updated 10/21/2005 10:40:40 AM ET 2005-10-21T14:40:40

Guest: David Horowitz, Jeff “Skunk” Baxter, Max Kellerman

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thanks to you at home for joining us tonight. 

We're live from L.A. tonight with a news-packed show. 

We start off tonight with breaking news.  The “New York Times” on its web site in editions for tomorrow is reporting a number of previously unknown things about the CIA leak investigation going on in the White House and run by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

It's reporting this, that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering charging key White House officials with perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statement.  The “Times” describes those charges this way.  Quote:  “The possible violations under consideration by Mr. Fitzgerald are peripheral to the issue he was appointed in December 2003 to investigate.” 

In other words, these charges have nothing to do directly with the original leak in question.  They are crimes, or alleged, or supposed crimes that took place after the investigation itself got going. 

Finally, this piece says that Mr. Fitzgerald knows the identity of the source who originally told columnist Robert Novak about Valerie Plame and her employment at the CIA.  That's been the question all along:  Who was the original source, the Source Zero in this story?

And, again, apparently, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knows the identity of that person.  It is not someone, apparently, who works at the White House. 

We're going to bring you a lot more on this topic.  We're going to talk to a number of people about it.

We'll also talk with a former rock star, now one of the world's leading counter-terrorism experts.  We'll talk to him in just a minute.

Also, keeping an eye on Hurricane Wilma.  That's expected to hit Cancun, Mexico, on Friday, before it turns towards the southwest coast of Florida, again.  This, quote, “extremely dangerous Category 4 storm” expected to hit landfall there sometime Sunday. 

We'll get a full report on exactly when and where Wilma will strike from NBC's WeatherPlus meteorologist Bill Karins later in the show. 

But we begin tonight, as promised, with the breaking news I mentioned just a moment ago.  Here to tell us what it may mean, former Democratic chief of staff of the Senate Committee on Finance, and an Emmy-award winning producer of the “West Wing,” MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell. 

Lawrence O'Donnell, thanks for coming on. 

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Now, you've been reporting on this case for a number of months now.  Are you surprised by this news?  A, do you believe this story, that the prosecutor is planning to indict on charges not directly related to the leak itself and that he knows the identity of the original leaker?  Do you believe that? 

O'DONNELL:  Well, I've expected that.  I've expected either perjury charges or lying to FBI agents. 

The FBI agents, you have to remember, were in the White House as early as October, this leak publicly having occurred in July.  And I'm not—it doesn't feel now like that White House was really ready for those FBI agents to come in there. 

And a lot of people aren't really that aware that lying to an FBI agent is a crime in and of itself.  It's separate from perjury, so—and Rove, for example, clearly did not tell the FBI agents the truth.  That's public information at this point. 

CARLSON:  How do we—hold on, slow down.  How do we know that?  How do we know that he lied to the FBI? 

O'DONNELL:  Well, we know, for example, that he did not tell the FBI in his first conversation with the FBI that he had a conversation with Matt Cooper about Valerie Plame.  He did not include that. 

He actually told them that he had a conversation with Matt Cooper about welfare.  Matt Cooper, under oath to the grand jury, says they did not discuss welfare. 

CARLSON:  Right, so you have an initial disagreement.  And Rove goes back to the grand jury, as I understand it, corrects himself in one of his four appearances there and says, “Look, actually, I did talk to Matt Cooper about it.” 

Can that be construed as a lie?  Is that misrepresenting the truth to a federal agent? 

O'DONNELL:  Oh, sure.  Oh, sure.  Listen, people...

CARLSON:  You can indict on that, you think?

O'DONNELL:  Oh, yes.  People get grabbed on that all the time.  You know, they lie to the FBI, or say something that isn't true to the FBI.  The prosecutors perceive that to be a willful lie. 

That person then comes into the grand jury and, under oath, either does it again or does a variation on it and says, “I didn't really understand the question that time.”  And usually grand juries and prosecutors don't believe that. 

They think, if we send an FBI agent into the White House to ask Karl Rove what reporters he might have talked to about Valerie Plame, that he knows exactly who he talked to about Valerie Plame and his memory doesn't get better.  I mean, generally what prosecutors will say to you is, “Someone's memory doesn't get better farther away from the event.” 

CARLSON:  Right. 

O'DONNELL:  And so that's why the FBI lying is a serious problem. 

CARLSON:  I just have trouble believing the prosecutor can actually do this, that is, indict, bring indictments for crimes, or alleged crimes, that aren't directly related to the original leak.  I think that's going to make people...

O'DONNELL:  Oh, sure...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  ... even critics of the White House, even people who are not predisposed to like Bush or his White House, are going to say, “Well, hold on a second here.  That wasn't the original crime.  These are crimes that took place after the investigation.” 

You'll get a kind of Martha Stewart effect, where people, who don't necessarily like Martha Stewart, think she was abused by the prosecutor. 

O'DONNELL:  If that's the charge base that comes out, Tucker, which is to say, lying after the fact of the event, and nothing else, you will see a long list of similar cases recited in the press where this has happened many, many, many times. 

It happens in tax cases.  It happens constantly in the federal court. 

It has been a crime to lie to FBI agents for decades.  Local police departments figured out that that's actually a pretty good way to get people.  And so that has become pretty much standard law throughout the country.  States and local officials make it a crime to lie to their law enforcement agents and... 

CARLSON:  What about the kind of overarching irony in this story, which is, here you have an investigation into a leak, or maybe a series of leaks, that itself is leaking?  This investigator, this special prosecutor...

O'DONNELL:  I don't think it's leaking.  I don't think so.

CARLSON:  Well, wait, wait a second.  Hold on.  Hold on. 

O'DONNELL:  Go ahead. 

CARLSON:  We have this entire “New York Times” piece right here, which just came online less than an hour ago.  And it is filled with information only Patrick Fitzgerald and his staff could know.  Now, either the “Times” made this up, and I doubt it...

O'DONNELL:  No, that's not true.  That's not true, Tucker. 

They could be in communication with Bob Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer, who has been the single biggest leaker of anyone involved in this case, Bob Luskin.  Almost all leaks lead to Luskin in this case since July, when I first revealed that his client is Matt Cooper's source. 

CARLSON:  What motive would Bob... 

O'DONNELL:  Luskin has been doing a fantastic job, Tucker, up until recently, of spinning the press away from the idea that Karl Rove would be indicted.  You remember a month ago, six weeks ago...

CARLSON:  OK, but hold on, wait...

O'DONNELL:  ... no one thought Karl would be indicted. 

CARLSON:  And you were saying, possibly to your credit—we'll find out in a week or so—that he was likely to be indicted.  But, again, back...

O'DONNELL:  No, I've never said he's going to be indicted.  I believe that it is tending that way.  I mean, basically...

CARLSON:  Right. 

O'DONNELL:  ... all of the predictors now have basically come to where I've been for the last six months. 

CARLSON:  But this story, the breaking news we're reporting right now from the “New York Times,” what could possibly be the motive of Karl Rove or Scooter Libby's lawyer to leak this information, which is clearly damaging to their clients?  I just can't imagine how this information didn't come from Fitzgerald. 

O'DONNELL:  Well, this discussion is an incentive to do it.  For example, what you're trying to do, if you're Luskin and you're leaking this information, having come to you from the prosecutor, saying, “This is what we're thinking about doing.  Does Karl want to talk to us some more?”

You know, they put a lot of pressure on all of these witnesses.  As they get down to the line on indictments, they can say to Libby's lawyer, “This is what we're thinking about doing to him.  Does he want to give us any more information?”  That's what this kind of stuff is about. 

Now, if you represent one of those guys, you want to provoke Tucker Carlson in exactly the way you have done.  You want people on TV and in the media saying, “It will be an outrage if this prosecutor charges people only with perjury and only with lying to FBI agents.” 

CARLSON:  That's pretty clever, if... 

O'DONNELL:  And so he's trying to get the prosecutor not to do it. 

CARLSON:  If that is actually their strategy, that is so complex, I'm impressed. 

O'DONNELL:  No, it's not, Tucker.  It's very simple.  It's a desperate answer...

CARLSON:  Well, I don't know.  I still don't—I don't buy it for a second.  I think this...

(CROSSTALK)

O'DONNELL:  The worst thing that can possibly happen—you don't have to...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  That is not plausible...

(CROSSTALK)

O'DONNELL:  I'm just telling you, the worst thing that can possibly happen to Rove or Libby, the worst thing, is getting indicted.  Conviction is secondary to that. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Of course. 

O'DONNELL:  They would do anything they can to stop indictment. 

CARLSON:  The Tom DeLay factor.  Lawrence O'Donnell, thanks a lot for joining us tonight. 

O'DONNELL:  Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Coming on now to discuss the leak investigation, as well as Tom DeLay's arrest earlier today—big day for news—MSNBC contributor Flavia Colgan. 

Flavia, thanks...

FLAVIA COLGAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR:  Hello.  The left coast is feeling a little bit more right with you being here. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Well, thanks.  I'm from here, so this is a return.  I'm glad to be here. 

COLGAN:  Don't put that out... 

CARLSON:  This is troubling on so many levels.  I'm against—I was against this investigation from day one, not because I'm a reflexive supportive of the White House—obviously I'm not—I just think that this is not something worth investigating.  It's ridiculous, maybe because I lived in D.C. for so long. 

Here's my point:  I think there are clearly leaks coming from Patrick Fitzgerald.  We just heard a counter view that maybe they're coming from the lawyers of those being investigated... 

COLGAN:  Which I think is very cogent.  We have to remember Karl Rove's the guy who bugged his own office in the governor's office.  I mean, let's not put anything...

CARLSON:  But wait a second.  You have to...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  The obvious explanation for this information is that it comes from the person who had it originally, who could only know it first.  And that's the prosecutor.

I'm saying, in 1998, the Clinton administration, outraged by leaks from Ken Starr's office—justifiably outraged, in my view—launched a Justice Department investigation, led by Janet Reno, overseen by her, into those leaks.  Why isn't the Bush administration saying, “Wait a second.  The leak investigation leaking?  This is outrageous.  We're going to investigate where this information is coming from”? 

COLGAN:  Well, there's a couple of reasons.  And one of them we talked about last week, which is Bush's own words.  When he gets on the “Today” show and two other shows and says, “I think that Fitzgerald is handling himself in an upright manner”...

CARLSON:  That's the dumbest thing he could have said.  That was ridiculous.

COLGAN:  ...”This is fantastic.”  Those words are going to come back to get him. 

Look, last week on this show, I said to you, “I think that Rove is going to go down more on the perjury and the stuff—it's going to be for the cover-up, not for the crime itself.” 

Now, looking forward—now, we'll get back to this, the perjury charges.  Looking forward, I think the next interesting thing to look at for Fitzgerald, who likes to go after big fish, is the fact that he's been questioning the Italian authorities on the break-in into the Niger embassy. 

This speaks to the fact that he might be going after a conspiracy theory on the WHIG group, the group of 12 people, including Libby...

CARLSON:  Right.

COLGAN:  ... and Rove, who, depending on your point of view, either came together so that they could deceive the public in terms of no WMD or were a group of neo-cons who believed that and when they saw Joe Wilson saying, “Not so,” they said, “This is ridiculous.  We've got to fight back.”  Whichever way you view it. 

So I think that's the next big...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  You know, this has...

COLGAN:  That could be very significant. 

CARLSON:  Can I just step back three steps and point out how insane this is all becoming, all right?  I am deeply troubled by the Iraq war.  I think it was betrayal of our trust.  And I'm unalterably opposed to prosecuting it any further, OK?  So that's my position.

However, these are issues that ought to be settled at the ballot box.  If you don't like it, vote against the people who did it.  You don't sic a special prosecutor on him.  I mean, that actually is criminalizing politics.  This is politics.

Prosecuting war is political by nature, right?  So you may not agree with the war.  Then, you know, defeat the guy who did it! 

COLGAN:  Well, I think it's very troubling for two of the most powerful people—I mean, people refer to Libby and Rove as sub-cabinet- or cabinet-level officials—to look at the FBI, lie about a conversation.

And also, “I can't find that e-mail”?  Come on, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Well, they're more powerful than most cabinet officials.

COLGAN:  I'm sending—I'm going to send my 10-year-old brother to the White House.  He'll know the search words to put in to find the e-mail. 

CARLSON:  No, but let's be...

COLGAN:  And sometimes what you don't say can be as duplicitous as what you do say.

CARLSON:  Well, but, OK, maybe they lied about...

(CROSSTALK)

COLGAN:  The guy has been withholding information from the FBI.

(CROSSTALK)

COLGAN:  It's unacceptable.  It's unacceptable, Tucker.  Come on.

CARLSON:  You know, this is...

COLGAN:  You're a man of integrity.  This is not appropriate. 

CARLSON:  First of all, I never claimed to be man of integrity. 

Second, I've seen...

COLGAN:  I'm claiming it for you. 

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON:  I have seen this movie before, having lived in Arkansas and Washington, all throughout the Clinton saga, OK?  I've seen what happens; I know how it ends.  And it ends badly for everybody, those being indicted and investigated, for the political system itself, for every American.  It's not good. 

When an investigator goes in, he ought to stick to the charge at hand.  If he's charged with investigating a leak, he ought to investigate that leak.  But to open it up into this, “Well, why did we go to war in Iraq in the first place?”—a question I'd like answered, by the way—is just beyond the scope and it's destructive.

COLGAN:  First of all, I'm the last person to argue that this is somehow reserved for the Republican Party.  I mean, hypocrisy, corruption, all that stuff is a bipartisan trait.  There's no question about that. 

But that's not what this is about.  This isn't about a referendum on Iraq.  This is about whether it's appropriate and whether we should allow government officials to lie to federal authorities, number one, and, number two, whether people should be getting together to try to deceive the American public and putting out what is fake documents, the Niger documents that were so obviously fake. 

CARLSON:  But that's—but that has...

COLGAN:  Well, we'll see.

CARLSON:  First of all, that is so wrong on so many levels.  I wish we had more time.  Let me just say.

COLGAN:  Let's see—why is Fitzgerald talking to the Italian authorities, Tucker?  Why do you think?  The break-in. 

CARLSON:  OK, that document did not come from the United States government, right?

COLGAN:  It came from the Niger embassy, perhaps.  And that's who he's...

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  It's an open question.  But Patrick Fitzgerald's job is not to investigate quirks in American foreign policy.  That is so beyond the scope and so...

COLGAN:  Oh, no, I disagree.  If you see a crime being committed, when you're investigating something else, you realize that it could be something greater, you say you just turn your—let's just turn your eyes?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  I watched this get out of control with Whitewater.

COLGAN:  I respectfully disagree with you.

CARLSON:  And as much as I despised Bill Clinton, I was pained watching, because I thought it was just so wrong. 

Speaking of wrong, Tom DeLay today, arrested, fingerprinted, and photographed, by this prosecutor...

(LAUGHTER)

COLGAN:  Can we talk about the photograph just for one second, before we get to...

CARLSON:  It was brilliant.  He smiles in the photograph. 

COLGAN:  I mean, this guy looks like he's posing for a class picture, not a mug shot. 

CARLSON:  Worse.

COLGAN:  And by the way, you are the first one—and I want to agree with you.

CARLSON:  There it is.

COLGAN:  This is a great picture. 

CARLSON:  Well, yes, because had he scowled, it would have been on every Democratic Party campaign fundraising brochure ever. 

COLGAN:  But I agree with you.  You were one of the first people to come out and say, “I think the way that DeLay is handling this is great.”  And I agree with you. 

Continue being who you are, which is the Hammer, continue being cocky.  However, it's a double-edged sword, because there is a tipping point.  And at some point, when he keeps kind of getting out there and saying, “Oh, this is no big deal.  I'm going to do one fundraiser after the next,” there is the risk that the American public could start seeing it as arrogance and flagrant... 

CARLSON:  Maybe.  And yet even Tom DeLay can be right about things occasionally.  And in this case, he said, “This is politically motivated investigation.  My enemies are after me.”  And I think he's right. 

Bob Perkins, the judge in this case, gave money to Moveon.org.  Now, you're a Democrat.  Would you give money to Moveon.org?  I doubt it. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  Because it's kind of a fringe group, frankly.  And it was also a group that set out, explicitly on its web site, to attack and undo Tom DeLay.  And the judge in the case gave money to this group. 

He's got to recuse himself, does he not? 

COLGAN:  I think potentially he has to recuse himself.  But you—again, you're so good at this and Republicans are in general good at this, putting up these smoke screens.  Does that make it right what DeLay did?  It stinks...

CARLSON:  First of all, I am not a Republican. 

COLGAN:  And I just like to get your goat.  I know. 

CARLSON:  I am so far beyond that at this point.

COLGAN:  You're against the Iraq war. 

CARLSON:  I'm so disgusted by my party.

COLGAN:  You don't believe in the sailor mentality of spending like the Bush administration does. 

CARLSON:  No.  No.

COLGAN:  I know, I know.  Don't worry.

CARLSON:  No, because my critique comes from the right, not from the left. 

COLGAN:  Your conservative credentials are there.  Don't worry. 

CARLSON:  I'm not a centrist.  That's exactly right.

Flavia Colgan, thank you. 

COLGAN:  Great to be here, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Thanks. 

Still to come, why are the faithful losing faith in the president?  And are they?  We'll talk to best-selling author David Horowitz about a growing conservative backlash.

Plus, women can tell a lot about a guy on the first date, but did you know she can peg a man as a “Dukes of Hazzard” watching dud just by the drink he orders?  Some valuable information you can't date without, when THE SITUATION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  ... answer to you question, there's some background noise here, a lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining.  But the American people expect me to do my job, and I'm going to. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Pretty blase.  We'll see if it's warranted. 

Welcome back.  That was President Bush speaking earlier today during a Rose Garden appearance with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.  The president has been taking heat from all sides this month, but especially from the right, believe it or not. 

Conservatives are angry about spending, immigration, the war in Iraq, some of them, and above all, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. 

Is the White House facing a full-fledged conservative backlash?  Here to tell us, a man who has spent a lifetime studying political movements, and sometimes participating in them, best-selling author David Horowitz.  He's the editor-in-chief of Frontpagemagazine.com and the president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. 

David Horowitz, thanks. 

DAVID HOROWITZ, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, FRONTPAGEMAGAZINE.COM:  Thanks for having me, Tucker.

CARLSON:  So is there a full-fledged conservative backlash?  And is it warranted? 

HOROWITZ:  Oh, I think there's been—I would call it more a message being sent to the president.  There's a lot of disgruntled conservatives.  And you name the issues. 

I think the immigration issue on the borders has been building for a very long time. 

CARLSON:  Yes.

HOROWITZ:  I think the spending issue is huge.  And I think the Harriet Miers is very understandable, in that—you know, starting with the Borking of Bork, the left has really aggressively sought to politicize the Supreme Court.  And conservatives have waited a long time.  They've watched stealth candidates betray the conservative message. 

CARLSON:  That's right.  Souter, et al.

HOROWITZ:  So I think that there's a lot of anger out there.  I do not think it's a revolt.  And I do not—I think it will tell us a lot about the next presidential election, but the conservatives are not going to desert Bush in the middle of this war. 

CARLSON:  Well, they don't have anybody else, also. 

But what about Bush's response—the White House's response to the criticism of Harriet Miers, I think, has been really telling.  The left has said for the last five years, “This is a guy who can't handle dissent, who can't handle criticism.” 

I've defended him time and again against that charge.  But it's starting to look kind of true.  He immediately goes to the lowest kind of attacks on the opponents of Miers, they're sexists, they're elitists.  Here's a woman who was trying to break the glass ceiling, who was for diversity and inclusion, every kind of left-wing trope and cliche they trot out in defense of Harriet Miers.  What is that? 

HOROWITZ:  I think there's an issue of loyalty here.  This is an intensely loyal president. 

CARLSON:  Yes.

HOROWITZ:  And this is a woman who's been very close to him for a very long time. 

CARLSON:  Right. 

HOROWITZ:  So I think that's what you're seeing.  I think there is an ineptitude, which I have never understood, in the Bush White House when it comes to communications. 

I just think they've been weak on all of these issues, that is—the ducking is very telling and, I think, a very bad indication...

CARLSON:  The people in charge of communications...

HOROWITZ:  ... because they had tried to silent—two silent Supreme Court nominations, you know, stealth...

CARLSON:  Yes. 

HOROWITZ:  ... is very bad. 

CARLSON:  Well, what do you think—conservative intellectuals, you're definitely one.  I mean, you're one of the original conservative intellectuals in this country.  Don't they have an obligation to stay true to their beliefs, to their principles, over and above political parties or individual politicians? 

HOROWITZ:  Yes.  Except for the fact—and here we're going to have a big disagreement—that we're in the midst of a war.  This is the first time in American history that a major political party has defected from a war that it supported. 

Democrats voted in majorities to authorize the use of force.  We're winning this war.  It's a tremendously important battle.  And the president has been the target of relentless attacks, the most vicious attacks in my memory, that is in my whole lifetime.  I have never seen a president...

CARLSON:  And most of them are stupid, I think. 

HOROWITZ:  ... I have ever seen a president attacked like this.  I mean, if the opposition took your point of view, “OK, we disagree with him.”  You know, this is the policy.  The American people have ratified it.  We're going to, you know, win the next election. 

But the low level of politics, I mean, the lynch party for DeLay, the lynch party for Rove and Libby, I don't think this White House is geared up for this kind of battle. 

CARLSON:  But don't you think—I mean, I understand your point and that, you know, you ought to see the broader picture and the long-term goals, et cetera.  But isn't it the job of conservative intellectuals, one of the jobs, to kind of keep the party they generally support honest?  And when they start running around calling other people sexist and saying, “Diversity is the highest goal of American life,” and other patently absurd things like that... 

HOROWITZ:  Those are red flags, if I may say so.  If the conservatives...

CARLSON:  Well, to put it mildly.  Shouldn't they jump up and down and say, “Knock it off”? 

HOROWITZ:  I am actually—I am, you know, proud to be part of the Republican Party and movement because, one, conservatives do stand up for principle, even when it's not in their political interests.  And it includes people like yourself, who obviously dissent on a major issue. 

I think the White House is stumbling badly here.  I mean, they brought the worst of all possible scenarios.  You know, you put through a stealth candidate and you get everybody against you, that's not the idea.  The idea was to slide through. 

CARLSON:  And not working—unfortunately—I hope she turns out—as I say every night, I hope she turns out better than expected. 

HOROWITZ:  She'll probably be a good Supreme Court justice, but conservatives deserve to have a very strong intellectual voice, something like Scalia. 

CARLSON:  I agree.  And at least not to be called sexist.  That's all I want.  And I forgot to include in the introduction of David Horowitz, author of the newly released, “The End of Time.”

HOROWITZ:  Now, this is the best book I'll ever write.  It's a completely different book from all the other books I've written. 

CARLSON:  Coming from a man who's written a ton of books—I'm going to read it.  David Horowitz, thank you. 

HOROWITZ:  Thank you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Appreciate it.

Still to come, Hurricane Wilma winding up for a powerful punch.  It's expected to make landfall very soon, somewhere between Mexico and Cuba.  We'll have the very latest forecast when THE SITUATION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

At this hour, residents and tourists trapped in the popular vacation spot of Cancun, Mexico, are bracing for Hurricane Wilma.  For the very latest on the storm's strength and path and when it will strike U.S. soil, we turn now to NBC WeatherPlus meteorologist Bill Karins—Bill?

BILL KARINS, NBC WEATHERPLUS METEOROLOGIST:  Well, good evening, Tucker.  The latest information in from the hurricane center, the storm looks very impressive.  And they agree.  And we all think this has a chance to become a Category 5 right before landfall. 

It's the least thing you want to have happen, is a storm intensifying right before it moves in.  That's what Charley did last year right before it hit Florida, and we could see a similar situation here, going from a 4 to a 5. 

It's almost a 5 already, 150-mile-per-hour winds.  And, remember, to get to a Category 5, it has to be above 155. 

Movement slow, northwest at six miles per hour.  It's very unusual, and powerful 4 or a 5 storm sitting in the same region for about 36 to 48 hours.  But, unfortunately for the residents of Cancun, northern peninsula here of the Yucatan, that's the forecast we're giving you. 

Want to show you the latest radar image.  The bands of rain are now moving on-shore.  Soon, power will be lost, as these bands increase and the winds along with it.  Our eye is well-defined.

And the regions that go through this eye, that's who's going to see the catastrophic damage, especially people that go through the northern half of the eye or the northeastern side of the eye.  And, unfortunately, that appears it's going to be right between Cozumel and Cancun.  And those areas could be in the eye wall for as long as 12 to possibly 18 hours.  That's very rare. 

Well, as you watch this, this black line indicates the general motion.  We're now heading pretty much towards the northwest.  And we expect that motion to continue.  And if you draw that line up, it goes right over the top of Cozumel and Cancun.  It could be in that northern or northeastern quadrant of the storm, which is the worst.

Thirty-four-foot waves, just saw a report of that in one our buoys.  Hurricane-force winds are in the red.  Tomorrow morning, these will engulf this entire region. 

As far as the forecast path, we're looking at a Category 5, Friday afternoon, evening, making landfall.  It lingers in this region through Friday night, finally begins to leave on Saturday, weakens to Category 3, Category 2 as it approaches Florida. 

And then the system is going to cruise up the east coast, possibly at about 40 to 50 miles per hour.  A Category 2 crossing Florida on Monday now, and then maybe even up the East Coast by the time we go into Tuesday. 

We'll continue to give you the latest from the hurricane center as we get it in.  Back to you. 

CARLSON:  Bill Karins, thanks. 

Stay tuned.  There's still plenty more ahead on THE SITUATION. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER:  Still to come, from beautiful downtown Burbank, does the drink make the man?  Why your beverage of choice might determine whether you'll score with that hot date.

And Jackson refuses a court summons, but does he have a legal leg to stand on? 

Then one viewer's take on what a man's tie says about the man.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Might as well have a Speedo on, you freaking wuss.

ANNOUNCER:  Plus, from Tampa, an unusual display of affection, doggie-style.  It's all ahead on tonight's West Coast edition of THE SITUATION. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  This is the part of the show where the rhetorical gloves come off.  Joining me in the ring, a man who pierces the meniscus of conventional wisdom night after night, a man we call the Outsider.  Please welcome, ESPN radio and HBO boxing Max Kellerman, live from Las Vegas tonight. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  I love—just the introductions are so good, Tucker.  Pierces the meniscus. 

CARLSON:  You know, that actually came to me as I was reading the script.  I just kind of threw that in there.  I like the sound of it, meniscus, one of my favorite words, actually. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, what have you got for me, Tucker? 

CARLSON:  First up, the dean of one Florida law school has come out against pig kissing, because he says it's humiliating to the pig.  It all started with Nova Southeastern University's annual kiss the pig charitable fund-raiser, in which the professor voted least popular on campus has to kiss a potbelly pig.  Dean Joe Harbo (ph) said of last year's pig kissing, quote, “I personally observed the animal shivering, moving its head from side to side as it looked frantically, in my judgment, at those gathered all around.” 

The fund-raiser will continue, but with a no-kiss option to spare the pig any further embarrassment. 

Well, he is half right, Max, in that kissing a law professor, whether you're a pig or a human being or any kind of animal is a horrible thing.  But he is wrong in this way: Every law professor ought to be required to kiss pigs.  There's something leveling about the experience of kissing a pig.  Once you kiss a pig, you can no longer issue arrogant and poorly informed opinions on issues of the day to “The New York Times,” which is kind of a side gig for most law professors in this country.  I say make them kiss the pig. 

KELLERMAN:  I have kissed a few, and I still arrogantly put forth an opinion, though not in “The New York Times.”

Tucker, you know, people ask me, when they hear that I am on your show nowadays, what are you talking about with Tucker Carlson?  And I say, oh, actually—because I am known for sports and boxing—I discuss the social and political issues of the day.  I debate them with him. 

CARLSON:  Of the day.  All right.  Little do they know. 

KELLERMAN:  For instance, law professors kissing pigs.  Actually, let me just...

CARLSON:  Is this a new frontier of animal rights, do you think? 

KELLERMAN:  Yes.  Let me just defend this.  The pig is the most intelligent non-primate land animal in the world.  If we went to another planet and it was a planet of pigs, we would say, we discovered really intelligent life.  They're as smart as 2, 2-and-a-half-year-old kids.  They're smarter than dogs.  And you know that a dog can feel ashamed.  And you've seen a dog like—you put a ridiculous sweater on a dog, he doesn't want to go out of the house, he looks away.

CARLSON:  That's true, that's right.

KELLERMAN:  And pigs are smarter than dogs.  They might be humiliated by this.  Wouldn't you be humiliated if a law professor had—a professor had to kiss you? 

CARLSON:  You know what?  You have won me over with the strength, with the power of your logic, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  I agree.  Spare the pig. 

KELLERMAN:  I am not sure we are arguing about this. 

CARLSON:  You totally convinced me.  You're right.

KELLERMAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Let's try this one.

KELLERMAN:  Yes.

CARLSON:  Ancient Romans used to say, in vino veritas, which means there is truth in wine, and they may be right.  “Los Angeles Times” columnist Brad Dixon suggests that what a man drinks can tell his date a lot about him.  Beer?  You're reliable and down to earth.  Cosmopolitans?  You shop at Peer One.  Rum and coke?  Person so nondescript he's a possible future Supreme Court nominee—and also, a bit of a dork, if I can say. 

Look, you know as well as I do, if you are a man, particularly a man under 35, when you still care what other people think about you, what you drink says everything about you.  What you choose to drink.  This is a very premeditated decision.  This is something you agonize over.  This is something you look to your father and uncles and older men to sort of ape, you know, emulate what they drink.  If you are whipping out a wine cooler in public, you are—you should not be dating.  Women should not date you.  It says something so profoundly bad about you that you should be off-limits. 

KELLERMAN:  Here is the corollary, though.  It's almost a paradox.  You know, a paradox, someone says, everyone on the island of Crete is a liar—if it's true, then it's not true.  Well, if what you are saying is true, then I don't see how it can be true, because wouldn't it stand to reason that since everyone knows that what they order, the drink they order, affects perception... 

CARLSON:  Yes. 

KELLERMAN:  ... that they will intentionally order a drink maybe that they don't want, and, therefore, you are really not finding out anything about them? 

CARLSON:  Yes, yes, you have gotten to the nub of it, to the center, to the burning core of the truth. 

KELLERMAN:  Which is? 

CARLSON:  You are ordering a wine cooler.  You are a man. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes. 

CARLSON:  You are the least self-aware person in the whole world. 

KELLERMAN:  But that's why men don't order wine coolers. 

CARLSON:  No, but I'm merely saying...

KELLERMAN:  Men order beer.  So in other words, if it really tells you

about the guy, you see a guy ordering a beer, oh, he's a down-to-earth guy

·         maybe.  Or maybe he wants you to think he's a down-to-earth guy. 

CARLSON:  Which actually is enough.  In other words, the costumes we put on, the masks we wear in public tell people all we need to know.  It's not who you are; it's who you aspire to be.  So if you are drinking Zema, OK?  You've missed the boat.  You don't know enough to know you shouldn't drink Zema.  It's over for you. 

KELLERMAN:  You continually surprise me, Tucker Carlson. 

CARLSON:  Max Kellerman, live from Las Vegas.  Piercing the meniscus night after night.  Thank you.

Coming up next on THE SITUATION, how does a man go from rock star to renowned counterterrorism expert?  We will ask the great Skunk Baxter about everything from his days in Steely Dan and the Doobie Brothers to nuclear disarmament.  He knows a lot about all of it.  He joins us live, next. 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  We don't typically set expectations this high on this show, but my next guest is one of the most interesting people I have ever met.  Skunk Baxter was one of the founding members of the all-time great band Steely Dan.  He left that group in 1974 to play guitar in another pretty good band, the Doobie Brothers.  You may have heard of them.  In all, Skunk has played on eight platinum records.

But since 1980s, he's also been one of this country's leading experts on counterterrorism and missile defense.  He now serves as a consultant to the Department of Defense, and to private intelligence companies. 

Here to tell us about his life, the great Skunk Baxter.  Skunk, thanks for coming on. 

JEFF “SKUNK” BAXTER, MUSICIAN/COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT:  You bet you. 

Now, you told me about the Jacuzzi.  Where is the Jacuzzi?

CARLSON:  I always overstate the case. 

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON:  ... we've got a lot of pretty Polynesian women in the booking department.  Not true either.

How do you—how do you go, the obvious question would be, from Steely Dan and the Doobie Brothers to a missile defense and counterterrorism expert? 

BAXTER:  A thumbnail sketch.  Quickly, I wrote a paper on Aegis, the Aegis weapons system, how to convert it to do theater missile defense from doing air threats, and why it would make sense to do it on a mobile platform, like a naval vessel, because Aegis was part of the Navy system.  And giving U.S. a new role in NATO in the future on missile defense, because I could see—a lot of my friends were, you know, sort of anti-nuclear, and I understand, they don't want to waste anybody with nuclear weapons, but there had to be a third way.  And missile defense, it's the third way.  Give somebody an option.  You could actually stop this from happening. 

CARLSON:  But how did you go from—I mean, you could have spent the rest of your life, and I think you still do session work, right? 

BAXTER:  Yes, I do.  Yes, I do.

CARLSON:  You could spend your life doing that.  How did you start to ruminate about missile defense? 

BAXTER:  Reading the defense magazines for technologies that I could leverage in the musical instrument companies, like if there was a new data compression algorithm that TRW had, I was working for Akai Digital (ph) at the time, I could take that technology and use it for civilian purposes.

So—because a lot of times the Defense Department really was on the cutting edge of the technology horizon.  So I would read the stuff, and I built up this knowledge, I am not quite sure.  And I typed out this paper one day, gave it to Dana... 

CARLSON:  Dana Rohrabacher, your congressman. 

BAXTER:  Yeah.  And he showed it to a couple of guys.  And they said, oh, where is this guy from, CSIS?  No, he said, guitar player for the Doobie Brothers.  So you know, eyebrows were raised in Washington.  You know how that works. 

CARLSON:  Yes, I do. 

BAXTER:  And next thing, ring, ring, ring, it's Curt Weldon, Congressman Curt Weldon, saying I would like you to come and do some work with me.  So I said, yes, sir, happy to be here, proud to serve.

CARLSON:  That's amazing.  Now, one of the things you are known for in the defense community at the Pentagon is thinking through how terrorists might leverage existing technology for evil.  Can you give me some examples of technology that has taken a twist in their hands? 

BAXTER:  Well, the prime example is the Internet.  When you have a non-nation state with no borders, you need to create a virtual state, and what al Qaeda has done is created a virtual state on the Internet.  It's almost like Sim, it's almost like a game, where there is no real real estate, although I hear they are actually selling real estate on Sim now, but there is no real estate.  It is a virtual world, in which you can connect, you can create communities, you can create cells.  You can basically create a civilization or an operation or an organization virtually, and that's what they have done.  It's brilliant. 

CARLSON:  Now, you led enemy forces in a war game sponsored by the Pentagon.  You essentially were the terrorist leader. 

BAXTER:  I was the bad guy, the ayatollah of rock 'n' roll. 

CARLSON:  How do you think like a terrorist?  I know most people, certainly me have trouble thinking about how terrorists think.  What goes through their heads?  How do terrorists think? 

BAXTER:  Well, for one thing, one of the advantages that I have is I haven't been down that road.  A lot of the military guys that I work with, who are brilliant, certainly learned their craft in a certain way.  I learned it in a slightly different way.  What I realize, as a terrorist, if I have to think like one, is number one, I don't have a bluewater Navy, I don't have intercontinental ballistic missiles—in other words, I don't have the tools of the nation state. 

So what do I do?  Well, a few years before 9/11, we postulated the idea of using airplanes as cruise missiles.  That makes perfect sense when you don't have a cruise missile; you improvise.  So what you do when you want to think like a terrorist is you start to look at what you have available, and then what you have—you look at is the asymmetric piece of your enemy.  In other words, your enemy can do a lot of things.  The United States can do a lot of things, powerfully.  They have soldiers, they have tanks, they have guns.  But what do they not have?  What is the vulnerabilities?  The Internet, infrastructure. 

You start to look at the vulnerabilities, and then you attack that, because remember the dictum, the defender has to defend everything all the time; the attacker only has to attack once.  So in an asymmetrical world, it's, well, as you can see, it's easier than people thought. 

CARLSON:  It certainly is.  Skunk Baxter, your obituary is many, many years from being written, but when it is written, it's going to be one of the longest and most interesting ones ever to run in a family newspaper.  And I really appreciate you coming on. 

BAXTER:  So are you buying the capital grille? 

CARLSON:  I don't think there is a capital grille here, but if there -

·         is there? 

BAXTER:  (INAUDIBLE) when we get back to D.C.

CARLSON:  Oh, are you kidding?  I'd always buy it with you, of course. 

BAXTER:  Tucker, great.  My pleasure.

CARLSON:  Thanks.  Appreciate it. 

Coming up, it's not every day you hear the names David Copperfield and Saddam Hussein in the very same sentence.  Has President Bush finally called in a master illusionist to make Saddam disappear?  We'll find out when we check THE SITUATION voicemail next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  Welcome back.  It is time once again for our voicemail segment.  If you are one of the lucky 350,000 people with our personal private unlisted phone number, you may have called in today.  Let's hear what you said. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBIN:  Hi, Tucker.  This is Robin in Salt Lake City, Utah.  I just want to meet the girl that wants to get pregnant without having sex.  That doesn't sound like any fun at all.  I mean, if you are going to have a baby, you might as well have sex. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  You might as well.  Again and again and again.  You make a very, very smart—obvious, but frequently overlooked point, Robin.  I mean, I mean, having a baby without having sex really is kind of missing the point.  Doesn't sound fun one bit.

All right, next up. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANONYMOUS:  Tucker, I actually hope that Saddam is found not guilty, because then he will write a book, and he will appear on “Oprah” and he will tell us really what happened. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  And he can spend his golden years in Bahrain with Michael Jackson or Idi Amin's surviving relatives in Riyadh or something like that.  Yeah, that would be kind of interesting. 

Actually, honestly, I would like to read a tell-all book by Saddam. 

The psychology of tyranny is something I'm interested in.

Anyway, next up. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANONYMOUS:  You are talking about how the man purse is one of the most unmanly things that a guy could have?  How about a bow tie?  You know, unless you're like a 95-year-old grandfather, you don't need to be wearing a bow tie.  That is like the least manly thing you could do.  You might as well have a speedo on, you freaking wuss.  How dare you talk about man purses?  You know, it's called a briefcase. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Now, I knew last night when I went on something of a rant about man purses, there would be a few man purse carriers out there, outraged and bold enough to defend themselves.  I noticed this man did it anonymously.

Look, I did attack you for carrying a man purse.  Don't take it personally.  It's not too late.  You can throw away the man purse and start over.  Repent of that man purse and begin anew.  That's my advice to you.  And incidentally, wearing a bow tie, pretty darn manly.  All the abuse you take when you wear a bow tie, you've got to be pretty tough to handle it.  That's my excuse.

Next up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LITA:  Hello, Tucker.  It's Lita Franklin (ph) in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and my request is that you would replay the ugliest dog episode when Monica Crowley sat for you.  Please, let us see it again.  Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CARLSON:  Love to, Lita, but I think the FCC might get on our case were we to do that.  That was upsetting to viewers.  It was a kind of canine pornography.  It was just so shocking and wrong, I have regretted putting that on the tube ever since we did.  I wasn't here, though, and that's what happens when you leave. 

Let me know what you're thinking.  You can call 1-877-TCARLSON. 

That's 1-877-822-7576.  You can also send your questions via our Web site.  E-mail me at tucker@msnbc.com.  And I'll respond every day to anything you come up with.  I'm not responding for the next two days, though, because I'm in L.A. hanging out by the pool and sipping umbrella drinks.  I'm just too darn busy.  But to review the responses, you can log on to tucker.msnbc.com.

Still ahead on THE SITUATION, Michael Jackson could be headed back to a Santa Barbara courtroom.  Has he been having slumber parties at Neverland Ranch again?  The answer on “The Cutting Room Floor.”

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CARLSON:  You know what time it is?  It's time for “The Cutting Room Floor.”  And Willie Geist is here, or there, as always.  Willie, what do you have?

WILLIE GEIST, THE SITUATION:  Tucker, thanks for the invite to L.a.  This is great.  This is fun.  You hang out in Beverly Hills, I'll be in Seacacus.  Don't worry about it.  No, it's nice. 

CARLSON:  We haven't worried about it, but I'm sure you are taking good care of yourself. 

GEIST:  I did rifle through your desk today, and I didn't know you kept a dream journal.  That's interesting.  Here's the stack tonight, buddy.

CARLSON:  Thanks, Willie.

GEIST:  Sure. 

CARLSON:  Well, Michael Jackson just can't seem to keep himself away from the courthouses here in California.  Just four months after his acquittal on child molestation charges, Jackson has been randomly summoned to serve on a Santa Barbara County jury.  Though he notified authorities, however, that he will not be serving because he no longer considers Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara his full-time home. 

GEIST:  You know, Tucker, some people get doctors' notes to get out of jury duty; others move to Bahrain.  It really depends on your taste, you know what I mean?

CARLSON:  It really does.

GEIST:  There is actually a rumor out there that he is going to sell Neverland, which I think he should have a lot of luck with.  I think what people like in a home is hardwood floors, plenty of closet space and a amusement park in the backyard.  So I think it should do well.

CARLSON:  All the secret passageways. 

GEIST:  Exactly.

CARLSON:  I love dogs just about more than anyone, but there is a disturbing new trend of dog weddings that must be stopped at once.  This pair tied the knot recently at the Tampa Bay Gulf and Country Club in Florida.  Putter and A.W. Bear—I'm not sure which is the bride and which is the groom—got decked out in a wedding dress and a tuxedo for the celebration.  They even shared a doggy treat from a silver bowl. 

GEIST:  All right, Tucker, you're a dog person.  Can you explain this dressing up the dog phenomenon?  Why do I have to walk around New York and see dogs with shoes on and tweed blazers?  What's the problem exactly?  Why are we dressing up our animals? 

CARLSON:  I think some people have some excess disposable income, Willie. 

GEIST:  It might be.

CARLSON:  They're kind of not sure with it.  Hey, let's dress the dogs up.

GEIST:  Right.  And then they project their lack of fashion sense onto their dog, so it's like a double whammy.  It's just terrible. 

CARLSON:  Exactly right.

Well, looking to spice up that drab pork roast?  Why not accent it with some ammunition?  That appears to be the serving suggestion from the Florida grocery store that allegedly sold the woman some pork with a bullet in it.  Diane Johnson (ph) says her son-in-law was about to bite into the pork roast she slaved over, when he noticed the bullet in the meat.  There it is.

GEIST:  Tucker, I always say this.  There are a few things you never want to find in your meat—hair, bugs and certainly live ammunition falls into that category too.  I think it's wrong.  I don't think there should be bullets in meat.  Although, it's be an interesting tenderizer.  Shoot a little .22 at the meat, tenderizes it, not so chewy.  

CARLSON:  You got to wonder, if it didn't go off, the meat was not fully cooked, they could get trichinosis, and that's the real threat here.

GEIST:  That's right.

CARLSON:  Well, this next story isn't exactly about a dead man walking, more like a falsely presumed dead man hanging out comfortably in his basement.  Fifty-one-year-old Louis Goldson (ph) was pronounced dead in his Detroit home yesterday by emergency medical technicians.  His family was told to call the funeral home to pick up the body. 

The problem, he wasn't dead.  When a family member went to the basement to see the body, Goldson (ph) let out a sigh and opened his eyes. 

GEIST:  Tucker, that has got to be the worst way to wake up from a nap, with embalming fluid going into you.  That's just a jarring way to wake up from slumber.  I think.

CARLSON:  At least they didn't have the scalpel out yet. 

GEIST:  That's right.

CARLSON:  Well, here is a weird one, truly.  Basketball legend Larry Bird wore the number 33 during his playing days with the Boston Celtics.  He won three NBA championships.  He also won fans across this country, perhaps none bigger than Eric James Torpy of Oklahoma City.  At a sentencing hearing on Tuesday, a judge gave Torpy a 30-year prison term for shooting with intent to kill.  When he heard his sentence, Torpy demanded three years be added to his sentence.  Why, you ask?  So the number of years he spends in prison will match the jersey of his hero, Larry Bird, 33.

GEIST:  Tucker, all I can say on this one is, too bad he wasn't a bigger fan in those Celtic teams of Robert Parrish (ph).  He was number 00.  That really would have helped his cause.  David Johanssen (ph), number 3. 

(CROSSTALK)

GEIST:  ... number 12.  Would have helped him out.

CARLSON:  That is—I hope he has a good time all 33 years.  Willie Geist.

GEIST:  All right, Tucker.

CARLSON:  From headquarters, thanks.

GEIST:  See you tomorrow.

CARLSON:  See you.

That's THE SITUATION tonight from Los Angeles.  Thanks a lot for watching.  Up next, “COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN.”  See you right back here tomorrow night.

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

END   

Content and programming copyright 2005 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED.  Transcription Copyright 2005 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 The Situation with Tucker Carlson each weeknight at 11 p.m. ET

Discuss:

Discussion comments

,