updated 10/11/2006 1:44:55 PM ET 2006-10-11T17:44:55

Guests: Ed Royce, Jack Jacobs, Jonathan Weisman, Mark Williams, Victor Kamber, Stan Broome

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Welcome to the show.  I’m Tucker Carlson.

We have a lot to get to today, including the congressman who knew six years ago about congressman Mark Foley’s inappropriate e-mails and he didn’t go public.

Also ahead, why Newt Gingrich may be the future of the Republican Party. 

That’s right, it’s come to that. 

But first, our top story of the day, nuclear weapons in North Korea.  Kim Jong-il’s regime called Washington’s bluff this weekend, saying North Korea has successfully detonated a nuclear bomb.  World leaders believe it has happened and they are mad.  None more so than President Bush, who called the nuclear test “unacceptable”. 


GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  The United States condemns this provocative act.  Once again North Korea has defied the will of the international community, and the international community will respond.  The proclaimed actions taken by North Korea are unacceptable and deserve an immediate response by the United Nations Security Council. 


CARLSON:  Here with the latest on this developing story, NBC’s Kevin Corke. 

He’s at the White House. 

Kevin, the most obvious question first.  We are certain this happened?  The White House is certain that a nuclear weapon was detonated in North Korea? 

KEVIN CORKE, NBC CORRESPONDENT:  Still not certain at this hour, Tucker.  We are expecting to find out sometime perhaps late this afternoon or perhaps as far from now as a couple of days.  We talked to White House spokesman Tony Snow within the hour, and he said that’s really a wide swathe.  But it is believed at this point, you’re right, that at least indications would seem to indicate that this was some sort of a nuclear test. 

CARLSON:  What are the U.S. options at this point as the White House has explained them? 

CORKE:  Well, you can really look at it in a few ways.  I mean, first of all, you can continue to call for them to go back to the table, to the six-party talks.  I mean, the U.S. has already been in contact with China and Russia and Japan and South Korea, and hoping that that will somehow—you know, there is strength in numbers. 

That’s what the administration has been saying for quite some time.  And they can hope that that would somehow encourage North Korea to come back to the table.

And the other option is you could sort of try the carrot and the stick method.  You know, just keep giving them little nuggets—well, what if we gave them a little more incentive, economic help or humanitarian aid?  But you have to remember that that’s been tried and tried and tried in the past, not to mention the fact that Pyongyang is pretty comfortable breaking its agreements.

Or you could look at a third option, and that is to attack them preemptively in a military way, but, of course, that opens up a gigantic can of worms that could be devastating not only to American forces, but that entire region—Tucker. 

CARLSON:  This—this is almost short of the worst case scenario.  The worst case scenario, of course, is war.  But short of that, North Korea having its hands on a nuclear weapon, that’s—that’s pretty awful. 

Are you getting any sense in your conversation with people at the White House that this administration sees this as a failure of American foreign policy? 

CORKE:  Yes.  I talked to Tony about that as well, and he said absolutely not.  Look, you can look at it in one simple way from the administration’s standpoint, and that is this: Pyongyang is going to do what Pyongyang is going to do.  But the United States has to operate within the framework of the international community.  So, as long as they have as many regional players involved as possible, as long as the international community is speaking with one voice, then the United States can say, look, we’ve done everything within our interests to try and further the negotiations with Pyongyang.

If they decide to strike out and do something really reckless—if this isn’t reckless enough—then of course the United States has been very consistent in saying it will use all of its resources to defend itself vis-a-vis its allies in the region—Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  And we’ll find out in the coming days what exactly that means. 

Kevin, thanks alot. 

CORKE:  You bet.

CARLSON:  Well, it’s the worst of all possible worlds for the Bush administration and for the rest of us who live in this country, a nuclear-armed North Korea.  And the question for the White House at this point is frighteningly simple, what do we do now? 


CARLSON:  Joining me now from Anaheim, California, Congressman Ed Royce. 

He’s chairman of the House Subcommittee on Nonproliferation. 

Congressman, thanks a lot for joining us. 


Tucker, good to be with you.

CARLSON:  So, North Korea has set off a nuclear weapon.  Isn’t this why we elected George W. Bush, so things like this wouldn’t happen? 

What happened?

ROYCE:  Well, what happened basically is that North Korea has decided that it is going to go forward with its weapon systems.  And I think what will now happen is that the Bush administration will expand this—this PSI, this proliferation security initiative, and begin stopping every ship that comes in and out of North Korea, because there is only three ways they get their money: their banking system where they counterfeit U.S. dollars...

CARLSON:  Right.

ROYCE:  The U.S. has already closed that down.  They get it from opium.  Now we are checking every ship for opium.  And lastly, they get it by sending missiles to Syria and to Iran and selling them. 

Now, without any form of money coming into the regime, Kim Jong-il will not be able to pay his generals.  Already the system is collapsing.  And I think what the Bush administration will now decide to do is exactly what Reagan decided to do with the former Soviet Union, implode the regime. 

CARLSON:  We can get to the wisdom of that plan in just a moment, but with all due respect, isn’t it a little late?  I mea, isn’t this exactly the moment that we had hoped to prevent?  And now that that regime has proved it has a nuclear weapon, now we know for certain, doesn’t that give it power that it didn’t have? 

ROYCE:  Well, let’s look at how they got the nuclear weapon and let’s look at the different approaches used.  The Clinton administration attempted to give them nuclear power, the reactors...

CARLSON:  Right.

ROYCE:  ... foreign aid.  That didn’t work. 

The South Korean regime attempted a massive bribery program in which they infused all kinds of capital, and that didn’t work. 

The Bush administration attempted the six-party talks, you know, with Russia, China, South Korea, the U.S., all pressuring Kim Jong-il.  That didn’t work.

The point is that I’m not sure there was anything that was going to deter this fellow.  I have talked to Minister Yup, who is the senior administer from North Korea, the highest level defector they’ve ever had.  He was their propaganda minster for the young man and for the father, and he told me they were so hell-bent on getting these weapons of mass destruction that they allowed two million people to starve inside that country. 


ROYCE:  He said the only thing that will cut it off is when they don’t have access to any capital and they can’t pay their generals and they can’t fund the construction of these weapon systems.  And that is...

CARLSON:  But...

ROYCE:  Yes?  Go ahead.

CARLSON:  Well, you suggested a minute ago that that would—the cutting off of the hard currency into North Korea might cause the collapse of the regime.  And I wonder if we haven’t learned in Iraq that a bad regime is bad but chaos is worse.  And aren’t you flirting with potentially chaos in a country with nukes if that regime were to collapse?

ROYCE:  Tucker, you have a choice of how to approach this, but we cannot allow them to get a full arsenal of nuclear weapons with ICBMs.  And so, in order to stop it at this point, you want the least confrontational approach.  We don’t want military action there, but we want something that history shows will work. 

We know what will work from Reagan’s efforts on the east block in the former Soviet Union to implode it.  We needed cooperation.  We now have that from China. 

China has frozen all the bank accounts, the North Korean bank accounts, and seized the money.  We’re now getting that from the international community because nobody wants to see an arms race with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan all going nuclear.

CARLSON:  Right.

ROYCE:  Unfortunately, it took this action to get the level of cooperation necessary, but now that we’ve got the proliferation security initiative in place and we are checking every ship that comes in and out of North Korea, we are on a road to creating massive instability.  Now, you point out, well, what could happen inside the government?  What could happen is exactly what happened in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Russia, and that is what we want to have happen. 

CARLSON:  Well, that—that would be good.  What we don’t want to happen, of course, is Iraq. 

But I wonder—finally, Congressman, the one thing that nobody in the region wants is a nuclear armed Japan.  Japan and Korea, of course, historic enemies, going back a hundred years.

ROYCE:  Right.

CARLSON:  They are completely freaked out about this, understandably. 

ROYCE:  Sure.

CARLSON:  Would the United States step in and prevent Japan from building a nuclear weapon? 

ROYCE:  Japan is attempting right now to go along with us on this approach.  What they have just done is stopped all remittances, all money from North Koreans who live and work in Japan who for years transferred millions and millions of dollars back home. 

CARLSON:  Right.

ROYCE:  So they are going to attempt to work with us in order to change the situation inside the country.  In the meantime, we are broadcast in 24 hours a day now with defectors telling North Koreans what’s actually going on in their country, explaining that they are the poorest country on the planet and why the human rights violations are so egregious and why they need change. 

The generals are not going to get paid.  We need—we need to do this approach because we’ve got to used what has worked in the past.  And there isn’t any other good options other than imploding the regime. 

CARLSON:  It doesn’t sound like it.  I believe you—I believe you on that score.  No good options.

Congressman Royce, thanks very much for coming on and explaining that.

ROYCE:  Thank you.  Good to be with you.

CARLSON:  I appreciate it.


CARLSON:  At 10:36 Eastern Standard Time last night North Korea became only the ninth nation in world history to explode a nuclear weapon.  Nothing is good about this.  It threatens the United States, it threatens the world.  The question is, what exactly can we do about it?  What are our options at this point?  And do we have a military option?

Joining us to sort it out, MSNBC military analyst Jack Jacobs. 

Colonel Jacobs, thanks a lot for joining us. 


CARLSON:  Do—I mean, the obvious question, is there a military option for the United States? 

JACOBS:  Well, there are plenty of military options, but you have to ask the question, what are they for?  At the end of the day, you can’t conduct any military operation.  Indeed, no human endeavor should ever be conducted without first asking the question, what is it you are trying to accomplish?

I mean, we can turn North Korea, which is about, oh, twice the size of Florida, into a sheet of black glass, but I can tell you, quite honestly, that none of the other nations in northeast Asia, particularly China and Russia, are very much—and South Korea, too, are very much interested in our doing that.  So the use of the military instrument of power is very much restricted. 

We have conventional forces in the northern part of South Korea.  They are poised to defend if North Korea decides after 50 years to go and attack South Korea again.  But try to squeeze North Korea using military means, you have to first try to decide what it is you are trying to do before you start committing forces to do it. 

CARLSON:  Well, that, and—those are questions I wish would have been publicly debated at greater length before we went into Iraq.  A very good point.

Now, you don’t like to make a whole lot of subjective statements, but is this a failure of our foreign policy?  I tried to get the congressman to answer that question.  Tell me your take. 

JACOBS:  Yes, I think it is.  And I think it’s not confined only to this administration.  There—there has been a continuous failure in northeast Asia to address the problem.  And a lot of commentators, me included, were always very much more worried about Iran, for example, than in—than in North Korea.  But at the end of the day, we should have been paying more attention to it. 

Part of our problem is that we always—and we’re not alone.  Everybody elevated the discussion to rhetoric, to public rhetoric.  Public rhetoric never solves anything. 

I think Woodrow Wilson once said that what we really needed were public pacts publicly arrived at.  And he was dead wrong about that.  It’s the other way around.  And it was proved that he was dead wrong.

CARLSON:  Right.

JACOBS:  We need private pacts, secret negotiations, and then announce the results later on.  And none of us has done that.

CARLSON:  That is such a wise point.  And Wilson was proved, of course, very tragically wrong. 

Finally, what about Japan?  Japan has the most to lose in the region, or I think thinks it does.  If Japan decided with its new head of state that it wanted to pursue a nuclear weapon, rewrite its constitution, would we stop it?  Would we say, no, you may want do that? 

JACOBS:  Well, I think—I hope we do do that.  Your discussion with Ed Royce...

CARLSON:  He didn’t answer the question, but it’s a real concern, I think.

JACOBS:  Yes.  I think it’s—I think—I think we’re supposed to do that. 

You know, Japan is in a very difficult position.  I think one of the reasons that they are being vocal about it now and why we are concerned about their developing an enormous military capability is—is precisely because I think Japan does not trust the United States to commit our resources to defend it anymore.  So we had better be successful in northeast Asia with North Korea, otherwise we’re going to see more trouble with Japan, now headed by Abe, striving strenuously to develop its own capability to defend itself because they don’t trust us to defend them. 

CARLSON:  That’s just frightening.  If we allow that to happen we are negligent. 

JACOBS:  We are, indeed, if that happens.

CARLSON:  Colonel Jacobs, thank you very much for your wisdom. 

JACOBS:  You bet.

CARLSON:  Appreciate it.

Still to come, could the next great hope of the Republican Party be the last great hope of the Republican Party?  Newt Gingrich, why he may be poised for a return to power.

And the congressman who says he knew about Mark Foley’s page problem six years ago.  So why didn’t anybody stop Mark Foley? 

That story when we come back.


CARLSON:  Still to come, once you’ve got a nuclear bomb everybody knows your name.  Well, almost everybody.  One commentator’s troubles with Kim Jong-il’s name buys him a spot on “Beat the Press”.  You’ve got to see this when we come back.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more sordid, new developments in the Mark Foley page scandal.  The “Los Angeles Times” reports that a former page has come forward to say he had sex with Foley.  The page says he was 21 at the time. 

And “The Washington Post” says Congressman Jim Kolbe—he’s the openly gay Republican in Congress—knew about Foley’s X-rated e-mail exchanges with underage pages and he knew about them six years ago.  Kolbe claims he confronted Foley, apparently to no effect. 

Joining me now, the man who broke “The Post” story, Jonathan Weisman.  He’s that paper’s congressional correspondent.

Jonathan Weisman, thanks a lot for coming on. 

Your story shocked me when I read it, and I think everyone early this morning in D.C. who read your story was kind of blown away by it.  The Jim Kolbe... 

JONATHAN WEISMAN, “THE WASHINGTON POST”:  Wait a minute, you mean more than, like, the North Korea nuclear test?  Come on.

CARLSON:  Yes.  Well, I mean, you know, I live here.  So maybe so.

It was shocking to find out that—if I understood you story correctly—that Kolbe, Congressman Kolbe of Arizona, a Republican, saw not just suggestive e-mails, but sexual e-mails and didn’t report it to anybody. 

Is that right? 

WEISMAN:  Well, that’s how—that’s basically what we understand.  I mean, what happened was a page—or a former page got one of those wonderful IMs from—from, you know, Mr. Foley sizing him up, and he passed that on to Congressman Kolbe. 

Now, Kolbe has been kind of very close to the page program.  He’s a former page himself.  He—and a lot of pages saw him as something of a confidante.  So this former page went to Representative Kolbe, showed him this communication from Foley.  He then confronted Foley with it, and that was the last time that that page heard—or former page heard from—from Foley. 

But, that appears to be as far as Kolbe took it.  There is obviously no evidence that anybody took action against Foley at that time because his activities continued and continued with gusto for six more years. 

CARLSON:  Is that—so Kolbe says he confronted Foley. 


CARLSON:  Is there any evidence that he actually did, apart from his spokesman saying he did? 

WEISMAN:  Well, the source that first told me about this agreed, yes, that

that Foley was confronted about it by Kolbe and, yes, the correspondents from—you know, they—this former page had had one of those relationships that Foley developed with former pages, where they started off with these very lighthearted, “Hey, how are you doing?  Just trying to catch up with you.”  “Hey,” you know, “maybe you want to send me a picture or something.”

And then it had begun to develop into that sordid thing.  And that was when

the guy—the former page brought Kolbe the IM and said, hey, this is not

I do not like the direction this is going.  And the source that I first heard this from said, yes, it does look like Kolbe confronted Foley.

CARLSON:  But Kolbe, in effect, covered up for Foley because he didn’t take it to the speaker of the House, to the head of the page program, to the Capitol Hill Police.  I mean, he didn’t tell anybody in authority, it sounds like.

WEISMAN:  As far—as far as we know, that is true.  Now, Kolbe’s press secretary is saying that she still has not been able to reach Kolbe and to talk to him to find out if it went any further, but obviously the evidence is that it didn’t go further. 

I mean, frankly, if it—if it turns out that Kolbe passed this on to the House clerk or to the speaker or leadership, it will only make matters worse.  But as far as we know, no, it didn’t go any further than that. 

CARLSON:  You’ve also got in your story I thought the most remarkable detail in the whole piece, that Jim Kolbe was inviting pages, underage pages to stay at his house, too.  What the hell is that? 

WEISMAN:  Well, it was a delicate matter.  You know, we have—“The Washington Post” has this huge cache of instant messages that Foley sent to a couple of other former pages.  In one of the exchanges, one of the former pages talks about a reunion that they are going to be having in a few—in a few weeks in Washington, D.C., and said, “Hey, we actually have a free place to stay when we are back in Washington.  Representative Kolbe is letting us use his house.”

CARLSON:  Oh my god.  Come on.

WEISMAN:  Now, there are four of those pages.  One of the pages—former page that was going to be crashing at Kolbe’s house was one of Kolbe’s pages himself. 

Kolbe was not going to be in town.  This IM exchange makes it clear that Kolbe was not going to be there.  And Kolbe’s press secretary says, well, come on, it’s not that unusual.  Kolbe is out of town most weekends; he’s either in Tucson or he’s traveling, and it’s not unusual to open his house. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Well, we’re—unfortunately, Jonathan, we’re out of time.  But let me just say for the record, it’s unusual.  Members of Congress having under age boys stay at their house, I mean, you know, I don’t have any pages at my house.

I think it’s unusual.  But I hope you—I hope you keep track of this story. 

WEISMAN:  We’re pursuing it.

CARLSON:  Thank you.  And thanks for coming on.

WEISMAN:  Thanks.

CARLSON:  Coming up, only in America.  A group of illegal immigrants is suing Wendy’s for firing them for being here illegally, if you follow that.  Their lawyer explains.

And nothing says crisis counseling like a lively round of bingo.  That’s FEMA’s position, anyway.  Why the agency is spending your tax dollars on hurricane bingo.

That story when we come back.


CARLSON:  Time now for “Beat the Press”.

John Mark Karr—he’s the guy who sort of confessed to killing JonBenet Ramsey recently—was stopped by police on Friday when he was caught peering into the window of a girls school in San Francisco.  None of that is very surprising.  What is a little strange is that Karr was riding around in a limousine with two “Good Morning America” producers at the time.

According to ABC News, it was all part of an aborted interview.  “Karr’s behavior gave us serious pause, and ABC decided not to go proceed with the interview.”

His behavior at the San Francisco’s girls school gave ABC “serious pause”.  They got the impression that possibly there was something a little bit off about Mr. Karr, something a little odd.  Maybe he’s kind of a weird guy. 

It wasn’t when he was bragging about being in the room when JonBenet Ramsey was killed or the fact that he moved to Bangkok to get castrated and become a woman.  It was that he was looking into a window at a girls school.  That’s when they clued into the fact that there was something a little amiss about this guy.  His behavior gave them pause. 

Those news people always the last to know. 

Next up, radio personality and MSNBC regular Armstrong Williams.  On Friday, Williams showed that while he may know something about politics, he is not necessarily a foreign policy whiz.  Watch.


ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, RADIO PERSONALITY:  North Korea is a poor country.  John Kil (sic) -- Jon Kim-il (sic) -- and he’s very ill, by the way, is using that regime.  That regime is in place.  Jon Kim-young (sic) has starved his people.  He dried the land of its financial and natural resources.  He’s used it to build his—his tactical regime. 


CARLSON:  The best, though, is the response of the guy who is on with him.  He’s almost like a dog and hearing a dog whistle.  He kind of turns like, what?  Jon-Kim huh?

And finally, we learned over the weekend that we are not the only ones who are amused by Nancy Grace.  She caught the eyes of the writers over at “Saturday Night Live,” apparently.  And from the looks of it, they’ve got her down pretty well.

Watch this.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Here at the show we have done extensive research and we’ve noticed that all these online predator cases have one thing in common: computers. 


Joining us from Microsoft is customer representative Bethany Blake (ph). 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Thank you for calling customer support.  My name is Bethany (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  Bethany (ph), how do you sleep at night working for a company that provides the tools to the pedophilia industry? 


CARLSON:  That’s actually so close to real life, is it a parody or is it real?  Hard to tell. 

Still to come, North Korea joins the nuclear club.  Can the White House do anything to keep that country from using the bomb?

And being a kid is not child’s play anymore.  In some places, why some parents are getting the blame for overstressing their children.

That story when we come back.


CARLSON:  Still to come, the battered Republican  Party turns to an unlikely savior but can Newt Gingrich rescue the GOP?  Some think yes.  And why FEMA is spending your tax  dollars on hurricane bingo and salsa for seniors.  We’re not even making that up.  All that in just a moment.  But right now, here’s a look at your headlines.

MARGARET BRENNAN, CNBC ANCHOR:  I’m Margaret Brennan with your CNBC market wrap. The Dow briefly hitting an all-time high today as investors shrug off developments in North Korea, while oil prices slipped below $60 a barrel as OPEC put off a definitive announcement on whether it will cut production.  The Dow closed up over seven points, the S&P 500 up just one point, the NASDAQ up just short of 12. 

The NASDAQ did get a boost today from confirmed reports that Google is buying Youtube in an all stock acquisition deal for a reported $1.6 billion.  Youtube also announcing content sharing deals with CBS, Universal Music and Sony BMG.  Target stores reportedly warning big movie studios to rethink pricing for DVDs and movie downloads.  Target is concerned cheaper downloads will hurt in store DVD sales and is pushing for equal pricing.  The billionaire family that controls cablevision wants to go private.  The Dolan family offering to buy out public shareholders for $27 a share, or $7.9 billion total.  The Dolans also control Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall.  Now, back to Tucker.  

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.  Joining us from Sacramento, California, radio talk show host Mark Williams and from Washington, D.C. Democratic Strategist Victor Kamber.  Welcome both.  Republicans remain on the defensive of course as the fallout  continues. And it does continue for the Mark Foley scandal.  The GOP is having trouble focusing on campaign themes in advance of the upcoming midterm elections.  How bad is it? The latest “Newsweek” poll shows that 53 percent of Americans want Democrats to win control of Congress.  That’s compared to just 35 percent in favor of Republicans.  But that does not even tell the whole story as far as I’m concerned Mark.  Listen to this.  This is the “Newsweek” poll.  For the first time since 2001 it said, more Americans trust the Democratic Party than trust the Republican Party on moral values and the war on terror.  So if you are favoring Democrats on moral values and the war on terror, it’s over. 

MARK WILLIAMS, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST:  Considering that the Democrats pioneered keep the perverts in Congress with Ted Kennedy and Jerry Studds.

CARLSON:  Exactly, you know that’s exactly right. 

WILLIAMS:  The good news for the Republicans is that at least in the back of his mind somewhere, maybe in his brain stub, Foley had the shred of integrity to step down and after the initial hey we have to cover this up, the party’s coming around to investigate.  No, the Republicans, they have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.  Conservatives and people like me, I’m just a - I’m a pudgy middle aged white guy with a mortgage.  That’s how I approach things.  I look at these guys and I go, you have to be out of your mind.  What is wrong with you people?  Bad enough this kind of thing happens, but then to try to cover it up.  The good news is instead of defiantly saying, he went after pages but he is going to keep his seat, his personal life has nothing to do with it.  He’s been—he’s now a pariah and that’s the way that it should be.  I think the Republicans will recover from this.

CARLSON:  Well I agree with the first part of that, I’m not sure that they’re going to recover.  Vick Camber, you’ve heard Democrats, a couple of them, including James Carvill say, you know, if Democrats don’t basically run the table this election cycle, it is time to give up, it’s time to just go home and declare the party bankrupt.  Because the conditions are so perfect for a Democratic sweep right now that if they don’t pull it off they are pathetic.  

VICTOR KAMBER, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST:  Well number one Tucker I think we will pull it off for a lot of reasons beyond Mark Foley including conditions in Iraq, including terrorism and how we are not more protected today.  I can go on - and including George Bush.  But dealing with Mark Foley and the soundbite that Mark just gave, you know, to blame Democrats for whatever happened before, they got their comeuppance in the 94 election for a lot of reasons.  We’re now at a point in time where Republicans will get their comeuppance.  Mark Foley didn’t go pleasantly into the night quietly with integrity or decency.  He went out because he knew what was coming and now we’re finding out that a lot of people knew about Mark Foley and his actions for a  long time before that Friday night.  And the question is was it incompetence on their part for not doing something or a real cover up. 

CARLSON:  Wait, wait, far be it for me to defend Mark Foley, but you know I have been in Washington long enough to know, throughout the 90’s, that actually he could have stayed. And he could have said, look, I didn’t have sex with anybody underage and I said some unattractive things via text message but I said them to a willing participant.  I forced my views on nobody.  This was all consensual and none of it is illegal.  It’s my personal life, if you don’t like it, you’re a gay basher, back off.  He could have said that.  

KAMBER:  Tucker he could have said that.  He is a Republican and that does not play well in the Republican Party. 

WILLIAMS:  That’s because the Republicans have the moral ground, the Democrats don’t have the moral standing.

KAMBER:  That is because their bigots.  Because they are bigots.  At least—the point is Foley went and those who tried to cover up very well will likely go as well. 

CARLSON:  Vick, Vick -

WILLIAMS:  Kennedy and Barney Frank are still there.

CARLSON:  Wait a second I just heard you say Vick -

KAMBER:  The voters put Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank back, not the Congress.

CARLSON:  You’re absolutely right.  It would be interesting to see if

Foley had stuck it out could he have been reelected.  I doubt it, but -

WILLIAMS:  Tucker I’m not suggesting -

CARLSON:  You just said a second ago, the reason - is because his party is full of bigots, what does that mean?

KAMBER:  No, I’m saying to you, that if Mark Foley had been honest from the beginning the voters in his district well may have put him in office.  The fact that he stepped down right now is he stepped down because he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar so to speak in this sense.  And he stepped down because he was about to be exposed. 

WILLIAMS:  But he stepped down.  Look at Bill Clinton, at least he stepped down, that’s my point.  And don’t take that as I’m happy with the Republican response to this.  I am disgusted with the Republican response up to this point.  They are just getting their act together to deal with this.  The alternative is the Democrats.  Not a viable alternative.

CARLSON:  Well here is an issue that I think actually does matter, maybe even more than Mark Foley and its North Korea becoming the ninth nation in world history to display a nuclear weapon.  There was a nuclear weapons test of course last night.  10:30 eastern time and the world is angry.  President Bush demanding an immediate response by the U.N. Security Council and he has called the nuclear test, “A provocative act.”  Even though the president warned the U.S. would ot tolerate a nuclear North Korea, we are tolerating a nuclear North Korea because Mark the truth is, we can’t do anything about it.  I am just beginning to think, though I don’t have any sort of plan for what we should have done, you have to consider this a failure of  American foreign policy that the North Koreans have detonated a nuclear weapon.  

WILLIAMS:  Oh absolutely.  I wonder though if this is enough evidence of WMD for guys like John  Kerry.  Where do we go from here and what about the crocodile tears being shed by countries like China who is the reason North Korea has got this far. 

CARLSON:  So what should we do.  I mean what should—if Kerry were a responsible senator what would be his recommendation for going forward, how should we respond? 

WILLIAMS:  Tucker its more a matter of what we should have done.  The fact is that they have the bomb now, we have to live with the fact North Korea has the bomb.  Short of going in and overthrowing Kim Jong-Mentally Il, and doing something about that country.  We’re a little busy in other parts of the world doing that right now.  I’m afraid we’re stuck with this guy for the time being and just hope to God he doesn’t use it for anything more than blackmail.

CARLSON:  Vick Kamber, what’s the Democratic response going to be beyond you screwed up, you should have done something different. I mean what are responsible senators going to call on the president to do from here on out?

KAMBER:  Before I answer though let me just go back one second.  I mean how we got into John Kerry making a decision.  The president has been there for six years, this is the foreign policy of a Republican administration, a Republican state department, it’s ludicrous to suggest John Kerry or Howard Dean or Nancy Pelosi or anybody.  To answer your question specifically we need to put sanctions or work with world leaders to deal with economic as well as military sanctions, we need to put pressure on South Korea and China who are the biggest partners who trade with North Korea to try to get them to come to the table.  And we probably should be dealing—and this is going to sound ludicrous to some of you, we need to be dealing with incentives as well as disincentives if we are expecting North Korea to actually listen.  

WILLIAMS:  Ah, yes, the failed Clinton policy, let’s bring that back, that worked so well the first time around.  

KAMBER:  Always Clinton.  I mean dandruff is Clinton’s problem, what isn’t Clinton’s problem according to Republicans?  But Bush - this is on Bush’s watch.

WILLIAMS:  President Clinton was the guy who said, hey, we’ll give you all of this oil and all of this money if you don’t build a bomb.  And then the guy builds a bomb any way.  I can’t help it if that was Clinton.  This is a multiadministration failure of both parties of the House, both major branches of government, legislative and executive.  This guy shouldn’t be anywhere close to having a nuclear weapon.  Somebody should have put a bullet in his brain years ago. 

CARLSON:  Well it turns out force has its limits as we are learning in Iraq sadly day-by-day.  The independent commission now called the Iraq Study Group is issuing a report that may recommend splitting that country into three atonimous regions.  The Kurdish of course in the north, Sunni in the center, Shiite in the south.  That group is headed by former secretary of state James Baker who served under the previous President Bush was set up by congress with the approval of President Bush.  Is it really possible to do what this panel may recommend though and divide that country into three separate regions?  Mark Williams, it makes sense to me.  Kurdistan already exists as its own country, we should probably just go ahead and recognize reality there.  But this is so contrary to the original aims in Iraq.  Our aim was to make it a unified Democratic peaceful stable country.  That hasn’t happened, I don’t think it’s going to happen.  Can the Bush administration get behind this recommendation without sort of conceding that it’s been really wrong all along?

WILLIAMS:  Well, changing our goals and changing our tactics as a result of the situation on the ground is hardly something to say ooh, we can’t do that because somebody might think we’re changing our minds.  You have to adapt.  Some of us have been saying it should have been split into three right from the beginning but we have two major problems here, challenges.  Everyone in the Turks would like a word with us about the Kurds if they get their own country or atonimous region. 

CARLSON:  That’s right.

WILLIAMS:  And the other is more than 50 percent of the Iraqi population is concentrated in four cities and at least three of those cities are extremely diverse and extremely mixed.  This is something the Iraqis themselves have to sit down and decide they’re going to be civilized and stop killing each other.  And all we can do is stand around and keep the outside influences from getting in and trying to stir it up.

CARLSON:  The Iraqis themselves to have to decide they’re civilized, Vick Kamber they seem a long way from deciding that.  They don’t seem civilized, they’re not behaving as civilized people behave.  I wonder why should we continue to play along with this charade that the Iraqi people somehow deserve the freedom to make their own decisions.  Their own decisions have been consistently bad, maybe we should just step in and sort of make those decisions for the Iraqi people.  

KAMBER:  I don’t know how much more we can step in than we have already done.  And while this commission idea if it really does surface is a great academic study and would be a great debate on a college campus, I’m not sure the practical, you said it earlier, I’m not sure how you - Mark said it correctly also.  With four cities having 53 percent of the populous of Iraq, three of those cities well-mixed, I’m not sure how you would do it except that you would be looking at civil war.  If we want as an excuse to leave -- 

CARLSON:  I mean there’s a civil war in progress. 

KAMBER:  If we want as an excuse to leave Iraq without pulling out and without backing away, this policy may make sense but all we would be doing is leaving Iraq to kill each other. 

WILLIAMS:  Tucker I think it is a mistake too to blame the Iraqis for not coming up to speed on the—acting as a civilized country quick enough.  Don’t forget, these people have never, ever been in a position of making their own decisions about their own country, about their own society.  

CARLSON:  Yeah, but why is that?  Maybe a form of government is an outgrowth of the culture over which it presides.  I mean, in other words, people kind of get the forms of government they want in some deep way.  Sorry to blame the victim and I know that all the neocon types are going to be, you know that’s so mean to say that, but there is some truth in that, actually.  

WILLIAMS:  There’s a great deal of truth but don’t forget where these people come from.  You have a bunch of tribal societies that were primarily nomadic, thrown together by colonial powers and then held together by a dictator. And all of a sudden the dictator is gone, the grown up is out of the room, all of this freedom is whipped on these people, they’re not prepared for it.  I had to go back and reread future shock to get some insight into what’s going on over there.  These people have found themselves thrust from seventh century culture into the 21st century overnight.  They need all the help they can possibly get.

CARLSON:  I had more sympathy before they killed more than 3,000 Americans.  Now I guess my sympathy is totally dried up.  Not to be mean. 

Thank you both very much.  Vick, Mark, I appreciate it

Coming up, a story you have to see to believe.  Illegal aliens suing Wendy’s for firing them because they are here illegally.  Amazing.  And do parents really need to be told that playtime is good for kids? Apparently they do need to be told that.  Why doctors are prescribing play for stressed out children, if you can believe it.  That story when we come back.


CARLSON:  Still to come after a hurricane nothing takes the edge off like a good game of bingo.  That’s according to FEMA.  Why the agency is spending your tax dollars on bingo, puppet shows and salsa for seniors.  That story when we come back.


CARLSON:  Time for a look at today’s stories I just don’t get.  First, how FEMA scored a category five on tax dollar waste.  You’re watching an example of your tax dollars at work.  This is how relief workers in Florida claim to be helping hurricane victims.  The program called “Project Hope” operates with more than $22 million from FEMA’s coffers.  It employs some 450 workers across that state, who spend much of their time organizing bingo games, puppet shows and yoga lessons for residents.  Regardless of whether they have been in crisis or even been through a hurricane.  Project Hope directors insist that providing stress relief to thousands of Floridians suffering from post storm trauma.  Nevertheless, one Florida senator is calling for an investigation of Project Hope’s spending practices.  And he should.  This is on one level a classic example of government out of control wasting your money.  But on another there is a deeper assumption that I don’t think we have taken the time to think through.  And that is that everybody who has been through an unpleasant experience, everybody who has seen something ugly, who has suffered, somehow needs or deserves counseling.  Deserves to talk it through with some stranger to feel better because he has some sort of syndrome as a result.  Most people who go through tragedies, natural disasters, who suffer, get along just fine without government help.  Counseling, please.  Next, a perfect prescription for happier, healthier children.  


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It’s the freedom of just running, running and jumping just like kids naturally do. 


CARLSON:  This parent says forget the so-called get smart videos and the pre-kindergarten classes and the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees.  Because the secret to raising intelligent carefree kids might be good old fashioned play time. Whether it’s as simple as a romp through the park or playing with dolls and blocks, this is just what the doctor ordered.  Researchers say modern day pressures to create superkids can lead to depression, obesity and stress, not just for the kids but for their parents too.  Of course.  Listen up you latte quaffing yuppie dorks.  Those of you who are sending your kids off to mandarin lessons at age three, lighten up, it’s bad for the kids.  Most normal people don’t need to be told that.  You apparently do.  Take a deep breath, your child doesn’t have to get into Harvard until he’s 18, not when he’s six.  Relax.  Let him play.  Well next a group of illegal aliens begs the American legal system to hear their case.  


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Why not help them when you are able to? And I think that that’s really what the issue is here is the lack of consideration, the lack of support that they got from their employer. They were in essence giving their employer everything that they could.  


CARLSON:  Fernando Mateo, president of Hispanics Across America thinks illegal aliens ought to be allowed to sue their American employers.  His argument stems in part from (INAUDIBLE) but in part from a lawsuit filed against the Wendy’s hamburger chain by a group of former employees.  All of whom are in this country illegally.  They’ve snuck in.  Wendy’s was forced to fire these workers after the company missed a deadline to apply for a federal program that would have helped that group obtain legal status here.  A spokesman for Wendy’s admits that company may have slipped up but said there is no getting around the law.  The law of course is federal law that says you can’t hire illegal aliens.  Sorry, it’s not allowed, it’s against the law.  So if you are following the law, doing what the law requires and you are somehow sued by a group of people who has no standing to be in this country in the first place and a judge takes it seriously, sufficient that it stays in court, that is all a sign that your country is crumbling even as you watch.  It’s all falling apart ladies and gentlemen if that’s allowed.  Truly.

Well if you think that lawsuit is crazy, stay tuned.  We will talk to the lawyer who is representing those illegal aliens.  He’s on when we return.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Before the break we told you about a group of illegal aliens who are suing Wendy’s.  The company fired them after it missed a deadline for a federal program that would have helped them become legal U.S. citizens.  But whose to blame?  The company or the workers who came here illegally in the first place?  Stan Broome joins us from Dallas, his firm Howie, Broome & Bobbo is representing the immigrants.  Mr. Broome, thanks a lot for  joining us.  How is it exactly - by the way, Howie, Broome & Bobbo.  Is that really the name of your firm? 

STAN BROOME, ATTORNEY SUING WENDY’S:  That’s really the name of the firm Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Outstanding.  Is it my imagination or is this kind of the definition of hutzpah. 


CARLSON:  You sneak into a country, an employer gives you a job, then is forced by federal law to fire you because you are illegal and you sue? I mean that’s hutzpah.  

BROOME:  Unfortunately, you’re wrong on your facts Tucker.  The problem is  that you can’t distinguish between illegal immigration and legal immigration which I hope you would agree has made this a wonderful country and a better country.  My clients did everything that Congress asked them to do to become legal citizens and permanent residents of this country and but for the fact that a Wendy’s company and the lawyers that they hired missed a filing deadline, right now today they would be as legally in this country as you and I.  

CARLSON:  Wait, what do you mean, talk about spin.  What do you mean they did everything congress asked them to do? Did they come in legally, did they wait in a line for three years outside the consulate in some foreign country? No. They snuck in, didn’t they?

BROOME:  Congress decided that they could become part of an employer sponsored way, a method to become a legal resident of this country.  And that’s what they took advantage of.  

CARLSON:  You dodged my question though, did they sneak into this country illegally or not? 

BROOME:  I did not. All of my clients entered this country under different—various different means.  But what they have in common is the fact that they took advantage of a government process that allowed them to fill out an application to pay their money and to become legal, legally residing in this country.  And the only reason that they are not right now as legally in this country as you and I is because a Wendy’s company and the lawyers they hired simply missed a filing deadline.  If they had received the paperwork and processed it the way that they were supposed to, they would all be here as legally as you and I would. 

CARLSON:  I got that and I put that in the opening script.  Our viewers are fully aware of that.  It doesn’t change anything though.  The implication what you’re saying is that Wendy’s somehow has an obligation, a moral and apparently a legal obligation to help illegals who sneak into this country illegally, become citizens.  How does that work exactly?

BROOME:  I did not say that.  What I said is, Wendy’s decided voluntarily, and it was actually a Wendy’s company called Cafe Express decided voluntarily that they would go to their employees and they would sponsor them to become residents of this country.  


BROOME:  Once they took on that duty themselves, they had a duty to do it correctly and they missed the deadline.  

CARLSON:  They have a duty to illegal aliens to make them legal citizens.  

BROOME:  A duty to their workers.  

CARLSON:  That’s Wendy’s duty?

BROOME:  A duty to their workers.

CARLSON:  To illegal alien workers. 

BROOME:  These were workers that Wendy’s was benefiting from their work every day and they decided to sponsor them.  The company decided to sponsor them and once the company took that duty on they should have done it correctly. And when you hire a lawyer, don’t you expect him not to miss a deadline? 

CARLSON:  You know if I sneak into somebody else’s country and get all the benefits of it and really in the end pose a burden to that country, it’s hard to imagine suing an employer in that country for not making me a legal citizen. But quickly, how much are you asking, how much does Wendy’s owe these people? 

BROOME:  That’s a question for the jury to decide.  But let me pose the question to you.  How much is your U.S. citizenship worth, how is your U.S. citizenship worth to you. 

CARLSON:  They are not U.S. citizens.  

BROOME:  I’ll answer it this way.  I’ll tell you this, my U.S.

citizenship is worth a lot to me and if I lived in this country for five

years, which my clients did and I woke up one day and someone knocked on my

door and told me that I was not going to be a U.S. citizen any more -

CARLSON:  If you want to come here legally, you should wait in line like everyone else.

BROOME:  Which they did.

CARLSON:  No they didn’t, they snuck in.  You’re out of time.  I promised I would convince you, but we’re out of time.  Thank you. I appreciate your joining us. That’s our show for the day.  Thanks for watching, “HARDBALL” with Chris, right now.

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