updated 9/11/2006 12:04:20 PM ET 2006-09-11T16:04:20

Guests: Jim Moran, Sam Greenfield, Pat Campbell

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Welcome to the show.  I‘m Tucker Carlson.  In just a minute, we‘ll bring you the latest on that ABC 9/11 miniseries that has infuriated Democrats like no issue since the Reagan landslide of ‘84!  Also, a Senate report on pre-war intelligence is released.  We‘ll tell you whether it sheds light on how we wound up in Iraq.

But first, breaking news from upstate New York, where a months-long manhunt may be coming to an end.  Police think they‘re closing in on Ralph “Bucky” Phillips.  He‘s an escaped convict suspected in the shootings of three state troopers, one of whom died.  Phillips is one of the FBI‘s 10 Most Wanted fugitives.

For more, let‘s bring in former FBI profiler and author of the book “Facing Down Evil” Clint Van Zandt.  He joins us from New York.  Clint, welcome.


CARLSON:  What do we know about Bucky Phillips‘s whereabouts right now?

VAN ZANDT:  Well, appears that he‘s very close to the western New York, northern Pennsylvania border, again, only about 20 miles, Tucker, south of where he was accused of shooting these two state troopers, one of which was shot in the back a week ago when he snuck up on them while they were conducting surveillance, in fact, trying to find him.

He—you know, this is a someone who‘s been able to elude law enforcement.  Three  different contacts he‘s had.  In one, he shot one state trooper.  A few months later, he shot two state troops.  And now, early this morning, after stealing two different cars and being on the run, there was yet another confrontation where he turned with a handgun in his hand, confronted troopers.  They fired at him.  He ran off into the woods adjacent to a golf course.  And now they‘re trying to close the area in.

But you know, two things, Tucker.  Nightfall is coming.  That‘s going to make it tough on law enforcement.  But again, they, like the U.S.  military, are going to rule the night.  They‘ve got night vision.  They‘ve got helicopters that can see in the night.  But you‘ve got Bucky Phillips with at least four or five guns, and he‘s shown in the past that he‘ll kill police.

CARLSON:  His behavior doesn‘t make a lot of sense, from the rational person‘s point of view, as far as I can tell.  He was in jail, about to get out of jail.  He wasn‘t facing life.  And yet he broke out and went on the run.  He wasn‘t even being sought, so far as I know, very actively, and then he fired on police for no reason, unprovoked?  Is that—is that your understanding of what happened?

VAN ZANDT:  Yes.  Exactly, that in a routine traffic stop, he fired and shot a state trooper.  Now, as you suggest, this was somebody who had less than two weeks to go in a jail sentence.  But Tucker, also, he‘s spent over half of his adult life, 23 out of the last 25 years, jail.  Some suggest maybe this guy likes jail better than he does the outside.  Others say he‘s sworn that he‘ll never go back, he‘ll never be taken alive.  He‘s probably going to be offered that choice tonight or tomorrow.

CARLSON:  Do we know how he‘s been able to survive essentially in the woods, if we think that‘s where he‘s been all this time?  How?  Is he living—how is he living?  How is he eating, do you know?

VAN ZANDT:  Well, yes, a couple of different things.  Number one, people keep attributing survival skills him, they say, you know, because he‘s part native American.  But again, this guy has spent the last quarter of a century in jail.  You don‘t practice a certain type of, at least in the woods, survival skills when you‘re in jail.  He‘s also had the support of family and friends who have hidden him, given him food.  And he‘s doing what he does best, Tucker.  He steals cars, and he breaks into homes and cabins.

CARLSON:  Has anybody been charged as an accomplice in this?

VAN ZANDT:  Yes, there‘s been seven arrests so far of family and friends.  Some say that‘s what irritated him.  That‘s why he shot the two state troopers, was because the New York state police brought his family in.  But remember, Tucker, he shot that state trooper back in June, long before his family had ever been brought in.  So somehow, you know, we‘re going to be told he was abused as a child, that he didn‘t have an education.  All that is probably true, but it was his hand on the trigger that shot those troopers, not anybody else‘s.

CARLSON:  He sounds like he‘s just got a bad attitude.

VAN ZANDT:  He‘s got a bad attitude, and he has said that he hates law enforcement, that he wants to slaughter them.  And I guarantee you, these troops, FBI agents and other offices in the woods tonight, they‘re not going to take a chance on losing another one.


VAN ZANDT:  This is not going to end well.  That‘s my (INAUDIBLE)

CARLSON:  Clint Van Zandt, thanks a lot.

VAN ZANDT:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Now to the firestorm over ABC‘s miniseries “The Path to 9/11.”  Here‘s what President Clinton had to say about it.


WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  We didn‘t see it.  A lot of the political right apparently has seen it.  But I‘m now—it has—I don‘t want any lies in there parading as truth.  That‘s all.


CARLSON:  The former president concedes he‘s never even seen the docudrama, but supporters, his supporters, aren‘t just complaining now.  They‘ve amped up their demands, now calling on ABC to cancel the program completely.  An e-mail from the Democratic Party reads in part, quote, “This is it, crunch time for getting the slanderous ABC television docudrama, ‘The Path to 9/11,‘ yanked off the air.  The network‘s schedule has this slanderous attack on Democrats slated to start on Sunday night, September 10, at 8:00 o‘clock, and as long as it stays on the schedule, we have work to do.  Take a minute right now and tell Disney president Robert Iger to keep this right-wing propaganda off our airwaves.”

Now this partisan brawl has spread to Congress.  My next guest is one of several Democratic lawmakers saying the program, quote, “could be construed as right-wing political propaganda.”  Congressman Jim Moran joins us from Washington.  Congressman, welcome.  Why are you joining in these efforts to squelch the free speech of ABC, which after all, has a right to put on right-wing propaganda, if it wants to, doesn‘t it.

REP. JIM MORAN (D), VIRGINIA:  I think it‘s an attempt to rewrite history, and that‘s what I have objection to, the same way that you objected to a story that was put on about Ronald Reagan, where it purported to have President Reagan saying that—with regard to AIDS victims, If they live in sin, they‘re going to die in sin, or something to that effect.  Mrs. Reagan said that he didn‘t say that.  Well, then, you don‘t put it on.

You don‘t put words into people‘s mouths that didn‘t happen.  And the fact is, there‘s any number of instances where they purport that Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, and apparently others, said and did things that we know they didn‘t.  And in fact, the writer has acknowledged that.

CARLSON:  Well, wait...


CARLSON:  We do—two points, I guess.  The first one is I‘m a private citizen, you‘re a member of Congress, and a fairly powerful one at that.  Your word carries far more weight than mine because it has the imprimatur of government behind it.  You have power that the ordinary citizen doesn‘t have, therefore, you can effect censorship in a way that the ordinary citizen like me cannot.  So what you say is a much bigger deal than what I say.

Second, we all know that the Clinton administration did not pay enough attention to al Qaeda.  They‘ve conceded that.  We know that the Clinton administration let Osama bin Laden go at least four times just in a two-year period.  So we know that to be true.  So in essence, this film apparently is telling the truth.  What‘s the problem?

MORAN:  It‘s not telling the truth, and that‘s the principle, that we ought not be rewriting history.  But if you‘re going to bring up the issue of the Clinton versus Bush administrations‘ perspectives on terrorism, on the very morning of September 11 at 9:00 AM, we were in the Defense Appropriations room, marking up the defense appropriations bill.  And the administration said that, If you take any money from counterterrorism—take it from missile defense, put it into counterterrorism, they would veto the bill.  That‘s what—that‘s the kind of priority they gave to counterterrorism.  But we have...


CARLSON:  Slow down!  I‘m not here to defend the Bush administration‘s response to terror before or after 9/11.  That‘s not my role or my intent.  I‘m merely saying that everybody knows that the Clinton administration fell down on the job.  A hit dog barks.  That‘s the problem.  You‘re flacking for an administration that failed...

MORAN:  Tucker...


MORAN:  ... putting words in people‘s mouths that were never uttered.  And I think that that‘s a principle that transcends Republicans or Democrats.  I don‘t think you put words in people‘s mouths, people that are alive today.  You‘re giving them the same name.  You‘re having these fictional characters say and do things that they didn‘t do.  That‘s wrong.  It would be wrong if we did it about members of the Bush or Reagan administrations.  It‘s wrong when you do it with members of the Clinton administration.

CARLSON:  Yes, and maybe...


MORAN:  Tucker, you know that the guy that wrote this, the screenwriter for this, he‘s an avowed conservative.  He is...


CARLSON:  I‘m sorry to blow your mind, Congressman, but that‘s allowed in this country!  Now, apparently, you don‘t want it to be allowed.

MORAN:  No, I...


MORAN:  On a subject that is as sensitive as 9/11, you shouldn‘t have somebody with a clear ideological bias...


MORAN:  ... trying to present history to the American people.

CARLSON:  Actually...


MORAN:  ... the same way I would object to Michael Moore rewriting history about 9/11, I object to this guy rewriting history!


CARLSON:  I‘m going to get a word in edgewise, because I think it‘s important.

MORAN:  All right.  Go ahead.

CARLSON:  And it‘s this point.  It‘s scary when members of Congress such as yourself try to determine what the rest of us watch on television.  That‘s what we shouldn‘t have.  That actually is what we‘re fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world to prevent!  It‘s abuse of government authority, like what you‘re attempting to do right now!

MORAN:  We‘re fighting for a reverence for the truth, Tucker!  That‘s the issue.  It‘s whether the—truth versus fiction, particularly on such a sensitive subject as 9/11...


CARLSON:  Here‘s, I guess, my other question, Congressman.  How much free time do you have, exactly, that you‘re spending your time on an ABC miniseries and on the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act?  That‘s what else you‘ve done this week.

MORAN:  Tucker...


CARLSON:  I‘m dead serious.  If that‘s...

MORAN:  That‘s your Republican leadership that chose to bring it up, when we‘ve got so many more...

CARLSON:  My Republican leadership?


CARLSON:  You know that that‘s not true.  I know you as one of your constituents.  You know that that‘s not true, and that‘s a personal attack!

MORAN:  All right.  OK.

CARLSON:  My question to you is—look, you‘re a member of Congress. 

You‘re a powerful guy.  You‘re spending your time...

MORAN:  So what do you want us to do, not vote?

CARLSON:  ... getting mad about a miniseries on ABC?

MORAN:  We have no control over what comes to the floor.  I don‘t think that the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act was the most important thing...

CARLSON:  Oh, that‘s not what your quote said!

MORAN:  ... but I don‘t think we ought to be slaughtering—well, I certainly didn‘t say it‘s the most important thing, Tucker.  I know that.

CARLSON:  You said, “The equine reserves a special place in the hearts of the American people”...

MORAN:  Absolutely.

CARLSON:  ... “as a majestic creature symbolizing the American West.” 

I could go on, but it‘s mean.  Look...

MORAN:  No, that‘s true.

CARLSON:  ... the point is, this is not...

MORAN:  Horses are important.


MORAN:  It is not the most important legislative thing we could and should be doing...

CARLSON:  OK.  But why are you...

MORAN:  ... but I don‘t think we should be rewriting history, Tucker.  And if the situation were reversed, you‘d take, I‘m sure, the same position because...

CARLSON:  Well, I—I—might.

MORAN:  ... you‘re a man of integrity.

CARLSON:  No, but I might.  Look, I understand why you‘re annoyed.  I‘m merely saying I don‘t understand why you don‘t see how scary it is for members of Congress, people with authority—and you‘re about to be in the majority, by the way, I believe, so you‘re about to have a lot more authority—telling a TV network what it can put on or what it can‘t put in the air!

MORAN:  Tucker, you would agree...

CARLSON:  You have authority over the networks!

MORAN:  We shouldn‘t be rewriting the history of the Reagan administration, the Bush administration or the Clinton administration.  We have people who are alive today who can tell us what they said and did.  That can be portrayed.  Whether it‘s flattering or whether it‘s critical, that‘s what should be portrayed, not inventing something that didn‘t happen!  I don‘t think we should be...

CARLSON:  OK, but it‘s just not...

MORAN:  ... rewriting history and then trying...

CARLSON:  ... your business!

MORAN:  ... to get our public schools—oh, yes, it is!

CARLSON:  It‘s not your business as a member of Congress to be telling a private enterprise that is putting out an entertainment product what it can have...

MORAN:  I think it is my business.

CARLSON:  ... just because you don‘t like its politics!  That‘s...

MORAN:  I think it is my business, Tucker...


CARLSON:  If Tom DeLay was doing this, you would see how scary it is.

MORAN:  I think if Tom DeLay was saying something that was truthful, whether I liked it or not, I would certainly support him.


MORAN:  I don‘t think that we should be telling the American people something that is untrue, giving them a false impression of the events that led to 9/11.  That‘s rewriting history, and it‘s unfair to our kids and it‘s unfair to the American public.  I do think we have an appropriate role to say that‘s wrong.


MORAN:  Give us the facts!

CARLSON:  I don‘t think I‘m ever going to convince you, but I appreciate your bringing your point of view to the show.  Thanks a lot, Congressman Moran.

MORAN:  Well, I‘m not going to convince you, my friend.


CARLSON:  There you go!  See you.

Still to come: Suicide bombers target Americans in Afghanistan.  I thought we eliminated that threat, but we didn‘t, it turns out.  As bloodshed increases in what was once the home of al Qaeda, could we be facing another deadly terror attack on our shores?  That‘s the question.  Answers in a moment.  And Arnold Schwarzenegger is under fire for calling a Latina lawmaker, quote, “hot.”  She says it‘s not a problem.  Why the uproar?  That story in just a moment.


CARLSON:  Here‘s a scary thought.  Imagine a world in which the Taliban wasn‘t defeated after 9/11, and instead continued to promote terror attacks on Americans.  Well, you don‘t have to imagine it.  It‘s not in the real of the fantastic, it‘s real.  The Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan, where at least 16 people, among them two Americans, were killed in a bloody suicide bombing near the American embassy today.  That‘s after two al Qaeda tapes were released in the past week.  And with rumors of a new tape coming from Usama bin Laden in the next few days, the signs are increasingly ominous.  The question, are we at risk for another terror attack inspired by al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

That‘s a question for my next guest.  He is Evan Kohlmann, NBC terrorism analyst.  He‘s also a founder of Globalterroralert.com.  He joins us from New York.  Evan, welcome.  How bad is it in Afghanistan?

EVAN KOHLMANN, MSNBC TERRORISM ANALYST:  Well, it‘s certainly growing worse.  I mean, naturally speaking, the Taliban are not exactly the most advanced army in the world.  However, the increasing use of suicide bombings is one, I think, indicator of the fact that the conflict there is growing worse.  These folks have been studying what has happened in Iraq with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and unfortunately, this has created an arms race among various al Qaeda franchises.  So you see al Qaeda franchises now in places such as Algeria, Afghanistan and beyond, releasing videos of brutal beheadings, brutal suicide bombings, executions, videotapes of this stuff being distributed on the Internet.

And although part of this is propaganda, I think it‘s also an indicator that these groups are competing for the money, for the respect of those that support radical Islam and the jihadist movement.  And now the Taliban are certainly pushing forward.

But let‘s also remember that they have a, you know, key ally here, which is al Qaeda.  And at least some of these suicide bombers inside of Afghanistan are not Afghan.  In fact, in one of the most recent videos released by al Qaeda and the Taliban showing such a suicide bombing, the guy identified himself as al Sanani (ph), from Yemen, from Sanaa in Yemen.  So he‘s not even an Afghan.  So certainly, this is being pushed from behind the scenes by al Qaeda.

CARLSON:  What about Mullah Omar, the former head of the Taliban, from whom we‘ve heard basically nothing since right after 9/11?  Is he still in charge, do we think?

KOHLMANN:  Yes.  I mean, apparently, he is in charge of the Taliban, though there are other individuals also that play major roles.  I mean, first of all, there‘s Mullah Dadullah (ph), who as been a major spokesperson for the Taliban both on Arab satellite TV.  He‘s also been a major military leader for them.  He‘s coordinated their military response to NATO‘s approach in central and southern Afghanistan.

And of course they also—again, they have outsiders who have come to assist them.  One of the most important outsiders is a Libyan that goes by the name Abu Leith (ph), “Father of the Lion,” who commands Afghan and Arab forces in southern Afghanistan, another very important commander.  So that, you know, there‘s a range of different folks, but Mullah Omar is still the titular head.

CARLSON:  Does that strike you as odd?  I‘m we‘ve had American troops fighting, and to some extent, dying in Afghanistan for the past five years.  Why does the Taliban still exist?  Why haven‘t we eliminated them?

KOHLMANN:  Well, the reason, unfortunately, I think, is Pakistan, and the fact that most of the people involved in these attacks are gathering in Pakistan.  They‘ve set up training camps in Pakistan.  They‘re raising money in Pakistan.  And they‘re using Pakistan as a base from which to recruit foreigners to come into Afghanistan.

Until Pakistan seals its border, until Pakistan effectively kills the jihadist organizations that are alive and well there right now, groups like Jamat Adawa (ph), which was implicated in the London liquid bomb plot—until that happens, the Taliban will remain.  And at least as far as what we‘ve seen, the Pakistanis seem to have just arranged some kind of deal with Taliban militants inside of Pakistan, a non-aggression pact, essentially—We won‘t go after you if you don‘t go after us.  And that‘s not a solution.  We need to go after these folks inside of Pakistan, as well as in Afghanistan.

CARLSON:  Finally, there were reports very recently about the opium crop in Afghanistan, apparently more robust than ever.  The vast majority of the world‘s heroin comes from opium grown—opium poppies in Afghanistan.  Is that money funding terror, that we know of?

KOHLMANN:  Well, we—it‘s hard to know for sure, but the Taliban certainly seem to have profited from this.  They allow the growth of these narcotics in order to profit from their transport.  They provide routes and smuggling venues by which this stuff can be brought out and weapons can be brought in.  So it does appear that they profit from this.  A lot of, unfortunately, people profit from this.  Afghan warlords, former Afghan warlords, criminals, terrorists, everybody profits from this.  The only people that don‘t profit are the Afghan people.

CARLSON:  Yes.  Not surprisingly.  Evan Kohlmann—thanks a lot, Evan.

MORAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Coming up: The Senate confirms what most of us have known for years; The White House we want to war in Iraq with very flawed intelligence.  But who was behind that flawed intelligence?  And one Florida weatherman deserves combat play, and he never left the studio.  That story on “Beat the Press” when we come back.


CARLSON:  Time now for “Beat the Press.”  First up, ABC‘s “Good Morning America.”  I was on the edge of my seat when I saw this segment introduced.  Bring on the controversy, I thought.  Bring on the question!  Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is making no apologies for that controversial new tape containing questionable comments about a fellow Republican politician.


CARLSON:  Trouble is, whoever wrote that script never checked the actual taped piece to see if the woman Schwarzenegger made those supposedly controversial and questionable comments to was actually offended.  Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Garcia (ph) herself says she‘s not bothered at all, that she has an inside joke with the governor in which she calls herself a hot-blooded Latina who‘s passionate about issues.  Garcia also says that she likes the governor because he‘s a straight talker.


CARLSON:  Wait a second.  She wasn‘t offended, so why exactly are those comments questionable.  Why exactly are they controversial?  Because ABC doesn‘t like them?  I don‘t know why.  Interesting question.

Next up, a little something we found on Youtube.  Whoever said being in the studio as a meteorologist is a hazard-free job?  It‘s not.  Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  ... pushing across central Florida, so places like Orlando, Daytona Beach, the Cape Canaveral area, Vero Beach, will be getting in on the heavier rainfall, and eventually—oh!  I am so sorry, Bill!  Oh, my God!


CARLSON:  Yes, that is real.  And as if one cockroach attack wasn‘t enough, take a look at what happened just three hours later.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Oh, God!  If that—oh, my God!  There it is! 

(DELETED)  Oh, my God!  Oh, no!  Right at the wall for me!


CARLSON:  Somebody call the health department!  Oh, my God!

And finally, a little slip-up by my friend, Larry King, during an exclusive interview with recently retired tennis star Andre Agassi last night.  Watch.


LARRY KING, HOST, “LARRY KING LIVE”:  We‘re back with Pancho Gonzalez.  Let‘s watch this clip of picking up the racquets and that long walk to the locker room for the last time.  Watch.


CARLSON:  Pancho Gonzalez, of course, is 78 years old, quite an accomplished tennis player, but not Andre Agassi.  A little like calling Johnny Damon Lou Gehrig.  But to be fair, Andre Agassi‘s sister apparently was at one point married to Pancho Gonzalez, so it‘s understandable.

How‘d you like to help us “Beat the Press?”  Give us a call and tell us what you‘ve seen.  The number here, 877-BTP-5876.

Still to come: The former leader of an “axis of evil” nation is on American tour, and your tax dollars are paying for it.  How do you like that?  And the FAA‘s solution to the problem of sleepy air traffic controllers: No more naps!  That story when we come back.


CARLSON:  Still to come, enforced affirmative action in New York City.  Why the city‘s forcing some companies to hire more employees of a certain color.  If you think “Dancing with the Stars” is just a reality show, think again pal, it‘s a political movement that‘s sweeping the nation.  We‘ll get to all that in just a moment, but right now here‘s a look at your headlines.


CARLSON:  Time now for three on three where we welcome two of the sharpest people we know to discuss three of today‘s most interesting stories.  Let‘s get right to it.  Joining us from Orlando, Florida, Pat Campbell host of “The Pat Campbell Show” and from New York City Sam Greenfield with WWRL‘s “The Morning Show.”  Thank you both for coming on. 

First up, flawed intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq.  News from no where for most of us, but today the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report officially the report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq.  Among the many findings, no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  This is news from nowhere Sam as far as I‘m concerned.  But what‘s interesting here is you‘re going to hear again this argument about whether or not the Bush administration knew that Iraq didn‘t have WMD.  Now nobody contests the fact that they screwed up big time.  But in order to believe they did it on purpose, you‘d have to believe that they screwed themselves.  In other words, they told a lie they knew everyone would know about really soon.  Why would they lie knowing that their lie would be uncovered? 

SAM GREENFIELD, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  I have no idea what you just said.  No I do, I‘m kidding.

CARLSON:  Like people say, they lied to get us into war, ok.  Why would they do that, it only hurts them? 

GREENFIELD:  There‘s been talk for years that George Bush wanted this war.  Bill Clinton said that at the inaugural, he said to George Bush, you should go after bin Laden and George Bush—and this story has never been denied, said to him, no, we‘re going into Iraq.  Sometimes presidents ask for information and they want the proof to justify what they want.  There was also a lot of talk that there were WMDs before this.  President Clinton said it.  The difference is, and this is the big huge difference, this president went to war over it.  Other presidents knew we had it, he went to war over it, that‘s the difference.  

CARLSON:  No you‘re right.  No, and that‘s absolutely a fair point.  I think your position is perfectly reasonable.  You disagree with the subjective judgment he made about the information.  But the idea that he intentionally lied about something knowing that that lie would be uncovered that has never made sense to me.  Pat, where are you on this?

PAT CAMPBELL, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Well Tucker, first of all, Bush has never claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.  Now I scoured the country prior to the invasion of Iraq and I could only find one person willing to come on my radio program, Scott Ritter who has some own personal baggage of his own, who claimed that Saddam didn‘t have the weapons.  The fact of the matter is if you believe that Bush lied, if you believe that he stuffed the box, sort of speak, you have to believe that Clinton lied about it, that Tony Blair lied about it, that Israeli intelligence.  We went to war based on the best intelligence we had at the time.  The fact of the matter is we have found weapons of mass destruction, some 500-something weapons.  Granted it‘s not the stockpiles we were led to believe were there.  However, we do have reliable intelligence, satellite intelligence in the weeks, the days leading up to the war, showing heavy truck traffic leaving Iraq and going into neighboring Syria.  Gee, I wonder what was on those trucks.  

CARLSON:  Wait, let me stop you right there Pat.  Isn‘t that, and I know that you may mean that as some kind of defense of the Bush administration, but isn‘t that the worst possible indictment.  Here the administration takes us to war because they claim they care so deeply about apprehending these weapons of mass destruction and then they let this stuff just go over the border by convoy into Syria and make no effort to find out what happened to it?  What the hell is that about? 

CAMPBELL:  Tucker we gave them weeks, we told them they were coming.  It makes logical sense that they would ferret the things out of the country.

CARLSON:  Well why didn‘t we do something about it? If we cared that much about those weapons of mass destruction, why haven‘t we demanded their return from Syria every day? 

CAMPBELL:  They‘re more dangerous now possibly in Syria than they were in Iraq, that‘s just terrifying.

GREENFIELD:  There‘s one problem with this.  We don‘t know what was in those trucks. You‘re saying, well you know they took them—you have no idea what was in those trucks.  I have no idea, you‘re making assumptions not based on fact. 

CAMPBELL:  No, it‘s a reasonable assumption.  

GREENFIELD:  They took this stuff into Syria, you don‘t know what was in those trucks.  

CAMPBELL:  I‘d love to know what was in them.  Part of the reason I make the assumption, I had Kahn Coughlin, the Saddam biographer on my program, he is the guy that first made the point.  I‘d love to know what was in those trucks, wouldn‘t you?  

GREENFIELD:  But we don‘t know and you‘re making an assumption based on that.  There‘s one other point, excuse me, there‘s one other point.  We have had four different reasons expressed to us for this war.  The first one was WMD‘s along with ties to terrorism, to al Qaeda. The second was Jeffersonian democracy and now it‘s back to fighting terror after the president has now admitted there was no link between 9/11 and these terrorists. 

CAMPBELL:  There were links.  

GREENFIELD:  So you can excuse the American people if they seem slightly confused by all this backtracking.

CARLSON:  Ok, one at a time here guys.

CAMPBELL:  Hold on, there were links, have you ever heard of Solomon Pack, the trainee, the terrorist training camp inside Iraq, where they had a plane and they trained terrorists how to hijack a plane using knives?  If that isn‘t a connection, what is.  

GREENFIELD:  We‘ve had terrorists in this country, are you going to bomb us?  There‘s terrorist cells in Buffalo, are you going to bomb -- 

CARLSON:  Now you‘re completely losing me.  

GREENFIELD:  What I‘m saying is if everything you‘re saying is true, it‘s still not a justification for going to war at a time when all we had to do was keep looking for the WMD‘s, no war, 2600 Americans would be alive.  

CARLSON:  Well, we went to war and even those of us who don‘t like it have to deal with it because that‘s where we are.  We have to deal with questions like this and it‘s a related story.  The controversy over harsh interrogation techniques.  It‘s going on now.  The Pentagon is banning American troops from using forced nudity, hooding, military dogs, waterboarding, etc., to get information out of captured detainees who are believed to be terrorists.  But the White House is putting forth legislation now that would allow the CIA to use some of those same techniques.  Two sided question here, Sam, let me start with you.  A, if we‘re so certain that torture, that tough interrogation doesn‘t work, as liberals often claim, then why does every country that can use it, use it, and B, do Democrats have the courage to argue against this in public? 

GREENFIELD:  Well first of all, making this a liberal or democratic versus conservative or Republican issue is not exactly valid, since there are Republicans and there are conservatives speaking out against it.  This is what I actually think.  I think that this is like steroids on track athletes.  You can say don‘t do it, and it‘s going to be done.  You can say oh, it‘s against the law.  It‘s going to be done.  The CIA is a covert operation, so the president can get up and say, all right, I don‘t want any of this, it‘s still going to be done.  It is.

CARLSON:  Is going to be done, why?  I mean, follow through your thought.  It‘s going to be done because they are sadists who are—It‘s going to be done because the people doing it believe sincerely it works and it will help save our country, right? 

GREENFIELD:  Maybe that‘s who they hire, but you know there‘s one thing that you have to remember.  In the beginning of Abu Ghraib, they estimated, this is the United States, 80 percent of the people they hauled into Abu Ghraib were not terrorists.  They swept people off the street, they killed people and according to the people who have been on your show and other shows, the amount of intelligence they received from that is negligible.  Now what‘s going on in Guantanamo is another story. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t think—and Pat back me up here.  I don‘t think anybody claims that the atrocities at Abu Ghraib—were basically a bunch of drunk morons abusing prisoners, were designed to illicit information.  

GREENFIELD:  And they got there how?  And they were assigned to this how?  Who put them in this position?

CARLSON:  Pat, go ahead.

CAMPBELL:  Tucker, first of all, I don‘t even buy the premise that what took place at Abu Ghraib was torture.  I‘m sorry. The naked butt pyramid, that does not constitute torture.  I have seen high school hazing rituals that are more draconian than what we saw at Abu Ghraib.

CARLSON:  What high school did you go to Pat?

GREENFIELD:  It does to devout Muslims.

CAMPBELL:  If you want to find out, Sam, if you want to find out what really constitutes torture, what we need to do is drag Senator John McCain out on Capitol Hill and tell you the kind of stuff they put him through at the Hotel Hilton, at the Hanoi Hilton. 

GREENFIELD:  I understand that, yes, yes.

CAMPBELL:  No Sam, here is the deal, having genitals hooked up to a car battery, that‘s torture.  

GREENFIELD:  Thanks for bringing that up.  

CAMPBELL:  You‘re welcome. 

GREENFIELD:  Thanks so much, I‘ll think about that when I go swimming. 

CARLSON:  Sam, I want to ask you a political question here.  Do you think that come the midterms, two months from now, you will see Democrats, people who are campaigning against the White House, bring up torture as a campaign issue?

GREENFIELD:  I think that all you have to do if you‘re a Democrat in certain districts is get out of the way of the car that is the Republican Party, careening off a cliff. 

CARLSON:  There‘s no doubt about that, but my question is more specifically about torture. 

GREENFIELD:  In answer to your question, no.  They‘ll talk about the

war.  I think people will talk about the war. But when you talk about

torture, now you‘re splitting hairs with people about well, is it necessary

don‘t confuse people.

CARLSON:  Americans are for torturing radical Muslims. Let‘s be honest.  I mean I‘m not saying they should be, but they are for it.

GREENFIELD:  Sixty one percent of the American people are against the war.  So my point remains the same, get out of the way of the careening car. 

CARLSON:  Ok.  Now Pat I want to ask you this, your tax dollars at work, yet another example, Iran‘s President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad reportedly headed to New York later this month to address the United Nations, the general assembly there.  It raises the question, who should pay to protect him while he‘s here?  We support the United Nations, we keep that whole bloated inefficient slightly ludicrous enterprise afloat as you know.  And we‘ll be essentially, maybe indirectly but still paying for this.  Should we?

CAMPBELL:  Absolutely not.  I‘m outraged.  This guy is a modern day Hitler.  This is like Hitler coming to the United States of America on the eve of World War II.  If we really had some guts, we would arrest him when he comes to New York City.  He‘s a sworn enemy of this country, he is a sworn enemy of our allies like Israel.  He has no business coming here in the first place.  What I fear most is that he‘s going to seize the day, carpe diem, seize the day, seize the moment and use this opportunity to portray himself in a positive light much like he did with Mike Wallace on “60 Minutes” where he came across to some people as likable and reasonable.  

CARLSON:  But who is he going to win over, I mean realistically, who does Ahmadenijad have -- 

CAMPBELL:  I don‘t know who he‘s going to win over except the countries that obviously already hate the United States, you know people like Hugo Chavez, things of that nature.  But the reality is I hope that the Israeli delegation has the guts to stand up and walkout and the U.S.  delegation has the guts to stand up and walk out and let him know how we truly feel. 

CARLSON:  What do you think Sam? 

GREENFIELD:  Well, let me just start off with this.  He‘s not Hitler. 

Hitler was Hitler. There‘s one Hitler, ok.  Nobody got dragged off to a concentration camp by this little weasel, ok, that‘s number one. 


GREENFIELD:  Yeah right, come on Pat.  Number two, he is the leader of a sovereign state.  Do I like him?

CAMPBELL:  What do you mean, come on, Pat? This is a guy that wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. 

GREENFIELD:  Pat, you had your 20.  He is the leader of a sovereign state.  He‘s going to the United Nations, which whether you like it or not, and when you starting talking about blow to the bureaucracy, Tucker, I thought you meant Congress.  But when he is the leader of a sovereign state, he‘s on UN ground, I‘m going to tell you something that nobody‘s going to agree with and I think this is a great idea.  He should debate George Bush, it should be pay-per-view $25 a seat and you give the money to Katrina victims.  

CARLSON:  Well I think that was his idea in the first place, don‘t you fit.  Let me just take your idea seriously, just for a millisecond here, ok, which is about what it deserves.  Don‘t you think that that would demean and denigrate the office of the presidency of the United States to argue with some crack pot from the Middle East?

GREENFIELD:  Well you know, when someone says that their reading list is epileptic I don‘t think it‘s a quantum leap to demeaning.  I mean this guy—I think George Bush is scared that this guy is going to speak better English. That‘s number one.  Number two, it doesn‘t matter, let me get this clear.  It doesn‘t matter what we think of him.  We‘ve entertained the Shaw of Iran who tortured people.  We‘ve entertained the Marcos‘s who starved people in the Philippines.  So all of a sudden this guy is a bad guy.  Richard Vagary (ph) is one of the fathers of the modern conservative movement.  He said if you don‘t negotiate with your enemies, it‘s stupid.  

CARLSON:  That‘s an interesting point.  But look, let me just make—we‘re almost out of time.   

CAMPBELL:  How are you going to negotiate with somebody who doesn‘t believe in your right to exist? 

CARLSON:  Wait a minute, hold on.  The Shaw may have been bad, but the fact is they were on our side.  It‘s not a question of who is good, who is bad, it‘s not an abstinent role scale.  The whole point of American foreign policy is to help the United States to advance its interests and those who are willing to help are our friends.  Those who aren‘t, aren‘t.  

GREENFIELD:  Let me ask you a question Tucker.  What happened when we backed these people?  They got overthrown and now we are exorcised from that country.  It happened in Cuba, it happened in the Philippines, it happens everywhere we back one of these dictators.  They get overthrown and then we‘re left on the outside.  Maybe we ought to take a better look at who we back.  Maybe we should. 

CARLSON: All right, well on that note we‘re going to wrap it up. 

Thank you both.

GREENFIELD:  Thank you.

CAMPBELL:  Thanks Tucker.

CARLSON:  Some of the country‘s biggest countries are intimidated into signing a deal that forces them to hire executives of a specific color.  Is that right, is that moral?  We‘ll talk about it.  Plus, there are certain groups you just do not want to make angry.  Clay Aiken‘s fan club, right at the top of that list.  We‘ll tell you how we‘ve been drawn into the vicious ire of the Clay Mates.  That‘s all when we come right back.


CARLSON:  Why would the United States government kill nearly 3,000 of  its own citizens and how could that be covered up?  It wouldn‘t and it couldn‘t of course.  But we‘ll discuss the absurd 9/11 conspiracy theories in a minute.  Plus, more superstar support for my “Dancing with the Stars” campaign.  We‘re back in 60 seconds.


CARLSON:  Time now for a look at today‘s stories I just don‘t get.  I don‘t get at all why we are so concerned in this nation with forcing specific racial groups into specific jobs.  A recent survey conducted by New York City‘s Human Rights Commission found that only two percent of upper level managers in the advertising industry are black.  In response the city government quickly reached a deal with some on the country‘s biggest ad firms, forcing them to bring in more black managers under that agreement.  The companies have to report hiring, promotion and retention figures to the bean counters on the city government and submit to monitoring for three years. The city‘s commission also has the authority to fine the companies up to $250,000.  I don‘t get this at all.  There aren‘t enough black people in the advertising business, are there enough Koreans, what about Serbians, what about Albanians?  What about government getting out of the business of counting people by race and ethnicity?  It‘s creepy as hell, people should have the right to work or not work wherever they want, as they so choose.  Why is it the government‘s business to decide how many people of a certain color should be in a certain business?  Right, I mean, you know, I don‘t know, how many Chinese sculptors are there?  Who cares?

Well here‘s what I really don‘t get.  The FAA‘s response to last month‘s plane crash in Lexington, Kentucky which was caused in part by an overtired control tower operator.  The response is to crack down on rest for air traffic controllers.  Ah?  Some regional control centers allow their controllers to take naps during breaks.  The FAA has now notified those control centers that workers are not permitted to sleep at all during their shifts.  An FAA spokesman says a controller who‘s been sleeping could be groggy when he returns to work.  A union representative for the controllers says the no napping policy is dangerous.  Not just dangers but bizarre.  They‘re too tired, so your solution is, don‘t let them nap?  You‘d really have to work for the government to come up with that. 

Well now, to an ongoing story that requires an explanation right now.  Just days before the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11th, the growing number of 9/11 conspiracy theorists are out in force.  A new Scripps Howard University poll found that 36 percent of Americans suspect that the United States government had a hand in those horrible attacks.  Theories range from explosives being placed in the buildings to air force jets being ordered not to pursue the hijacked planes.  None of these theories addresses how a conspiracy of this magnitude could be pulled off and then covered up for five years or even why the government would want to do it.  Here‘s what I don‘t get.  If you really believe that your government was involved in killing 3000 of its own citizens for no apparent reason, just to be cruel or to provide a pretext for invading Iraq to get Iraqi oil or for some insane other reason.  If you really believe that, how can you live in this country?  How can you pay taxes to a government that would do something like that? Why haven‘t  you left at full speed for Canada or France? There are only one of two explanations, one, you don‘t really believe that or two, you believe but you‘re just so amoral you‘re willing to stay here to enjoy the benefits of America even though the government is a mass murdering government.  There is something very wrong with you in my view if you believe that and are still here.

Well, the war of political words over “Dancing with the Stars” reaches fever pitch.  Tom DeLay fired the first shot, you‘ll remember, Al Sharpton responded.  Now the political heavyweights are lining up to support, not to brag, but my bid for dancing immortality.  We have the latest endorsement after a quick break.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  We‘ve told you the news but not the whole story.  To fill in the blanks, the great, Willie Geist.  Willie?

WILLIE GEIST:  Hello Tucker, it‘s four days now.  You have one more weekend until your life is changed forever.  Four days until dancing with the stars continues.  We will be in Los Angeles doing shows starting on Monday all week, prepping Tucker, getting him ready for the moment of his life.  Tuesday night, eight o‘clock eastern on ABC, “Dancing with the Star‘s” starts.  Now Tucker, the Rev. Al Sharpton‘s letter of endorsement has inspired a flood of support for your campaign to become the next “Dancing with the Stars” champion.  The latest to jump on the bandwagon, superstar political consultant James Carville.  His official letter reads quote, “Dear Friends, I‘m writing to tell you about a remarkable candidate in a very special nationwide election this month. I have spent more than half a century advising contenders for higher office.  In that time I‘ve seen the good, the bad and the merely forgettable.  But we have never seen anyone like Tucker Carlson.  We‘re not saying that‘s necessarily good, just that I‘ve never seen anyone like him.  Nevertheless, I‘m asking you to vote for Tucker on “Dancing with the Stars”.  Many people don‘t know this, but Tucker‘s political acumen is surpassed only by his mastery of the Cha Cha.  His campaign has been attacked by special interests, vivified by the elite, dismissed by the chattering classes.  My response?  Three words: Dewey Defeats Truman.  It can happen, but not without your help.  Sincerely, James Carville.”

Tucker, James Carville took a little known governor from Arkansas to the White House.  Why not you to the top of the dancing world?  James Carville, thank you.

CARLSON:  It can happen. 

GEIST:  Tucker, as you know, it is the stated policy of this show not to negotiate with known terrorist organizations, but today, we make an exception for the Claymates. That is of course, Clay Aiken‘s fan club.  The Claymates were apparently not pleased with our coverage yesterday of Aiken‘s appointment to a position in the Bush administration.  In various chat rooms, members of that group blasted Tucker and me for our treatment of their hero. They seem the most angry that we showed this video of Aiken with his old hairstyle.  God forbid.  The Clay Nation has now vowed to vote against Tucker on “Dancing with the Stars.”  Well here‘s the olive branch Claymates.  An updated photograph of Aiken with his more recent hair do.  Now in return, I call on the leadership of Claymates to stop the jihad against Tucker.  Let‘s sit down at the table of reality show brotherhood and together vote to make Tucker the “Dancing with the Stars” champion. 

CARLSON:  You know Willie under ordinary circumstances, I would say something caddy and snide about the Clay Nation, but as a reality show contestant, my job is to pander.  So let me just say to all Clay Aiken fans out there, I‘m sorry that I offended you.  I hope you‘ll take me back. I hope you‘re on my side.  Please vote for me on Tuesday night. 

GEIST:  And Tucker, we should acknowledge that you and I both recognize our lives have been reduced to sucking up to Clay Aiken‘s fan club. 

CARLSON:  Yes, good point. 

GEIST:  Well finally Tucker, thanks to a good Samaritan in London‘s Heathrow Airport, Lindsay Lohan will not be forced to live without her Ermez Berkin bag or the million dollars of jewelry that was inside it.  The purse was stolen yesterday from Lohan‘s luggage cart at the airport.  The 20 year old actress begged for the return of her jewelry and today British police granted that wish when they told her it had been returned.  Now Tucker, you know when you‘re at the baggage carousel and they say, keep a close eye on your bags, many bags look alike?  Never before has that advice been more sound than when you have $1 million worth of jewelry inside.  Don‘t you think?

CARLSON:  And I bet you half a million dollars, that was not her jewelry. 

GEIST:  I think there were some other things in the bag too, also valuable. 

CARLSON:  I suspect. What the hell is she doing with a million dollars of jewelry in her bag?  The mysteries never cease. 

GEIST:  She‘s a diva.

CARLSON:  I‘ll see you in LA Willie.

GEIST:  All right, see you there.

CARLSON:  That‘s our show for tonight, thanks for watching, we‘ll see you on Monday from Los Angeles.  Stay tuned for Chris on “HARDBALL”.



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.


Watch Tucker each weeknight at 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. ET


Discussion comments