Guests: Clint Van Zandt, Kenneth Trump, Bill Scher, Andrew Wilkow
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Welcome to the show. I‘m Tucker Carlson.
Breaking news out of Lakeland, Florida, where a manhunt continues for a gunman who shot two deputies and a police dog after a traffic stop several hours ago, according to police. The shooter is described by them as a black man with dreadlocks wearing a white shirt. Reportedly, he ran into nearby woods.
Joining me now with more, Clint Van Zandt, MSNBC analyst and former FBI profiler. He joins us from Fredericksburg, Virginia.
CLINT VAN ZANDT, MSNBC ANALYST: Hi, Tucker.
CARLSON: How common is it? Is this—is this the scenario that police fear, that they‘re going to pull somebody over and he‘s going to without warning start shooting?
VAN ZANDT: Well, I think this is always the greatest challenge for law enforcement. You know, as an FBI agent, if I was going to make an arrest on a house with police officers or something else, we knew what we were going into, we could game it out, we could figure what we‘re going to run into. But the biggest challenge is for the three-quarters of a million police officers that are out there every day that are making routine traffic stops, they‘re dealing with domestic situations, and every day they can be walking into a gun and not know it.
I mean, the bad—the bad news is, of course, that in the initial first encounter usually the gunman has got the advantage because police don‘t go in with their guns drawn when they make a traffic stop.
VAN ZANDT: In this particular situation, that‘s just what they did. They made a routine radar traffic stop. This guy came out with a gun and shot two officers.
CARLSON: Now, a police spokesman said just recently that the department in Lakeland has no doubt that they‘re going to catch this man.
VAN ZANDT: Sure.
CARLSON: Do these suspects ever get away?
VAN ZANDT: Well, they do sometimes. You know, MSNBC followed very closely the Bucky Phillips case, this guy up in New York State who had—who had shot multiple state troopers to include killing one, and he was on the run for multiple months before they finally found him.
But in this case, Tucker, it looks like law enforcement came in very
quickly with a lot of resources. Hopefully were able to close down this
area to throw an iron circle around the area where they thought this guy
might be, and then slowly closing that circle, just biting off a piece of
the land, taking it, holding it. So either they‘re going to find him in
the woods, they‘re going to find him hidden in an out building, in a house,
something like this. And I think very quickly they ought to have this guy
CARLSON: I know the U.S. military uses technology that can read body heat from helicopters when they‘re trying to...
VAN ZANDT: Sure.
CARLSON: ... locate troop movements, for instance.
VAN ZANDT: Absolutely.
CARLSON: Do police departments have similar technology?
VAN ZANDT: Very much so. You know, we always say that the U.S. Army owns the ground at night, but, you know, the SWAT teams do, too.
They have multiple helicopters with heat-seeking IR capabilities. They have officers who have night-vision goggles should day change into night.
They have a lot of technology. And the good thing in Florida or any other area, Tucker, is that they have this multi-agency response.
You know, your police department may be a small sheriff‘s office, but in a case like this, two officers down, you‘re going to get every city, county, state and federal agency are going to pour manpower and technology in to help bring this guy to justice because not only is he a threat to law enforcement, as he‘s shown, having shot two officers and shot at two others, but he presents a threat to the civilian population, too. This is a guy you‘ve got to bring in, and you‘ve got to bring him in fast.
CARLSON: Yes, if you shoot a cop, you‘d do just about anything.
Clint Van Zandt, thanks a lot. Stay there if you would. I‘ll be back to you in just a moment.
VAN ZANDT: OK.
CARLSON: We want to go now to another story we‘ve been following closely.
That is yesterday‘s shocking school shootings in Colorado.
Watching it unfold, you couldn‘t help but feel a pretty sad sense of deja vu. Terrified high school kids threatened by an armed mad man in a Colorado school just a short drive away from Columbine, seven years later. But what we‘ve learned in the past few hours makes the story even worse.
The suspect in that case is now identified as Duane Morrison. He‘s a man in his 50s, no known job. He apparently was living in his car. And according to Park County‘s sheriff, Morrison sexually assaulted some of the teenage girls he was holding hostage, leaving authorities no choice but to storm the classroom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My decision was to either wait, the possibility of having two dead hostages, or act to try and save what I feared he would do to them. As you have alluded to, we have confirmed he did traumatize and assault our children.
This was the information that was being fed to me from the SWAT team. This
is why I made the decision I did. We had to go try and save them
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Here now with the latest on that case, NBC‘s Leeanne Gregg.
She‘s in Bailey, Colorado.
Leanne, what do we know about Duane Morrison at this point?
LEANNE GREGG, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, we‘re learning more about him today. First of all, that his last known residence was in Denver, and he is apparently living out of his car.
Authorities believe he may have been in this area in recent days, perhaps camping. They don‘t know if there is a connection with this community. So far they haven‘t found one.
They‘re trying to interview members of his family. They want to know who he was, why he was here.
He apparently didn‘t know any of his alleged victims, so that all is being sorted out now. They spent the entire night trying to gather evidence from the crime scene, look into his background.
We do know he has a minor criminal background. He was arrested the last time this summer, earlier this summer in Lakewood, Colorado, which is about an hour from here, on a charge of obstruction of justice, obstructing police. Also, he has some larceny and marijuana charges dating back to the 1970s.
We‘re told he was driving a Jeep Rubicon in sort of an obvious color, a bright metallic gold. And the police are asking anyone who may have seen him in this area to come forward and talk about whether they saw anything strange.
Also today, Tucker, a lot of the students have been meeting with grief counselors. They‘re talking about this event that has traumatized so many of them.
It‘s a small close-knit community, about 770 kids go to the high school and the adjoining middle school. So they‘re trying to get through this together.
So that‘s what‘s happening here.
Also, the governor has arrived. He‘s been touring the crime scene, Bill Owens, and he‘s expected to make a few comments in a minute.
CARLSON: NBC‘s Leanne Gregg in Bailey, Colorado.
Thanks a lot, Leanne.
CARLSON: The more we learn about this case the more questions it appears to raise. How could someone so dangerous, so obviously creepy looking get inside the school in the first place? And how do you negotiate with someone who is prepared to kill and die himself?
For the answer, we bring back former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt.
Clint, first to the question I think everyone who has been watching this unfold, this story, is asking. How did this guy get inside the school? Do you have any sense?
VAN ZANDT: Yes. You know—yes. I think that‘s the challenge that this school and other schools are going to have to explore.
I mean, we know since Columbine that schools have been very careful, that they usually lock the outside doors, they route visitors through one door. Somehow, this individual, looking like he did—I mean, he obviously wasn‘t a student, he wasn‘t a teacher. He was able to get in with a backpack, two handguns, get up to the second floor, where he eventually took hostages.
So this school and every school around the country, one more time, these are the terrible lessons that we have to learn from and hopefully stop. But the challenge is, Tucker, you know, you can‘t chain doors.
I mean, if there‘s a fire, if there‘s anything else, students have to be able to get out. And we can‘t have armed police at every did door. So the balance is, many times we have to trust the goodwill of the public, and this guy had anything about goodwill.
CARLSON: Yes. Well, that‘s right. I mean, this is not Iraq in the end.
I mean, it‘s actually a pretty safe country in most places.
This is an anomaly. But still, this—this motive, this guy and his motives seem very strange.
VAN ZANDT: Yes.
CARLSON: Give me some perspective with someone who‘s done a lot of hostage negotiation. At this point, police are saying his motive may have been sexual, sexual assault, rape. Have you ever seen anything like this?
VAN ZANDT: No. This is—this is off the end, Tucker. You know, every time I think I‘ve seen the limits of human behavior, of abhorrent behavior, I see somebody stand up and raise their hand and say, let me show you how much worse I can be.
You know—you know, the sheriff in this particular case, he had so many reasons to go tactical. I mean, I‘m 100 percent supportive of his decision. But here is a guy who took hostages, he wouldn‘t negotiate directly with the negotiators, only through one of the hostages.
He gave no demands that the sheriff‘s office could meet. Usually there are money, transportation, promise of escape.
You know, he got to the end. He threatened lives of the students. He broke off negotiations 100 percent. And, of course, as the sheriff just said that you had the film clip, that probably the SWAT team or someone outside, or at least one of the four released female hostages was able to say that there was some type of physical assault taking place.
I mean, this is a sheriff who had a daughter graduate last year, who‘s got a son in this year. You and I are parents, Tucker. I mean, we would be saying get in there and get my kids out of there, whatever you have to do. And as grieving as the parents would be, Tucker, if that was my daughter, I would have wanted that sheriff and that SWAT team to go in and try to get them out.
CARLSON: Oh, this is—it‘s so unimaginably sick. It‘s the kind—as deranged as it is to hold kids hostage in a school, you‘d never think there would be a sexual component to it.
You were saying yesterday that often these guys, people in hostage situations, hostage-takers, want to—want to end it all. They want to commit, as you said, suicide by cop.
VAN ZANDT: Yes.
CARLSON: Does this guy sound suicidal or doe she just sound totally detached from reality?
VAN ZANDT: Well, I think it‘s a combination of the two. We heard that some of his negotiations, when he tried he got rambling. He lost the ability to carry on a conversation. And again, Tucker, you know, you and I are trying to get inside of a dark, deprived mind.
You know, whether the sexual assault—you know, normally, rape is a crime of power, dominance and control. And we don‘t know actually what he did. And you know what? As you—you‘re a parent, I‘m a parent and a grandparent. I hope that, you know, that tabloid television that comes on later tonight doesn‘t want to know the exact details...
VAN ZANDT: ... because these young women have got to live with this the rest of their lives.
But I tell you what, this guy, in his deprived mind, whether he thought he was punishing femininity, whether he had just totally concept with reality, I mean, this guy was as far out on the monster trail I think as you can get. And to victimize these students multiple times, you know, the sheriff had no choice to do what he did. And this particular guy, it looks like, Tucker, everything he did, the motivation he had for it, may very well have been, as you and I talked about yesterday, suicide by cop.
He was looking—he was looking to commit an act perhaps so dastardly that law enforcement would have to take his life. And this no-good coward shot a student before he took his own life.
CARLSON: It is just so disgusting. And I agree with you, it would be tragic, I think, if people in the press didn‘t show self-control, self-constraint, and put details out there that were going to further injure the girls who were held hostage.
VAN ZANDT: Yes.
CARLSON: And that, of course, all leads up to my point. Nancy Grace, you know is someone—I hate even to say it, but you can be certain she‘ll put every repulsive detail on her show. And, you know, I hope she controls herself for once.
Thanks a lot, Clint. I appreciate it.
VAN ZANDT: Well—yes. Thanks, buddy.
CARLSON: Still to come, Bob Woodward charges another White House cover-up. Attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq are much deadlier than we know, he says, and likely to get worse. And the White House doesn‘t want you to know that. If Woodward is right, could this be the reason six in 10 Iraqis approve of attacks on U.S. troops?
That story when we come back.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
As we learn more about yesterday‘s school shooting in Colorado, parents across the country may be asking themselves, how could this happen and how can we protect our kids without turning their schools into armed camps?
That‘s the question for our next guest. He is Kenneth Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services. He joins us from Cleveland.
Mr. Trump, welcome.
That is the question, how do we protect our kids without turning our schools into the Green Zone?
KENNETH TRUMP, NATIONAL SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY SERVICES: Hi, Tucker.
Well, it‘s a difficult task, but we know after Columbine in April of 1999, school administrators recognized even more so than ever that they have to take some steps to balance a safe and secure environment with one that‘s welcoming and supportive for kids and parents. School officials have done a good job. That progress unfortunately has stalled and is sliding backwards in many school communities, but there are two areas that educators have really worked real hard on, preventing school violence by student—student—potential student shooters or student offenders by recognizing early warning signs, by building relationships with kids, recognizing behavior change in kids, getting kids to report.
The other is working on emergency preparedness, the things that we saw yesterday out in Colorado; teaching your school staff on how to do lockdowns, how to do have evacuation procedures; having parent-student reunification procedures; communicating effectively through the media and with parents in the middle of a crisis; working with law enforcement on tactical issues, blueprints, floor plans of the building; knowing how to deal with active shooter-type situations versus the setup of SWAT things.
CARLSON: But, I mean...
TRUMP: So there‘s been some improvements, but there‘s a lot of work to be done.
CARLSON: Well, that all makes sense, of course, but it seems to me that there is a cost to all that. One, there is literally the financial cost. I mean, schools that, you know, no longer have music programs or sports probably can‘t—aren‘t going to spring for tactical SWAT training, right?
But second, you don‘t want to scare kids. You don‘t want to make a school feel like a prison. You want to, as you said, make it feel welcoming.
I mean, is there consideration for aesthetic concerns like that, not making a school look like a penitentiary?
TRUMP: Yes. Well, as far as the—as far as the financial costs, just making your building availables to SWAT teams at nights and on weekends. We don‘t want a mock hostage simulation in the middle of kindergarten class, Tucker. But we are saying make your building available.
CARLSON: Good. Thank you, Mr. Trump.
No, I‘m just—I‘m glad to hear somebody say that, because, I—you know, I hate to say this now, but this is a country that sometimes can react strongly to things, and you just you don‘t want to see kids have their school experience destroyed or overshadowed by security concerns when most schools are really safe. I mean, let‘s...
TRUMP: We can make your buildings accessible to law enforcement at nights and weekends. But I think what we‘re talking about, Tucker, is actually basic common sense things.
You and I can go out to a fast-food restaurant here after the show and go through a limited number of open doors. When we go in, somebody says, “Good morning” or “Good afternoon, may I help you?”
You go through the drive-through window and you have a camera. And for years we have protected hamburger better than we have our children.
We‘ve left school doors open. We haven‘t trained our staff on basic awareness, greeting, challenging reporting strangers, knowing what to do in an emergency.
And in a lockdown situation, kids tend not to be as fearful and alarmed by practicing those drills. It tends to be an issue more for adults. As long as you explain it, put it into context, the reality is you might have a lockdown for a loose dog running through the hallway biting kids in the behind rather than just an active shooter.
So there does have to be a balance. And principals have stugged with this issue post-Columbine...
TRUMP: ... on how do you create a warm, welcoming, supportive climate, but still take some basic risk deduction measures and be prepared to manage emergencies that can‘t be prevented?
CARLSON: Metal detectors, that is the first phrase on the tips of many people‘s tongues in this country after yesterday‘s events in Colorado. What do you think?
TRUMP: The reality is we have metal detectors, strip searches, and the most restrictive enforcement procedures in the world in prisons. We still have drugs, we still have guns, we still have sexual assaults, we still have gangs and we still have rapes and even murders.
Metal detectors are necessary in some large districts where they have chronic history of weapons and it warrants that extra tool. But even in the few schools where the—the few schools, the majority, large urban districts, that have metal detectors, they will tell you that is one tool and a supplement to a more comprehensive program.
Any type of technology, cameras, metal detectors, is only as good as the people behind it. The first and best line of defense is a well-trained, alert staff member who knows what to do to prevent an incident, has relationships with kids, and is prepared to manage an incident that can‘t be prevented.
CARLSON: Do we have any clue how this guy, Morrison, this monster, this creep, got into the school yesterday?
TRUMP: Haven‘t heard anything on that yet, but the reality is this: when you‘re dealing with any high schools in a large complex area—you had a high school and a middle school combined—you have dozens, sometimes even hundreds of doors on campus. When schools make their best effort to reduce the risk by reducing the number of open doors, people prop doors open.
Somebody goes out, it doesn‘t close all the way. Doors are old on a building.
The first line of defense we hope for is you try to reduce those risks, have one designated entrance. You also get people trained and alert that if they see a stranger, not just a kid—the staff, but the students. We‘re talking principals who in elementary schools are just doing basic things with the kids in elementary, saying, look, if you see a stranger at the door, while you may feel it‘s the right thing to do to go open the door, don‘t do that. Tell an adult and let an adult do it.
Same thing with secondary kids, high school kids, saying, if you see a stranger or a staff member, if you see a stranger, if you don‘t feel comfortable in approaching him, pick up the phone and call the office right away.
It doesn‘t cure all. Can somebody get in? Absolutely. And right now, in this minute, there are many schools across the country where you‘re going to be able to get in.
The key thing is, what do people do and what are they trained to do if they see somebody who has penetrated the basic levels of protection of locked doors, now what?
CARLSON: Speaking up often makes all the difference. People are too often silent.
Kenneth Trump, I—that sounds really reasonable, wise advice. Thank you.
TRUMP: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: Coming up, a shocking statistic. Or maybe not so shocking. A majority of Iraqis—a majority—are now in favor of insurgent attacks on our U.S. troops.
More on that in a minute.
And the top executive at FOX News says Bill Clinton was out of line in his Chris Wallace interview. Is he right?
That story, too, when we come back.
CARLSON: It‘s time now for “Beat the Press.”
First up, Neil Cavuto‘s show on the FOX News Channel. A Mr. Ford has arrived to do an interview. This much we know.
The question is, which Mr. Ford is it?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEIL CAVUTO, “YOUR WORLD WITH NEIL CAVUTO”: All right. Tennessee
senatorial candidate Harrison Ford (sic) joins me right now with his take
on what‘s—Harold Ford, I‘m sorry
HAROLD FORD, SENATORIAL CANDIDATE, TENNESSEE: I love the Harrison Ford.
CAVUTO: I know. Just a mind blank there. All right. I apologize, Congressman.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: The congressman went onto say that “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is one of his favorite movies. Droll. Good response.
Harold Ford. Pretty impressive.
And as if one identity mix-up is not enough, we‘ve got another. This next one is from yesterday‘s “Boston Herald” newspaper and it‘s arguably a lot of more embarrassing.
Look at this. It‘s an article about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former president Bill Clinton. But check out the picture. This man is not even close to a stunt double of Condoleezza Rice.
Let‘s repeat this. This is Condoleezza Rice. She again is the secretary of state.
This, the guy pictured, some random black dude. They do not look anything like one another at all.
Photo editor now looking for a new job.
And finally, a clip from our evergreen (ph) file. This one comes from Albuquerque, New Mexico‘s KOAT News. It‘s amazing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We‘re going to interview Eric Wayhamayer (ph), who climbed the highest mountain in the world, Mt. Everest. But he‘s gay. I mean, he‘s gay—excuse me, he‘s blind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: But he‘s gay—but he‘s blind. No, he‘s deaf, he‘s paralyzed, he‘s mute. No, he‘s gay. Whatever.
He‘s gay. Very good.
Still to come, charges President Bush is in a state of denial over the war in Iraq. Is it worse than the White House is letting on, worse than you ever suspected? Maybe so.
And proof positive the government of Kazakhstan has no sense of humor at all. The latest uproar over the new “Borat” movie.
That story when we come back.
CARLSON: Still to come, the worst kept secret in Washington, a city of badly kept secrets: politicians hate journalists. More on that.
And foreign leaders come to town. One of them is here for diplomacy, or maybe he‘s here to peddle his book. We‘ll tell you which in just a moment.
Right now, here‘s a look at your headlines.
CARLSON: Time now for “3 on 3”, where we welcome two of the sharpest people we know to discuss three of today‘s most interesting stories. Joining us from Boston, Massachusetts, Bill Scher. He‘s the author of “Wait! Don‘t Move to Canada! A Stay and Fight Strategy to Win Back America”. Good advice, by the way.
And here from New York City, Andrew Wilkow. He‘s host of ‘The Andrew Wilkow Show” on Sirius Satellite Radio.
Welcome to you both.
BILL SCHER, AUTHOR, “WAIT!”: Thank you very much.
ANDREW WILKOW, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Thanks for having us.
CARLSON: My pleasure.
Harsh words for President Bush from veteran reporter Bob Woodward of the “Washington Post”. His latest book is entitled “State of Denial”.
In a “60 Minutes” interview, Woodward claims the Bush administration has not told the truth about the level of violence against U.S. troops in Iraq. Woodward protects the Iraqi insurgency will grow worse, meanwhile, in 2007.
He also reveals that Bush has sought advice repeatedly from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, which Bill, as far as I‘m concerned, is pretty good news. Henry Kissinger is a realist, really the founder of what we think of as the realist wing in American foreign policy. I think that‘s exactly what this administration needs, is a dose of realism.
SCHER: I think they need a dose of realism. It‘s not clear at all that Henry Kissinger is providing it. It seems that he has been counseling Bush to continue this occupation.
And it‘s that permanent occupation that has been destabilizing the region. That is what we learned from the collective judgment of our intelligence community this week. It‘s been feeding terrorism, strengthening them, strengthening the al Qaeda ideology, and we need a fundamental change in course.
CARLSON: But we didn‘t actually learn that from our intelligence community. Let me just say at the outset, I mean, the intelligence community told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They told us the Soviet Union was not going to collapse. In other words, like, what do they know?
But more to the point, they said things are going terribly in Iraq. I think it‘s obvious to anybody who pays attention that that‘s true. It doesn‘t mean it can‘t get worse, though. They did not suggest or recommend that we pull American troops out of Iraq.
SCHER: I didn‘t say they did. They say that the war, as it‘s going, has been feeding the terrorists, feeding their strength, and spreading the al Qaeda ideology.
I would suggest to you that if we reverse course, dismantle the permanent basis in Iraq, bring in the international community and resolve the sectarian differences in that country, we could make Iraq a stable situation, actually have a creditable democracy there.
CARLSON: Andrew, first, do you think, do you agree with Bill that there is any hope at this point of a, quote, “credible democracy” in Iraq? And what do you think of Kissinger weighing in on this?
WILKOW: Well, looking at some of these—this—these poll notes that we have on the approval of the attacks on the troops, and the attacks are going to ramp up and get worse, there‘s also another side to that poll, that a majority of Iraqis believe that they‘re going to be one unified state within five years. That means Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites all being one unified state. They have a budding democracy. What—what are you expecting to happen overnight?
CARLSON: I don‘t know. It hasn‘t been overnight. As you know—as we‘ve noted before, we‘ve been there about as long as World War II.
WILKOW: We also—we‘re not going to have permanent bases there.
Who wants permanent—nobody wants permanent bases.
CARLSON: I do. I think all these Americans have died, thousands of Americans have died when you factor in the contractors, the American citizens who were—contractors who were killed, and we get no permanent base there? I mean, we—at the end of World War II we had permanent bases all over the world: Italy, Greece, France, Germany. I mean, literally the globe is studded with American bases that we won in the Second World War.
WILKOW: It doesn‘t mean—it doesn‘t mean we intend to stay in Iraq in perpetuity, forever. That‘s not what that...
SCHER: Well, I‘m afraid Andrew is mistaken there, because the Democrats tried to pass a bill that would ban funding for permanent bases, and the Republicans stripped it out, at Bush‘s request.
So there‘s clear evidence they do want permanent bases there.
And in the poll that just came out this week, there‘s a direct correlation between belief amongst Iraqis that permanent bases are being built and support for attacks against U.S. troops.
CARLSON: Wait a second. I mean, isn‘t that the one thing we‘ve earned? I say this as someone who disagrees with the war. I think it was a poor idea. I think it‘s really hurt our country.
However, we‘ve earned those bases. We paid for them with the blood of American soldiers. It‘s good for America to have a foothold in the region. We get better intelligence, enough to rely on the Saudis and Israel exclusively, as we have in years past. I mean, why is it a bad thing to have those bases there?
WILKOW: I‘m not saying it‘s a good or bad thing. I‘m just saying...
SCHER: You‘re destabilizing the region and giving the terrorists propaganda help.
WILKOW: They already have propaganda. They have CNN. They have al Jazeera. They have—they have people like you and your web site. They already have enough propaganda. They don‘t need anymore.
CARLSON: Well, I would wonder...
SCHER: I don‘t know what he‘s talking about.
CARLSON: You‘ve been—both of you, I think, have made reference to this poll, these poll numbers that just came out. I find them shocking.
First I want to show you the video of a recent assault on a U.S. convoy in Iraq. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am truck and cannot move. Please help me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Where you at? Where you at?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I‘m taking fire. Ten-four, come back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They‘re firing at us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I‘m going to get killed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
On that note, a startling new poll reveals an overwhelming number of Iraqis approve of an attack on U.S. forces: 60 percent, more than approve of the attacks. That‘s up from 47 percent last January.
I just—question that comes to my mind immediately when I see numbers like this, Andrew, is why exactly do Iraqis deserve democracy? Why are, you know, America‘s sons dying so people who hate us and want to kill us can be free? I don‘t get it.
WILKOW: What don‘t you get? We‘re trying to—we‘re trying to give these people the freedom that we have, a right to determine their own destiny.
CARLSON: Why do they deserve that? Why do we owe them that?
WILKOW: Wait. The rest of those numbers also say they have a disdain for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden. That‘s a good thing. And once again, these people that were polled, Sunni, Shia and Kurds, all think they‘re going have a unified state in five years. Five years.
CARLSON: Well, they have—they have—first of all, you are not going to get the Kurds. I mean, there already is a separate country called Kurdistan, that we don‘t report on here, because they‘re too busy following police chases. But they‘re actually. That is not going to happen. Kurdistan is going to be...
WILKOW: That‘s this poll that we‘re all going on right now.
CARLSON: OK. OK, but I guess my—my initial question remains unanswered, and it is this. Why do the Iraqis who, judging by these polls and by their behavior every day kind of hate us, why do they deserve $2 billion a week of our money and the lives of thousands of our citizens so they can be free? Why do they deserve that?
WILKOW: Because everyone has the rightly to be free.
CARLSON: Not at our expense.
WILKOW: Everyone has a right to live in a democratic society where people have the right to pick their own leaders and determine their own destinies. Everyone should have that right. We‘ve gone to war for this many times in the past, and this is nothing new.
CARLSON: I don‘t know that we‘ve gone to war for it many times in the past. That‘s debatable. But they have a right to have us pay for it? I mean, how does that—talk about a—I thought conservatives were supposed to be sort of, you know, boot strap people, do it yourself.
WILKOW: Hey, I‘m not one of these guys that‘s afraid that they should pay us back in oil. I‘m not afraid to say that.
WILKOW: But if I do say that, then Bill‘s going to say, “See, you guys anted to go to war for oil.”
CARLSON: I‘m just wondering, what the hell we get out of this. Bill, I‘m sure you‘re against taking oil out of Iraq? But are you also...
SCHER: I am.
CARLSON: Of course you are, but are you against bringing democracy to Iraq? What do you think of that?
SCHER: I think promoting credible democracy is the focus of any liberal foreign policy vision. I just don‘t—I don‘t think that‘s happening in Ira.
WILKOW: What‘s un-credible about what they‘re doing now? Every time they get a chance to vote, they do.
SCHER: When you can‘t have a credible democracy when it‘s opposed and revoked by gunpoint. It‘s not going to be perceived as credible amongst the entire country. The support for this government...
WILKOW: Sir, sir, sir, this is where you‘re wrong. The guns are being pointed at those who are voting. People want to vote, to dip their fingers in the ink. The ones pointing the guns at them were the terrorists, were the insurgents. Not us. We were providing security. We‘re giving these people a right to determine their own destiny.
SCHER: I agree with you, Andrew, that that they have to determine their own destiny. I don‘t think they‘re getting it right now, and that‘s why it‘s been helping the terrorists and strengthening them. If it were a credible democracy...
WILKOW: The terrorists hate us no matter what we do.
SCHER: ... way. We could stabilize the region. It‘s not a question whether Iraqis deserve it, Tucker. It‘s a question of what‘s best for our national security and global stability. A credible democracy can do that. This war isn‘t doing that.
CARLSON: Wait, wait, wait, wait. It is actually, I think, a question of that. I mean, you actually seem in agreement with President Bush in principal. Your point appears to be the same as his, that everybody has a right—it‘s not clear where that right comes from, but just a right that emanates from something—to be free and to be living in a democratic society.
I don‘t understand why we assume everyone has that right and why we should be responsible for making it real.
WILKOW: Because we‘re the first nation on the planet.
SCHER: I agree with Bush‘s rhetoric. I agree with Bush‘s rhetoric. I disagree with Bush‘s actions. I don‘t think he‘s sincere about his rhetoric. And I think it‘s our interest in promoting credible democracy because it helps us be secure. It brings stability...
CARLSON: Yes, but where‘s the evidence? Where‘s the—everyone says that kind of glibly, you know. When people are free, you know, democracies never fight each other. They just did, by the way. This summer I went to the war in the Middle East, two democracies fighting each other, Israel and Lebanon.
But more to the point, where is the evidence exactly that free—that a democratic Middle East is going to be good for us? There‘s no evidence at all.
SCHER: I‘ll give you some interesting evidence about that. And I agree with you. Democracies can fight each other, especially when it‘s not legitimate democracies, where you have a one vote, one time like Nazi Germany.
But take what happened to the Palestinian territories. They elected a government led by Hamas, which is a terrorist organization, still is. But the people that were elected actually started making moves to recognize Israel, because they realized they had to govern. They couldn‘t be terrorists anymore.
Unfortunately, not all of Hamas believes that. And that‘s why you still have people being kidnapped. But democracy was actually improving the situation. Unfortunately, the Bush administration didn‘t meet the moment and bring those guys along. They fostered more instability. Again, they weren‘t sincere with their rhetoric.
CARLSON: You can‘t blame Bush for everything in the lunacy of, you know...
WILKOW: If Bill stubbed his toe on the way to the studio, he‘d blame Bush.
CARLSON: All right. I want to get your opinion—I want to get your views on something Roger Ailes said. He, of course, is the head executive at FOX. And he called Bill Clinton‘s angry response to Chris Wallace the other day on “FOX News Sunday”, quote, “an assault on all journalists.”
When Wallace asked the former president why he didn‘t do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business, Clinton accused Wallace of, quote, “doing a conservative hit job” and claimed FOX is not as tough on Bush.
Ailes said Clinton was revealing his hatred for journalists. Now whatever one thinks of FOX, whatever one thinks of Roger Ailes, I think, Andrew, we all have to agree with Roger Ailes, that look, I spent a lot of time around politicians, they hate us. You know, they do the best—but they do.
WILKOW: They hate you when they‘re asking questions that you don‘t want to answer.
My favorite moment in that interview with Bill Clinton is where Bill Clinton says people to his political right labeled him obsessed with Osama bin Laden. All you‘ve got to remember is the very famous interview with Larry King when he said, “I was obsessed with Osama bin Laden.”
I mean, here‘s a guy—I don‘t call it revision of history. I call it a re-Clinton of history. This guy not only wants to make up his own legacy; he wants you to believe it.
CARLSON: But what‘s interesting to me, Bill, is that Bill Clinton is every bit as prickly and angry and partisan as he was when he was president. The guy‘s had six years of basically vacation, making tens of millions of dollars for doing not a lot, and he‘s still mad, and he still hates the press. What is that about?
SCHER: Well, I don‘t think he hates all the press. I think he‘s angry at FOX News for perpetuating misinformation and for—what he said in the interview was, “You asked me a legitimate question, but why haven‘t you asked the same question about the Cole, for example, the attack on the Cole? Why haven‘t you asked the Bush administration about that when you‘ve had the chance?” And in fact, they hadn‘t. So there hasn‘t been a consistency within the FOX world.
CARLSON: This is—he‘s such a “dog ate my homework” kind of person, Bill Clinton. I mean, what—just answer the question. Who—first of all, Chris Wallace—I hate being in this position, because I hate defending FOX.
WILKOW: I don‘t know if there was misinformation.
CARLSON: I hate being in this position.
WILKOW: I just want to know what misinformation was in this interview. That‘s what I‘m asking.
CARLSON: Chris Wallace asked—gave Donald Rumsfeld a hard time on this exact same subject, but that‘s not the point. The point is...
SCHER: I don‘t believe he asked anyone in the Bush administration about the Cole.
CARLSON: OK. That may be true, and again, I‘m not here to flack for FOX. I‘m just saying, you‘re asked a direct question that‘s not an unreasonable question. Stop whining and answer it.
And I don‘t know why Democrats defend Clinton just to the end. I am so excited for a Democrat to take his place as head of your party. I really am, just so he can go away, you know, just go to Davos (ph) or wherever, move to South Africa or something and stop bothering us.
WILKOW: You know what the best part of this is? There are studies...
SCHER: I don‘t agree with him on everything, but I do think he did answer that question. And it was a legitimate question. His complaint was that that question wasn‘t being asked of his Republican counterparts.
CARLSON: Right. All right. Bill and Andrew, I appreciate it.
Legitimate question askers both. Thank you very much.
WILKOW: Thank you.
SCHER: Thank you.
CARLSON: Well, the president of Pakistan takes a break from hunting Osama bin Laden to push his new book on the American talk show circuit. Why has Pervez Musharraf been on television more than I have lately? Doing a better job, by the way.
Plus, the government proves it can‘t even carry out the simple act of killing someone. A gruesome report about executions in California when we come back.
CARLSON: Turns out the state of California has been botching many of its executions. Maybe it‘s time to stop letting the government kill people.
Plus, YouTube gives us another hilarious gift. Think little people break dancing. Don‘t miss it. We‘re back in 60 seconds.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
A few minutes ago we told you about a case of mistaken identity at the “Boston Herald”. The photo editor there in a piece about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put up a picture instead of this man, who is identified as Secretary of State Rice.
Of course, that is not Secretary of State Rice. We didn‘t know who he was. A number of you have e-mailed to say his name is Darrel Lloyd, and he was—Dale Lloyd, and he is a 19-year-old freshman at Rice, football player who apparently died recently on the field, I guess during practice.
So apparently, my guess is that photo was slugged, as they say in the newspaper business, with the word “Rice” and somebody put it in by accident. It makes the mistake easier to understand and a little sadder. I thought we‘d bring you that explanation.
Well, it‘s time now for a look at today‘s stories I just don‘t get.
First, the president of Pakistan plays international diplomacy by the book.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN: I‘m launching my book on the 25th, and I‘m honor bound by Simon and Schuster not to comment on the book before that day. So...
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In other words by buy the book is what he‘s saying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: Don‘t let the levity fool you. Relations between the United States and Pakistan are tense. The Taliban remain a threat, and Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, possibly within Pakistan‘s borders.
But it seems that General Musharraf has more important things on his mind these days, like making certain his autobiography makes the “New York Times” best seller list. “In the Line of Fire” hit book stores around the world this week, and whether it‘s on the “Today Show” or at the White House, like any ambitious author, Musharraf knows it pays to advertise.
Here‘s my question. Why doesn‘t just loot the treasury if he wants the money? Why does he care if his book is a best-seller? He‘s the strong man. He‘s the dictator of Pakistan. He can do whatever he wants. He‘s got nuclear weapons. Why does he care if he‘s on the “Times” list? Vanity.
Next, another salvo in the war of words between Hollywood and the nation of Kazakhstan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Borat. I‘m journalist from Kazakhstan. My government sent me to U.S. of A. to make a movie film. Please, you look.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That‘s actor Sasha Baron Cohen pushing his upcoming movie, “Borat”. Leaders from Kazakhstan have decided to do a little advertising of their own with this four-page spread in the “New York Times” this week. The ad hails the virtues of Kazakhstan, such as its strong ties to the U.S., a growing tourist economy and religious tolerance.
Kazakhstan‘s government may be hoping the ad will counter Cohen‘s negative portrayal of the country, which he depicts in his comedy film as ignorant and backward and anti-Semitic.
Here‘s what I don‘t get. The leaders of Kazakhstan ought to be paying royalties of some kind to Sasha Baron Cohen. Before “Borat” came out, no one in this country had ever heard of Kazakhstan, much less wanted to go there.
I bet you there are all kinds of people flocking to that country now because of “Borat”. I bet you their growing tourist sector is the result of the publicity that they‘ve received from Sasha Baron Cohen. So instead of being mad, they ought to tip their hat to that guy. They owe him money, in fact.
Finally a lethal dose of reality about capital punishment. California‘s methods of execution are under scrutiny following testimony that some Death Row inmates might have been conscious during the lethal injection procedure. That‘s because sedatives were being mixed by prison staffers with no medical background. As a result, inmates could have suffered unnecessary pain when being put to death.
California has put executions on hold until the matter is fully investigated, but anti-death penalty lobbyists fear a similar problem might exist within the other 36 states that use lethal injections.
There are many things about this story I don‘t get. Lethal injection itself is one of them. Why pretend an execution is a medical procedure? You‘re killing the guy. Be honest about it.
The most foolproof way to kill someone, the firing squad. Why don‘t we do that? Because it looks too violent. We‘d have to face up to what the death penalty is, and that‘s killing by the U.S. government of its own citizens and not in self defense. That makes people too uncomfortable.
They don‘t want to deal with it. And so we come up with euphemisms, physical euphemisms like lethal injection, because we don‘t want to face what is really going on. We should face what is really going on, it seems to me.
Speaking of what‘s really going on, to shift here fairly dramatically, Dustin Diamond. He‘s known to you and me as Screech, but he‘s caught on tape in a new sex video. Are there any other “Saved by the Bell” cast members involved in that video? And what role, if any, does this little dancing machine play? We‘ll have the lurid details when we come right back.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Ever since Andrew Dice Clay lost his prime time gig, quality entertainment has been hard to find until now. Willie Geist is here.
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: Wow. I haven‘t heard that guy‘s name in, like, 15 years. I actually liked him. I thought he was kind of funny.
CARLSON: Me, too.
GEIST: He evaporated at some point.
Tucker, I know you don‘t have a direct connection to “Dancing with the Stars” any more, but even you have to have a heavy heart this morning with the elimination of Hammering Harry Hamlin.
He was eliminated from “Dancing with the Stars” last night. No one more despondent than his wife, Lisa Rinna, of course, of Team Harry. There she is, taking this all very, very seriously.
But I know you liked Harry. You had a good time with him, so farewell, Harry. Do you have any parting words for him?
CARLSON: I can honestly say I bet—Harry Hamlin‘s a great guy. Very smart. Much more impressive than you would ever imagine. Really—and a good guy. I like him a lot.
GEIST: Maybe too stiff on the dance floor. Nobody asked me.
CARLSON: He‘s too good for the show.
GEIST: That‘s what Bruno tells me, anyway.
Well, Tucker, if you like Dustin Diamond as Screech on “Saved by the Bell”, and I know you did, you will love him as himself in a new three-way sex video.
Diamond will join the likes of sex tape legends Tommy Lee and Paris Hilton when a 40-minute video showing him in the sack with two women hits the market soon. This is a little taste of that motion picture.
David Hans Schmidt, the class act who brought us Hilton‘s tour de force video, “One Night in Paris”, has acquired the rights to Diamond‘s tape.
I‘m not sure what quite to make of this. I think it‘s a publicity stunt, as all sex tapes are, obviously. But it looks a little too professional. Like there are shots and there‘s lighting. You know what I mean? You want it to be pseudo organic, you know, “Oh, somebody stole it from me.” He actually made a movie of himself having sex. It‘s not really the same, I don‘t think.
CARLSON: Who‘s the cameraman? I mean, the questions that arise are really—I mean, I don‘t know.
GEIST: Yes. And who are the girls more importantly?
CARLSON: Good point. Good point.
GEIST: Well, Tucker, Mel Gibson‘s infamous drunken, anti-Semitic rant to L.A. County sheriff‘s officers in July has inspired a new character on the NBC show “Law & Order”. Chevy Chase—yes, Chevy Chase—will guest star as a celebrity who spews epithets at police after being pulled over for drunk driving.
Despite the obvious similarities to the Gibson incident, our friends at NBC say the show is, quote, “completely fiction.”
Tucker, I have to say this was a big deal for a while. Mel Gibson did a nice job of making this thing go away by going to rehab, which is a cure-all, obviously.
GEIST: And here it is again, rearing its ugly head. And Chevy Chase, he gets a free pass because of “Fletch” and “Vacation”, but I don‘t know if I can condone this role.
CARLSON: Yes. I think, you know, if he‘s got a job, I think that‘s probably good.
GEIST: Yes. I like Chevy.
Finally, Tucker, you know, they say the Internet has made the world a smaller place. Well, without the information superhighway and YouTube, specifically, we might never know about Little Superstar. Let‘s take a look at this small wonder in India in action.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GEIST: I can watch that for hours on end. And in fact, I might cancel my weekend plans, just sit home and watch that little dude dance. Look at his moves, popping and locking.
My favorite—my favorite part is the dude in repose, just lounging on a couch, watching the little person dance.
CARLSON: If there‘s—if there‘s one word I‘d use to describe that tableau, Willie, haunting.
CARLSON: Willie Geist.
GEIST: All right, Tucker.
CARLSON: Really. That‘s our show. Thanks for watching. Up next, “HARDBALL” with Chris. See you tomorrow.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
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.