updated 10/16/2006 1:53:23 PM ET 2006-10-16T17:53:23

Guests: James Towey, Christopher Hitchens, Pat Campbell, Alex Bennett, Georgia Gosslee

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

We‘ve got a lot to get to today, including the controversial video YouTube apparently doesn‘t want you to see.  And why Dick Cheney could be the last great hope of the Republican Party.  No kidding.

But first our top story of the day, the president and the religious right.  For six years conservative evangelicals have looked to—looked to have had an all-access pass to the White House. 

But according to a former White House aide, even as they embraced religious conservatives, President Bush‘s top advisers ridiculed them behind their backs. 

The charges come from “Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction” by David Duo.  My first guest says that the author, quote, “He doesn‘t seem to have been working at the same White House where I worked.” 

Here now, James Towey, one-time director of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and former David Kuo‘s boss.  He joins us from Latrobe, Pennsylvania. 

Thank you so much for joining us, Mr. Towey.  Why do you suppose...


Great to be with you, Tucker. 

T. CARLSON:  You know the author of this book.  Why do you suppose he would write things that were untrue?

TOWEY:  I think a lot of us are surprised and puzzled by it, because when you look at his letter of resignation, when you look at what he said when he left the White House he talked about the president‘s support and commitment and the success of it, and he talked about the integrity and honesty of the people with which—with whom he worked. 

So I think a lot of us are surprised and puzzled by what‘s coming out in the book, because it‘s exactly opposite of what he was saying when he left. 

T. CARLSON:  So you think he‘s lying?

TOWEY:  That‘s between him and God what David is doing.  And I‘m sure that he has strong opinions about the initiative and about the poor.  I‘m simply pointing out that when you look at what he said when he left and what I‘m hearing now, it‘s left a lot of us that worked with him confused. 

T. CARLSON:  His—one of the points in his book appears to be that the staff at the White House overseeing religious initiatives was much more secular than the people they were working with in the evangelical community, and that they had secretly, privately contempt for evangelicals.  You never sensed that?

TOWEY:  Never.  I mean, maybe there was some low-level staff that would roll their eyes when someone came by, but in the White House, from the president on down, there was a profound respect for the religious leadership of our country, people of different denominations and faiths.  And I never saw that.  And I met with all of those leaders, and that was my job. 

T. CARLSON:  There is a feeling—I‘m sorry?  I beg your pardon?

TOWEY:  I was just saying that‘s why a lot of us are surprised. 

Because you know, Mike Gerson (ph) -- there are some wonderful people I worked with at the White House and none of us make sense of the suggestion that people have anything but the highest respect for the evangelical community and for the leadership of other faiths. 

I mean, President Bush set the tone, and he wouldn‘t have tolerated any disrespect. 

T. CARLSON:  Boy, I‘ve been around political people on both sides my

whole adult life, and all of them have contempt for evangelicals, so far as

I can tell.  All the Republican political consultants I know have pure

contempt for evangelicals.  But they know the party needs them, but their -

they themselves are secular, completely, utterly secular.  You‘re not seeing that phenomenon?

TOWEY:  Well, I mean, I start with myself.  I went to mass every morning. 


TOWEY:  There are a lot of people there that were serving the president that also felt they were following the commitment to their own faith, Jewish, Christian, Catholic, different denominations. 

So no, I don‘t—I think the idea that somehow there‘s this horde of secular employees with disdain for the evangelical community and others is just not anything I experienced when I worked there. 

T. CARLSON:  I wonder why, though—I mean, many sincere evangelicals voted for the president, because they thought he would get their agenda enacted into law.  At the very top of that agenda, you know, is curbing abortion.  And it‘s not clear to me what exactly the president has done to lower the number of abortions in this country.  So he has failed them, hasn‘t he?

TOWEY:  No.  He hasn‘t failed them.  He‘s kept his word.  When you look at what he‘s done on embryonic stem cell, when you look at the positions he‘s taken on abortion, the president has been a real advocate for a culture of life. 

And his compassionate initiative, the faith-based initiative, made steady progress in the face of a lot of efforts to derail it by people preaching a secular orthodoxy.  So I think President Bush can be proud of what he‘s done in the culture of life, and that‘s why the evangelical community continues to support him. 

T. CARLSON:  Boy, I guess I, with all due respect, couldn‘t disagree with you more.  There‘s a big pro-life march on the Mall every year.  I don‘t think this president has ever addressed it in person.  Has he?  And why not?

TOWEY:  He hasn‘t addressed it in person, but he‘s addressed it every time.  And if you talk to Chuck Colson and Rick Warren and—and Dr.  Dobson, they may have disagreements with the president, but none of them regrets their support for President Bush.  That was my experience. 

T. CARLSON:  OK.  I understand that.  I‘m not attacking Bush as a man.  I‘m not saying he‘s insincere in his faith, and I‘m not saying that he‘s worse than the Democrat would be.  Of course, he‘s more pro-life than John Kerry, who is aggressively for legal abortion.  My only point is, he hasn‘t done a lot. 

And I actually don‘t understand why he doesn‘t address—if he‘s such a pro-lifer, why doesn‘t he step outside the White House, you know, walk the 10 blocks or drive, to address the pro-life march in person?  He doesn‘t, as you know, because he doesn‘t want to alienate pro-choicers.

TOWEY:  I think there‘s plenty of pro-choicers that are out there trying to oppose everything that the president does.  The reality is, I went with him to the National Religious Broadcasters Event.  He went to a lot of events where he very clearly stated his views on abortion, and he addressed the pro-life rally. 

And when you went to the Knights of Columbus gathering in August of 2004, there he was talking about his pro-life position.  The president wasn‘t at all hiding from his views.  And I think that‘s one of the attractions to President Bush, is that he stands by what he believes in. 

T. CARLSON:  But he has not made, really, from day one, he—I don‘t believe he‘s ever said, actually, that he would like to see Roe v. Wade undone any time soon, has he?

TOWEY:  Well, look at the—look at the justices that he‘s appointed.  I think he‘s made clear in that whole appointment process that he was looking for individuals that would interpret the Constitution. 

And I think President Bush has also, with his faith-based initiative, delivered what he promised to do: end discrimination against these small faith-based armies of compassion that are doing so much great in our country that were singled out and discriminated against in years past. 

So you know, maybe he hasn‘t succeed in every initiative, but you can certainly see the president‘s persevered.  And I was proud to work for him, actually. 

T. CARLSON:  Look, again, I‘m not saying you shouldn‘t be proud to have worked for him.  I‘m merely saying, you know, when you try to appoint Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, you obviously don‘t care about overturning Roe v. Wade.  That‘s a pretty clear signal.  He tried to do it.  He was stopped by actual conservatives, but that‘s what he wanted to do.

TOWEY:  No, I mean, that‘s your interpretation.  I know Harriet Miers and admire her.  And—and I think she would have strictly followed the Constitution. 

And I think when you look at his appointments, look who‘s on the bench today, the court looks a lot different from when he took office.  And he—and he campaigned that way, and judge—you know, judge him by his record.

And I think when you look at his relationships with the Catholic bishops and the evangelical leaders, they may disagree with him on some points, but I think he‘s been very upfront in his agenda, and a lot of it, his pro-life efforts to sustain a culture of life, has succeeded. 

T. CARLSON:  One of the most potentially damaging claims that this book makes, Mr. Kuo‘s book, is that the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives essentially coordinated with the political arm of the Republican Party and became a kind of “get out the vote” operation, targeting battleground states in the last election cycle to sort of get out religious leaders in time to get them behind President Bush‘s reelection and Republican campaigns. 

How do you respond to that?

TOWEY:  Tucker, it‘s not true.  President Bush gave me clear marching orders to make sure the faith-based initiative was not politicized. 

Now look, as a Democrat on senior staff, I went in three with my eyes wide open knowing that both Republicans and Democrats would try to make political hay of the initiative.  But I tried to focus on the poor.

And when you look at the record, I went to more Democrat districts than Republican ones.  I had more public meetings with Democrat officials than Republican ones.  In 2002, I was at a round table with Senator Landrieu, who was in a tight race in Louisiana.  So I made the decisions on where I was going to meet, and if I get invited I‘d go.  And that‘s what I did. 

T. CARLSON:  All right.

TOWEY:  And the record is clear that—ask Harold ford.  I went to his district.  Tom Daschle, I met with him in 2002, and the meeting was over, he had the South Dakota press right there. 

T. CARLSON:  Right.

TOWEY:  So there were a lot of people trying to make political hay.  And I‘m sure in the White House, some of the people that work on the political side were trying to make—derive a political benefit.  But my job was to focus on the poor and on keeping the politics out of the initiative, and I felt like we did a good job. 

T. CARLSON:  All right.

TOWEY:  I‘m sorry David disagrees. 

T. CARLSON:  Apparently he does.  James Towey, thanks a lot for coming on.  I appreciate it. 

TOWEY:  My pleasure, Tucker.  Thank you. 

T. CARLSON:  Still to come, the Democrats‘ campaigner in chief comes out swinging.  Why Bill Clinton says his party is simultaneously the liberal and the conservative party in this country.  What is he talking about?  Does he even know?

And calls for Great Britain to pull its truths troops out of Iraq.  Is it the death of the coalition?  And has the president lost his last international ally?  That story when we come back.


T. CARLSON:  Still to come, our “Beat the Press” clip of the week.  And this week, there was no contest at all.  See it for yourself.  We‘ll be right back.


T. CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Are coalition troops in Iraq actually making the country less safe?  That is the charge from many, including, apparently Britain‘s new army commander, who said Thursday that his country‘s troops should get out of Iraq, quote, “soon.”  Today he backed down a bit, insisting he meant a phased withdrawal over two or three years.  That‘s what he meant by soon.

Are these remarks a sign the U.S. could lose its last ally there?

Joining me now with answers, a man who is an expert on both Britain and Iraq, Christopher Hitchens of “Vanity Fair” magazine.

Christopher, thanks for coming on.  What does this mean?

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, “VANITY FAIR”:  Nice of you to say that about my international expertise.  Shall we agree on what his name is and how it‘s pronounced before we start?


HITCHENS:  Is it Dan-at (ph) or Da-knot (ph)?

T. CARLSON:  Let‘s go with Da-knot (ph). 

HITCHENS:  That would be more Norman English, more noble perhaps. 


T. CARLSON:  I‘m for it.

HITCHENS:  Well, what he says means literally nothing.  I mean, those who want a scuttle from Iraq have already got many more distinguished advocates than him, some of them military and ex-military. 

He hasn‘t even found a way of phrasing it in a—in a new fashion, except for saying, which is original, I suppose, that it threatens the Judeo-Christian character of the United Kingdom.  This is not something we pay our general stock officers to comment on, as a general thing.

T. CARLSON:  I‘m not even sure what that means.

HITCHENS:  In other respects, he takes the same opinion as does that great non- -- great non-Judeo-Christian Muqtada al-Sadr, who also calls for a withdrawal of the coalition portions at some time in the future. 

He doesn‘t demand immediate withdrawal, nor do his members of the Iraqi parliament.  He calls for a withdrawal to be determined at a certain date. 

By the way, I wish the Iraqi parliament had more power than it does.  It has more power than any college (ph) in Iraq has ever had.  But in Britain it would be parliament and the prime minister and the cabinet between them who decided what military policy was, and not some general. 

T. CARLSON:  Don‘t you get the feeling—well, this guy‘s not just some general.  I mean, you know, he seems more than that. 

HITCHENS:  Very well.  Not any general then. 

T. CARLSON:  Do you get the feeling, though, that Tony Blair may be

the only person on the entire island who supports the war in Iraq?  You get

at least from this vantage, you get that.

HITCHENS:  Unless I—unless I happen to be in England, as I was until yesterday. 

T. CARLSON:  OK.  Then the both of you. 

HITCHENS:  That‘s very—that would be—and William Showcross (ph)...


HITCHENS:  ... and a couple of others.  We‘ve recently learned from the diaries of the cabinet minister, Mr. Blair, David Blunkett, quite a senior minister, the opinion, at least of Mr. Blunkett.

And it‘s possible, too, that Mr. Brown‘s—excuse me, Mr. Blair‘s evident successor, Mr. Brown, was on the verge of being fired unless he came onboard about Iraq. 

And I suppose what‘s interesting about the timing of this—this latest military intervention and the argument is that it—it‘s conditioned on and conditioned by, as well, the realization that Mr.  Blair‘s time in office is coming to an end. 

T. CARLSON:  Well, and what about that?  I mean, at that point, will there be any desire at all on the part of anybody in charge of anything in Great Britain to keep British troops in Iraq?


T. CARLSON:  Won‘t the pull-out be immediate at that point?

HITCHENS:  It will be, as you say, an abandoned position politically. 

And the only question is how to avoid it making—how to avoid making it look—I‘m sorry to keep stumbling—how to avoid making it looks as if it was a scuttle. 

T. CARLSON:  Right.

HITCHENS:  That‘s presumably why this—why Mr. Dannat, General Dannat backpedaled as he did. 

Then of course, it would be a phased withdrawal.  But they always say that.  That used to be, in wartime parlance, when the British army had had to run away from somewhere, such as Dunkirk or—or Terbrook (ph), they would always say it was a strategic withdrawal to prepared positions.  That‘s simply military parlance for abandoning an operation. 

T. CARLSON:  Right.  Of course.  But this is—I mean, this is inevitable, is it not?  It‘s going to happen?  The United States must be factoring in the inevitability of this.  This is really news from nowhere, isn‘t it?  I mean, we‘re going to be alone in Iraq sooner rather than later?

HITCHENS:  No.  I think it‘s been noticed that a number of those who have been very strong in support for President Bush were leaving office or about to do so. 

Surely, that‘s Mr. Berlusconi, Mr. Bush.  The change in power in Japan doesn‘t seem to have had quite that effect, though the political support will be stronger than the presence of Japanese forces in Iraq. 

Yes, look, you‘re generally right.  Those who want to leave Iraq to its own devices and who always did want that are much nearer to being able to claim a victory than they have been for a while.  And I hope it makes them very happy. 

T. CARLSON:  What is—just sum up for us.  What is the prospects of the idea now floating around on the Democratic side, maybe on the Republican, as well, of partitioning that country into three separate countries or an alliance, a federation of three countries?  Is that going to happen?  Is that a wise idea?

HITCHENS:  Do I have a chance to make one more point before I answer that?  I don‘t want to seem top be dodging it.

T. CARLSON:  Yes. 

HITCHENS:  You‘ll notice that the general also says that he‘s afraid of the army cracking under the strain, which is an argument you hear here, as well.

T. CARLSON:  Right.

HITCHENS:  What he seems to be doing is positioning himself to be the sort of Colin Powell of the British army.  Remember, that was always the view of Colin Powell when he was chairman of the joint chiefs, that the U.S. Army was too fragile to be tested in actual combat, as particularly in Bosnia, if you remember, where he had to be challenged by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “So why do we have this wonderful big, shiny army if we never want to use it?” 

That‘s the—the line now taken by military men is, “It really inconveniences us if we have to use our troops in warfare.”  Nobody says, look, how are we going to...

T. CARLSON:  Well, I think...

HITCHENS:  How are we going to learn—how are we going to learn how to fight these people in rogue states and failed states if we don‘t—which are bad conditions, if we don‘t try?

T. CARLSON:  Yes, but I think—the question—you don‘t want—if you‘re in the position of—if it is, you know, your job to send people off to go die, you want to make certain that their deaths are in the service of something worth attaining, that it‘s, you know, a wise use of their lives, basically. 

HITCHENS:  That‘s not—that‘s not—that is a decision not to be taken by generals, however.  I‘m a voter.  I can make that decision, and I‘m asked to. 

The extraordinary thing is that the British have lost a very, very small number of people in Iraq and have gained a great deal of experience, it might be said, and have also done rather well in the Shia areas of the south...

T. CARLSON:  Right.

HITCHENS:  ... which would undoubtedly trump—trounce your other question, would undoubtedly give a large new area of responsibility to the United States if they were to pull out. 

So all these are very serious points.  Still, there is always something odd to me in the existence of a professional military class that, in effect, is combat adverse, that doesn‘t think anything is worth fighting for. 

Colin Powell, if you remember, didn‘t want to even send an aircraft carrier to Kuwait on the warning of Saddam Hussein‘s invasion, less we get ourselves mussed up.  I just think it‘s always worth noticing that about the conservative vote here (ph) ...

T. CARLSON:  It is worth noticing.  And you can interpret it a couple of different ways.  It‘s interesting.  Anyway, Chris...

HITCHENS:  If we‘re going to pay—if we‘re going to pay for this huge military establishment, then I think...

T. CARLSON:  Might as well use it.

HITCHENS:  Yes.  Well, we...

T. CARLSON:  We‘ve got all these nuclear weapons, you know, sort of languishing in silos.  Let‘s use one. 

HITCHENS:  Well, those are—those really are—those really are useless to us, of course. 

T. CARLSON:  I hope so. 

HITCHENS:  Good point. 

Now what was your last question again?  I don‘t have time for it.

T. CARLSON:  As I always do talking to you, I got caught up in it and we‘re out of time. 

HITCHENS:  And I talked myself out of a job yet again.  So all right. 

But you let me do it. 

T. CARLSON:  Thank you.  Christopher Hitchens, I appreciate it. 

HITCHENS:  You too. 

T. CARLSON:  Coming up, well, the midterm‘s on the line.  The Republican Party brings out its secret weapon.  Can you believe it‘s Dick Cheney?  Some say the vice president may save his party.  Amazing. 

And a prominent Democrat drops out of the race for the White House. 

Will anybody challenge Hillary Clinton?  That story when we come back.


T. CARLSON:  Time for “Beat the Press.”

First up, the FOX News channel gets unexpectedly personal over there.  Listen closely to what Gretchen Carlson said this morning about U2 lead singer Bono. 


GRETCHEN CARLSON, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  The interesting thing is Bono seems to be bi, in a sense, because he goes—he gets along well with Democratic presidents.


G. CARLSON:  And he gets along well with President Bush. 


T. CARLSON:  That‘s right, ladies and gentlemen.  Breaking news from the FOX News Channel.  Bono is bi.  Bi, of course, meaning that he gets along with both Democrats and Republicans.  FOX, that‘s what bi means.  You have friends who are Democrats and friends who are Republicans.  Bi. 

Next, our “Clip of the Week.”  Yes, this is mean, though we can‘t resist replaying it.  So grab some popcorn and settle in as MSNBC regular Armstrong Williams does his very best to pronounce the name of a world leader.  Watch. 


ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR:  North Korea is a very poor country.  John Kill Yom (ph) -- John—Jong Kim-Yil (ph), he‘s very ill by the way.  He‘s using that regime.  That regime is in place.

Jom Kim Yung (ph) has starved his people.  He‘s robbed his land of its financial and natural resources.  He‘s used it to build his—his tactical regime.


CARLSON:  Jom Kill Yim (ph), Joan Kim Yil (ph).  John Kim Yung (ph)? 

Kim Il-Sung (ph)?  It‘s the greatest.  Poor Armstrong Williams. 

We have all been there, none quite as cheerfully as Armstrong, though.  He just keeps plows forward.  Three syllables.  He knows he‘s just a little off.  Thanks to Armstrong Williams for entertaining us today. 

Still to come, there‘s no question that Cindy Sheehan takes the prize, but the Nobel Peace Prize?  Rumor has it she made the short list.  Right.

And Bill Clinton knows exactly what‘s wrong with the Republican Party, he says.  We‘ll share his prescription when we come back.


T. CARLSON:  Still to come, the controversial videos YouTube won‘t let you see.  Are they really too hot to handle?  Or is this an obvious case of censorship? 

And what could be the end of the Duke rape hoax. 

We‘ll get to all that in just a minute, but right now, here‘s a look at your headlines. 


CARLSON:  Still to come, the controversial videos Youtube won‘t let you see. Are they really too hot to handle?  Or is this an obvious case of censorship?  And what could be the end of the Duke rape hoax.  We‘ll get to all that in just a minute.  But right now, here‘s a look at your headlines.  

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNBC ANCHOR:  I‘m Bianna Golodryga with your CNBC market wrap.  The Dow hitting another all-time high today, up 13 points for a record high close of 11,960.  The S&P 500 also up 13 points today.  The NASDAQ up by 11.  The FCC has put the BellSouth AT&T mega-merger on hold for now at least, a vote now delayed until November to allow more time for review and public comment.  A jury in Pennsylvania has ruled against Wal-Mart, ordering the company to pay $78 million for violating state labor laws by forcing employees to work through rest breaks and off the clock.  Meantime, as gas prices fell in September, consumers took that extra cash and headed to the mall, pumping up retail sales by almost 1 percent when you take out volatile gasoline sales.  And money troubles catch up with Air America.  The liberal radio network home to Al Franken‘s “Daily Show” filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection today, this after talks with one of its creditors broke down.   Now back to Tucker.  

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  It‘s time 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 Orlando, Florida, Pat Campbell, host of “The Pat Campbell Show”, 540 WFLA.  And  from New York City Alex Bennett, host of “The Alex Bennett Program” on Sirius satellite radio, which has not gone bankrupt.  Welcome to you both. 


CARLSON:  At a Democratic Party fundraiser Thursday in Las Vegas, former President Bill Clinton claimed that conservative Republicans have totally dominated this country for the past six years.  Clinton said that America is in trouble and is ready for a power shift in the upcoming elections.  He blamed the far right wing of the GOP for quote, “Jamming us into an ideological corner and alienating us from our allies.”  I can‘t imagine anything that I disagree with more than this Alex.  It‘s not conservative ideas that have run up the deficit, it‘s not conservative ideas that got us into Iraq.  In both cases it‘s liberal ideals, liberal idealism, utopianism that got us into this dumb war and its liberal spend thrift policies that got us where we are economically.  I don‘t think Bush is a conservative, I don‘t think it‘s fair to blame conservatives for what he‘s done.  

BENNETT:  Well I finally decided I‘m just giving up and you can blame everything on Clinton. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I like that.  

BENNETT:  No.  You know I heard somebody the other day blame the Foley scandal on Al Gore because he invented the internet.  

CARLSON:  That‘s pretty good. 

BENNETT:  But anyway, the point is, that you know, you have to take responsibility for what you have done.  This is the watch, it‘s happening on this watch.  Clinton and the Democrats didn‘t cause the Iraq war. 


BENNETT:  They didn‘t cause the deficit to rise like it has been, the national debt rather to rise like it has been.  I mean you can‘t blame these things on the previous administration. 

CARLSON:  And I wouldn‘t blame it on the previous administration.  I actually agree with you.  My point is, you can‘t blame them on conservatives.  You can blame them on this president who is not a conservative.  

BENNETT:  You know something, that‘s a very good point and I think that‘s important for people to know.  But you know I have a great respect for conservatives.  I can sit down and have a great discussion with them.  But these guys aren‘t conservatives.  If you had a Ronald Reagan in the room today, if you had any good conservative like a Barry Goldwater, they would look at Bush and hate him. 

CARLSON:  Does it drive you bonkers Pat, as a conservative to see conservatives tarred with the same brush that is used to describe the president?

CAMPBELL:  Well, you know, there‘s a couple of things going on here.  First of all, I agree with Al and I think that George Bush has failed on a number of fronts, first and foremost the failure to secure our borders, the failure to get Osama bin Laden.  And when it comes to spending, he‘s abandoned his conservative principles if he ever had them, because quite frankly he‘s spending like a drunk sailor.  Now some of the stuff that‘s going on this week, like “USA Today” they had the great big article earlier this week about a poll that would lead us to believe that thousands of Americans were sitting on the fence.  The thing that finally drove them into the Democratic camp is the Foley scandal.  I think that‘s nothing but wishful thinking.  I think they‘re trying to engage in projection. 

This is what they would like to happen, this is the outcome they‘re hoping for.  I have to tell you, the reality down here in the state of Florida, I talked about this last week, I have three congressmen, Republicans in my district, Rick Keller, Tom Finney, John Mica, all three of them are going to win reelection, we‘re going to win it by a comfortable margin.  And that‘s because they have stayed true to their core values, two keys issues the war in Iraq and illegal immigration.  Charlie Crist, the Republican candidate for governor here, is going to win by a healthy margin.  But by the same token, you have somebody like Katherine Harris, who the only person I know that thinks Katherine Harris is going to win is Katherine Harris.  And part of her problem is the fact that she has abandoned some of those core principles.  She‘s waffled all over the place when it comes to illegal immigration.  She favors a guest worker program.  That is not selling with Republican voters. 

CARLSON:  And it ought not to sell and I‘m glad it‘s not selling.  There was turmoil—for once though there was turmoil on the other side this week on the Democratic side.  Mark Warner, who a lot of people including me who had assumed was going to run for president, run for the nomination on the Democratic side in 2008, he was on the cover of  the “New York Times” magazine.  He seemed like an up and comer.  He announced out of nowhere that he‘s dropping out of the race, a race he never officially entered, leaving it basically open for Hillary Clinton.  So you have now of course Mrs. Clinton, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, all names still being talked about.  But I‘m struck very much Alex by the idea that Mrs. Clinton will be the most conservative Democrat likely running in this race for the Democratic nomination.  I don‘t think she‘s going to let anybody get to the right of her.  I think it would be death for her to do that and she‘ll be running basically as Mark Warner, you know as a conservative southern-type Democrat.  That‘s my guess. What do you think of that?

BENNETT:  You know, I said it before on this program and I‘ll say it again.  If the Democrats pick Hillary Clinton, they better get ready for a bad night, you know.  I don‘t think she‘s capable of winning.  I don‘t think she‘s what we call an attractive candidate.  She has too many minuses going for her.  Mark Warner had one major advantage and guys like Mark Warner have this advantage, they don‘t have a record, really.  You know you have a record on Hillary Clinton, you have a record on John McCain, but you don‘t have a record on him.  Look at Clinton, he came out of nowhere, he was a governor of a southern state.  

CARLSON:  But he actually had—in some ways, Warner had a pretty appealing record.  He was a one-term governor of Virginia.  They have terms -- you can only be a governor there for one term, which is a blessing really because nobody is popular in the second term as governor anywhere, ever.  And he was very popular with Republicans even.  I mean he was—on paper he was the perfect candidate, plus he was southern.  No Democrat has been elected president except in the south since 1960‘s, so.  

BENNETT:  And I think the important factor here is, a lot of people didn‘t know who he was so they will listen to the guy they never heard before. 

CARLSON:  Right.

BENNETT:  Hillary is old, you know, McCain is old, I mean the eyes of the public.  You get a new guy, like Clinton was a new guy and they go, who‘s he? I‘ll listen to him. 

CARLSON:  That‘s a good point.  Pat, do you think that Hillary has a lock on this, that‘s why Hillary dropped out or do you think he really wanted to spend more time with his kids? 

CAMPBELL:  Any time I hear that I‘m always suspicious, I always ask myself, ok, what‘s the real reason you‘re dropping out.

CARLSON:  It‘s a cliche, it‘s like a joke, I want to—as you‘re being led off to prison, I want to spend more time with my family, that‘s why I‘m going to prison. 

CAMPBELL:  Bob Ney today, he wants to spend more time with his family.  The reality is, this, I think this race is really, in 2008, it‘s always been Hillary‘s to lose.  She‘s the odds on favorite, she‘s—you know we talked about this before.  She‘s ready for the gig, she‘s ready for prime time and I think the Republicans underestimate her at their own peril.    

CARLSON:  I agree with that.  Speaking of someone who‘s underestimated, Vice President Dick Cheney, amazingly enough, he‘s emerging as the ace in the hole for the Republicans as the midterm elections approach.  Turns out this guy has raised a whopping $40 million for Republican candidates lately.  He‘s hitting the road full force to combat negative press surrounding the party and he is the guy—he really is the designated hit man as has been noted before for his party.  Of course—

I‘m struck by the reception he‘s getting.  I mean Dick Cheney who almost is a punch line in the blue states.  Dick Cheney, the scowling man who shoots his friends, is in fact popular enough to raise $40 million. 

BENNETT:  He‘s popular enough among Republicans and around the conservatives who back him.  But you know, that‘s not where the vote is going to come from.  It‘s going to come from that middle ground, the people that waltz back and forth between both parties.  And I don‘t know if he necessarily plays well to them.  He‘s good at raising money because he can go to these Republican fundraisers and they just love him, you know.  He acts like a big executive telling you what‘s what, you know. 

CARLSON:  You know what he doesn‘t act like, he doesn‘t act like a baby boomer.  This is not a guy who is trying to empathize with you or win you over.  He‘s not going to start crying in the middle of your conversation. 

BENNETT:  He kind of acts like every father of every woman I used to go out with when I get them home late.  

CARLSON:  Exactly.  He is a man‘s man, you have to admit.  I mean you can despise -- 

BENNETT:  It‘s 11:00 now. 

CARLSON:  He‘s an authentic character, I mean (INAUDIBLE) to hate him. 

You‘ve got to concede that, don‘t you? 

BENNETT:  I don‘t want to go hunting with him. 

CARLSON:  Yeah, I wouldn‘t either.  Pat, are you a Dick Cheney fan, I‘ll just ask you bluntly? 

CAMPBELL:  Dick Cheney has a cult-like following here in the state of Florida.  Any time he shows up for a fundraiser, I mean the base, the core base just goes wild, it‘s like throwing raw meat to them.  He tells it like it is.  He doesn‘t sugar coat it for you.  He‘s not into all this political correctness.  He tells you what you need to hear, not necessarily what you want to hear.  And they just suck it up like a sponge.

BENNETT:  But he lies a lot. 


BENNETT:  He lies a lot.  

CAMPBELL:  What has he lied about?  

BENNETT:  I mean he still thinks we‘re going to win in Iraq and he still thinks there are weapons of mass destruction.  He just doesn‘t give up.  

CARLSON:  Yeah, but I mean doesn‘t, isn‘t it, in the end, useful for a party to have a guy like Dick Cheney? 

BENNETT:  Oh, always. 

CARLSON:  I mean the key to Dick Cheney it seems to me is that he‘s not running again. 

BENNETT:  You know who that guy was years go before he became president was Ronald Reagan.  They used to send him out on the stump and he used to raise money like crazy. 

CAMPBELL:  Tucker I‘ll tell you this, I sleep well at night knowing that Dick Cheney is number two in line. 

CARLSON:  Why is that? 

CAMPBELL:  I feel comfortable, he‘s ready to take the job if need be.  

CARLSON:  Well you also know Dick Cheney—

BENNETT:  What do you mean, he is the job.  

CARLSON:  That, you may be right.  Dick Cheney actually frets about the threat of terror. I believe that.  I don‘t agree with the war in Iraq, of course, as I say every single day and I don‘t agree with Cheney‘s role in perpetuating the war in Iraq.  On the other hand, I am glad that there‘s someone like Dick Cheney who really is obsessed with the idea of getting hit again, and is really devoting his life to preventing another 9/11.  Even if I disagree sometimes with the way he goes about it.  It‘s nice to have someone who‘s staying up late worrying about that stuff so we don‘t have to. 

BENNETT:  Well not one of the favorites of the left wing, he‘s just a little too business like for us.  

CARLSON:  But he is Ann Coulter though, see that‘s the beauty of him. 

He drives liberals bananas.  

CAMPBELL:  Ann Coulter without the legs.  

CARLSON:  Yeah, no, but that‘s why I kind of admire Ann Coulter.  She makes Barbara Streisand wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.  There‘s a role for that in this world and I‘m glad someone is doing that.  I wish it could be me.  Thank you both very much, Al and Pat.  Have a great weekend. 

Coming up, Youtube pulls some controversial videos offline.  Are they too hot to handle or is it political correctness run completely amok.  And another nail in the coffin of the Duke rape hoax.  Will this case ever make it to court?  That story when we come back.


CARLSON:  Coming up, the latest claim from Cindy Sheehan, did she really make the short list for the Nobel Peace Prize?  And the real story behind this week‘s “Dancing with the Stars” shocker.  All that in just a moment.


CARLSON:  Time for a look at today‘s stories I just don‘t get.  First, the mother of all anti-war activists gets a nod from the Norwegian Nobel Institute supposedly.  


CINDY SHEEHAN:  We think its so vitally important to stand up to this government who is torturing, using chemical weapons, killing innocent people, killing our soldiers who only wanted to do the right thing by serving their country. 


CARLSON:  Attacks on America like that have put Cindy Sheehan on the front lines of this country‘s antiwar movement.  It also earned her serious consideration as a contender for the Nobel Peace Prize, or so she recently claimed.  They, however, the Nobel Committee chose to hand the award to a Bangladeshi economist, hardly Cindy Sheehan.  But her claim that she was on the short list, hard to verify whether or not that‘s true but her claim actually is plausible because for years the single most important criterion for getting that award was how much you dislike America.  So the award went over the years to terrorists like Yaser Arafat, complete phonies like (INAUDIBLE).  Would it be surprising if Cindy Sheehan got the award? No, actually, she‘ll probably get it next year.  Next, is the video-sharing website Youtube revealing its political stripes. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  A picture of the United States is not a game, can we afford a pardon that treats it like one. 


CARLSON:  You have to be at least 18 years of age to view this video warns Youtube.  The video contains no profanity, violence or nudity, it does however, mock the Clinton administration‘s policies on North Korea and the Middle East.  Another video featuring sentiments of conservative author Michelle Malkin was yanked from the site all together.  Youtube administrators claim images like this violate their standards of decency.  Conservatives have another explanation, they note that Youtube is being courted by Google which in the past has been correctly criticized for reflecting the left wing views of its owners.  Apparently conservative videos do violate their standards of decency, or censorship.  And liberals who are always on guard, always ready to bark and complain at the first sign of censorship, ought to be complaining now, they won‘t be, of course, but they ought to be.

Finally let‘s take a look at another probable nail in the coffin of the Duke University rape hoax.  It comes to us courtesy of “60 Minutes” and “CBS News.”


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Brett, Adam and Matt took me into the bathroom. 

Were you holding onto each other, were you pulled apart? Was that true?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Did she give you any reason to believe that she had been assaulted or abused in any way? 



CARLSON:  Kim Roberts tells “60 Minutes” correspondent Ed Bradley those three lacrosse players accused of rape are innocent.  Roberts was one of the two strippers invited to perform at an off campus party in Durham, North Carolina last March.  And she says the accuser was fine when she left the scene.  Roberts‘ statements come on the heels of allegations by defense attorneys that the prosecutors is withholding evidence that might exonerate their clients.  If convicted of rape the three defendants could be locked up for 30 years behind bars. Well joining me now from Washington to discuss the case, former prosecutor Georgia Gosslee.  Georgia welcome.  


CARLSON:  This is about as devastating as you can imagine, a revelation to be.  Kim Roberts, who according to the accuser in this case, the woman who made up this story in the first place, was holding on to her.  The woman who claimed she was raped claimed she was holding on to this woman you‘re looking at right now, when she was dragged off by these three men and gang raped in the bathroom of this house in Durham.  Now this woman who has really no reason to lie is saying nothing like that happened at all. How can this case go forward?

GOSSLEE:  First of all, I would like to say there‘s a fallacy I think in your analysis clearly Tucker, if you‘re saying there is no reason for her to lie.  Remember, this is the same woman Tucker, that several months ago called an ad agency in New York looking for her 15 minutes claim to fame.  So, anything that she says, I don‘t know how you can reasonably rely upon it.  What seems to be so interesting about --  


GOSSLEE:  How can you rely on it?

CARLSON:  Because she‘s the only other eyewitness.  That‘s why.  You have allegations that she was physically involved in this altercation.  That literally she was being pulled by the woman who was raped and she says point blank into the camera, that‘s not true.  And I told prosecutors it‘s not true.  So it raises the question, what the hell are they indicting these guys on?

GOSSLEE:  Well they have indicted those guys based upon the evidence that Nifong found earlier on in the investigation and I keep saying, Kim is simply not a reliable witness because remember she too has changed her story several times now.  First she said that she was in the automobile for more than five minutes changing her clothes and that was the opportunity in her mind that allowed the lacrosse players to rape this woman in the beginning.  Now she‘s changing her story.  

CARLSON:  You‘re going into this believing that these three accused men are guilty, that‘s obvious.  But I want you to back up.

GOSSLEE:  No Tucker, I‘ll back up.  But let me just say so that I‘m on the record.  I‘m not saying that I believe that they‘re guilty because guilty is a technical finding that by the trier of fact.  I do believe that they perpetrated the crime.  So just for the record, I would like to clarify that.  

CARLSON:  They perpetrated the crime, ok.  That they‘re rapists, that they sexually assaulted this woman, Crystal.  Here‘s my question to you, where is any evidence at all that that happened, on the countervailing side we have a lot of evidence, circumstantial evidence that at least one of these guys wasn‘t even there when it happened.  We actually know that pretty conclusively.  We also know that there is no physical evidence at all tying any of these guys to a sexual assault.  On the other side we have a woman who admittedly has been hospitalized for mental problems, who has accused other people of rape whose changed her story repeatedly.  Her word is the only thing we have, unless I‘m missing something.  Am I missing something? 

GOSSLEE:  Well you‘re missing a lot Tucker and quite honestly, you know to be completely intellectually honest, you know yourself that if it was jus simply her word and no other evidence, no physical evidence from the rape kit that was actually, the medical exam that was performed on her the night of the rape, if there was nothing else in this case, just her word, then the likelihood of them being indicted is not too probable.  

CARLSON:  Georgia, I have followed this case very carefully. 

GOSSLEE:  And so have I.  

CARLSON:  I know you have.  I‘m not involved in it, so maybe there is something that has not yet come to light that the rest of us don‘t know about that corroborates this woman‘s account of her rape.  But I‘m not aware of it.  I think that this prosecutor for political reasons indicted these kids to make a statement to the community because as you know, there are all sorts of other --  

GOSSLEE:  Oh that is ridiculous, Tucker.  Do you think he would do that?  Do you think that Nifong would actually indict these men to make a statement to the community?

CARLSON:  Let me say sincerely I have seen a lot of things in the 15 years I‘ve been in journalism, this case actually shocks me.  I believe for the first time since I‘ve been paying attention, you have a prosecutor who is actually a rogue prosecutor who has indicted three guys he knows are innocent.  

GOSSLEE:  What does that mean, a rogue prosecutor Tucker, what does that mean?

CARLSON:  It means he‘s indicted people he knows are innocent.  There is no evidence --  

GOSSLEE:  How does he know they‘re innocent?  Why would you make that allegation that‘s completely unfounded.  If they are so innocent why did they—some allegedly offer $2 million for this to go away?  You are in a fantasy world, Tucker.  

CARLSON:  Reid Seligman, one of the accused, let me just say—this is the only thing that I‘m prepared to say definitively, that man is innocent and he can prove he‘s innocent.  

GOSSLEE:  You do not know that he‘s innocent. What you‘re saying is that he can come forward with some evidence that has not been subjected to judicial scrutiny to make a pattern for some type of alibi, but that doesn‘t mean that he is innocent.  And you can‘t say it definitively Tucker, honestly. 

CARLSON:  Actually I can say it definitively.  He can produce—my reputation is on the line, I‘ve been on this case from day one saying that there are problems with it. 

GOSSLEE:  And I‘ve been on this case since day two. 

CARLSON:  And if I‘m wrong, I will absolutely take whatever consequences follow.  But this boy can produce time-stamped video that shows him at another location during the time of the supposed rape.  

GOSSLEE:  Then if that‘s the case, he doesn‘t have any problem, he doesn‘t have any problem, does he? 

CARLSON:  It‘s a $2 million allegation in the end.  

GOSSLEE:  Two million dollars is hardly a nail in the coffin, this questionable revelation by Kim.  Remember what‘s driving her, she has a clear motive.  She wants to be a famous person. And she‘s found herself in the middle of a situation, a national crisis with this rape case and she‘s trying to take full advantage of it. So Tucker be honest, you know you can‘t really rely upon what she says.  

CARLSON:  I don‘t know why you‘re attacking her, moreover -- 

GOSSLEE:  I‘m not attacking her, I‘m simply reporting, stating --  

CARLSON:  You are accusing her of lying is what you‘re doing.  Let me answer one quick question, because we‘re almost out of time.  Why does she become more famous, why does she make somehow more money by claiming this rape didn‘t happen? It seems to me she would get the sympathy of the international left, your sympathy, the sympathy of many misguided Americans if she were to come out and corroborate this hoax.  Why does she somehow benefit by saying that it didn‘t happen? 

GOSSLEE:  I don‘t know who is influencing her.  I know that she clearly stated that she had an original motive which was to become famous.  We live in America.  You‘re part of the media.  And if that‘s the case, I don‘t  know how we could honestly rely upon what she‘s saying.  A lot of time has passed Tucker, we don‘t know who‘s been involved with her.  

CARLSON:  Well a lot of people want to be famous but it doesn‘t mean that they‘re not telling the truth.  

GOSSLEE:  Obviously, I didn‘t suggest that.  I‘m not suggesting that.  I‘m simply saying that Kim Roberts, I just do not really think that we can rely totally upon what she‘s saying because she‘s driven to be famous. 

CARLSON:  I think if you combine it with all the other information that we now have, you move to the conclusion that this is a terrible miscarriage of justice. 

GOSSLEE:  I completely disagree Tucker.  

CARLSON:  All right, well you come back on the day that these boys are acquitted.  Thanks very much, I appreciate, Georgia Gosslee.

GOSSLEE:  Thank you Tucker.

CARLSON:  Coming up, the latest shocker from “Dancing with the Stars”, we‘ve got the real story when we come back.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  MSNBC‘s vice president for prime time and one of my favorite people, Bill Wolff is here with some breaking entertainment news.  Bill? 

BILL WOLFF:  Tucker, thank you kindly for that introduction.  Yes, breaking news, this day “Dateline”  “Dancing with the Stars,” Tucker, country singer Sara Evans, one of your former competitors, who had entered the dance contest with the endorsement of Tom DeLay, has suddenly dropped out.  Now on a human level, very sad to learn that Ms. Evans quit the show, because of a freshly impending divorce from her husband and father of three kids.  On a juvenile level, however, it seems to me and some of the fellows around the plant, that the show is going to need an emergency replacement and we look to you Tucker Carlson for an official comment.  Are you available, will you be “Dancing with the Stars” again? 

CARLSON:  If nominated I will not serve.  Of course not. 

WOLFF:  By the way, I‘m still voting for you.  I still have the text number, I voted probably 750 times for you, it apparently has no affect.

CARLSON:  But you‘re also still voting for Walter Mondale, so that says something about you.

WOLFF:  True fact.

CARLSON:  Bill Wolff, I appreciate it.  Have a great weekend, thanks for watching.  Hope you have a great weekend.  Up next, “HARDBALL WITH CHRIS.”  See you Monday.



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