense of reporting or of journalism at all.  It is a right-wing rag.  It‘s a propaganda—it‘s part of a propaganda machine. 

CARLSON:  Come on.

KELLERMAN:  That‘s what it is.  When you pick up the “Post”, are you expecting—Look, the “New York Times” may have its problems on the left, whatever else you want to say about the “Times”, but it is completely different.  Its mission statement is not to convert people to a left wing ideology.

CARLSON)  Really?  I think the “New York post” is much less accurate and much less honest than the “New York times.” but it is no more right wing.  But the bottom line is, even the “New York Post”, it‘s supposed to be a newspaper.  And yes, they make a lot of mistakes, are supposed to be a newspaper, but you can‘t sell news.  Right?

KELLERMAN:  Actually they do, and in fact, there was a purging of everyone on the left in the “New York Post” several years back, everyone.  At the “New York Times”, they never got together everyone who was right of center and said, “You‘re all fired,” all at once.  I think there‘s a fundamental difference there.  But besides that, Tucker...

CARLSON:  I think both the conservatives still work there. 

KELLERMAN:  Right, there‘s not a lot in the first place.  But besides, look at the big picture here.  Page Six, the awesome power of Page Six.

CARLSON:  Yes.

KELLERMAN:  Who doesn‘t read Page Six?  They‘re not trying to extort money from the working man here.  They‘re going after billionaires and then they‘re putting a price tag like a couple hundred grand for billionaires to get—to get good press in Page Six.

CARLSON:  That may be—that may be the bottom line.  If you‘re Ron Burkle, you know, the Weinstein brothers and you really care about what‘s said about you on Page Six, maybe the joke is on you. 

Max Kellerman, a man on whom the joke never is, if that‘s right. 

Still to come, do you think Gwyneth Paltrow or Bono‘s kids are lucky to be born into fame and fortune?  It might not be worth it when you have to live with the names they give you.  We count down top five most unbelievable celebrity baby names.  Even if you think you know them, you‘ll be surprised.  Trust me.  We‘ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER:  Coming up, a shocking twist in the Duke University lacrosse rape case.  Plus, with a kid named Apple already under her belt, Gwyneth Paltrow strikes again with child No. 2.  We‘ve got the top five worst celebrity baby names when THE SITUATION returns in just 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time to check out the “SITUATION Crime Blotter”. 

First, outrage against the 9/11 emergency response system.  A wrongful death lawsuit seeking more than $1 million in damages has been filed by the family of a Detroit woman.  Her 5-year-old son called 911 to report his mom had collapsed.  The boy was told by dispatchers he should not be playing on the telephone.  They didn‘t believe him.  By the time help arrived, the boy‘s mom was dead.  The dispatchers remain on the job tonight. 

Next, good news, relatively speaking, anyway, for the Duke‘s men‘s lacrosse team.  Defense attorneys for the team say there is no DNA match between the men and a stripper who told police she was raped at a team party. 

The players‘ lawyers say the test results prove their clients did not sexually assault or beat the stripper they hired to perform that night. 

And finally, jail time for the thong thief.  The 25-year-old Wisconsin man was once convicted of stealing hundreds of pairs of women‘s underwear, has been sentenced to one year in jail after a new conviction for stealing three pairs of thong underwear.  The thongs were described as—by their owners as, quote, “very distinctive looking.”  The man will also have to register as a sex offender because of his crimes. 

Moving on, when it comes to naming newborns, parental guidance is

suggested, especially if Mom and Dad happen to be rich and famous.  Take

the case of Gwyneth Paltrow and musician husband Chris Martin.  They‘re now

the proud parents of a bouncing boy named Moses.  The couple‘s first child

excuse me.  The names catch in my throat even as I speak them.  Her name is Apple, the girl, as in the apple of their eye. 

You think that‘s a fruity name?  Well, in tonight‘s “Top Five”, we point out a few other celebrity spawn kids who must endure lifelong public stigma of, let‘s just say, their less than typical names, and that‘s an understatement.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON (voice-over):  Sure, a rose by any other name might swell as sweet, but consider a few stinkers some celebrities have chosen to name their hapless offspring. 

In 1967, famed guitarist Frank Zappa boldly went where few parents went before and he christened his first Moon Unit.  The next in line got a more down-to-earth handle, Dweezil.

FRANK ZAPPA, MUSICIAN:  Yes, you got it.

CARLSON:  And the late rocker Michael Hutchins left us wondering was it the devil inside that led him to name his daughter Heavenly Hirany Tiger Lily? 

Now here‘s a musical clan with true delusions of royalty.  This guy considers himself the king of pop.  He‘s got a son dubbed Prince Michael and a nephew who answers to Jermajesty.  If only unusual names were the weirdest thing about this group.

And sure, master magician Penn Gillette makes his living bewildering and fooling fans.  But this really is no illusion.  He actually does have a daughter called Moxie Crime Fighter. 

PENN GILLETTE, MAGICIAN:  it‘s all over.  There‘s nothing to see here.

CARLSON:  But our favorite unusual baby name belongs to U2 front man Bono‘s son, Elijah Bob Patricius Guggi Q. Hewson.  We couldn‘t find an actual picture of the little tyke, but then if your name were “Elijah Bob Patricius Guggi Q. Hewson, I think you‘d probably want to remain anonymous, too. 

BONO, MUSICIAN:  It‘s really a nonsense. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARLSON:  Still ahead tonight, Brad and Angelina give Tom and Katie a run for their money in the bizarre parenting department, and as you‘ve just seen, that‘s saying a lot.  The paparazzi will have to fight wild animals for a glimpse of the Brangelina baby.  The explanation to all of that lies, of course, on “The Cutting Room Floor”.  That‘s next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Time for “The Cutting Room Floor”.  Willie Geist joins me in Washington.  He came down today to participate in the revolution in progress on the Mall.

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  I like revolutions.  That was fun today. 

CARLSON:  It was fun.

GEIST:  I don‘t know what we were protesting, but I was into it.

CARLSON:  Totally for it.  (speaking foreign language)

GEIST:  Is there something different about you today?  Did you get some work done over the weekend?

CARLSON:  In solidarity with the revolution, I decided to loosen my collar. 

GEIST:  Got you.  We‘ll have to see if you wear it tomorrow night.

CARLSON:  We‘ll have to see.

GEIST:  All right.

CARLSON:  Willie Geist.

GEIST:  You want these, don‘t you?

CARLSON:  I‘d love to know.  Thank you, Willie. 

GEIST:  Revolution on the brain.

CARLSON:  Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have gone to new lengths to protect their privacy.  They‘ve enlisted the help of wild man-eating lions to keep the paparazzi jackals away from their baby. 

Reports say Pitt and Jolie have holed up in a national game park in the African country of Namibia in preparation for the birth of their first child together.  The lions live near the lodge where the couple is staying and are expected to keep unwanted gawkers away. 

GEIST:  Wow.  Tom and Katie suddenly look like Ward and June Cleaver. 

This is a little out there.

Seems to me this is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.  You know, it‘s nice to be protective, but in my experience, infants and lions don‘t mix well. 

CARLSON:  Totally.  I completely agree.  I completely—I mean, I‘m not an overprotective parent, but I do keep the big cats away. 

GEIST:  Celebrity child rearing, it‘s always fun.

CARLSON:  Turning 74 years old is never easy, but it‘s got to be a little easier when you‘re a chimpanzee who doesn‘t understand what‘s going on.  Cheetah is the oldest living chimp in the world and the star of the “Tarzan” movies of the ‘30s and ‘40s.  He celebrated the big 7-4 in Palm Springs, California, yesterday.  The party was complete with cake, soda and a degrading birthday hat.

GEIST:  It‘s not enough he‘s a chimp actor who hasn‘t worked in 60 years.  Now you‘ve got to dress him up and put that hat on him and feed him the cake.  That is degrading.  This guy was in “Tarzan”, for God‘s sake.  Extend him a little respect. 

CARLSON:  And where is Johnny Weissmuller these days? 

GEIST:  Well, he didn‘t make it to 74.

CARLSON:  Exactly.  Can you imagine if Johnny Weissmuller had only known that he‘d be outlived by the chimp?

GEIST:  Well, he‘d be sitting there propped up with a birthday hat and eating birthday cake, I promise.

CARLSON:  Pretty cool.

One thing about the Los Angeles Police Department, it doesn‘t take any crap from 83-year-old grandmothers. 

GEIST:  So true.

CARLSON:  Mavis Cole (ph) was hit with a $114 ticket in Sunland (ph), California, because she crossed the street too slowly.  Mavis is not seen in this file footage of people crossing the street, as far as we know, but you get the idea.  She started to enter the intersection with a walk signal but couldn‘t make it across with her cane and her groceries before the light changed.  A cop told her she was, quote, “obstructing the flow of traffic”, and he issued her that citation. 

GEIST:  Now, Tucker, this is an outrageous story to most people, but you think you‘re above the law because you‘re 82-year-old?  You think we‘re going to—we‘re going to rewrite the law books for some prima dona who wants to cross the street?

CARLSON:  You think we‘re going to expand the Bill of Rights for you?

GEIST:  That‘s right.  Pay the ticket and pick up the pace next time, Mavis.  You heard me?

CARLSON:  You‘re a hard man, Willie Geist.  Beneath—beneath that pleasant exterior. 

GEIST:  I‘m a horrible—no, I‘m a terrible person, believe me. 

Believe me.

CARLSON:  That‘s it.  Thank you.

That‘s THE SITUATION for tonight from Washington.  Thanks for watching.  We‘ll see you back here tomorrow night.

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

END   

Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.

Transcripts

Watch The Situation with Tucker Carlson each weeknight at 11 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,