'Scarborough Country' for June 6

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, Bush border wars—the president talks tough on immigration while visiting the border, but his own party still thinks he‘s supporting amnesty for up to 100 million immigrants.  Then, shocking new details on the Toronto terror plot to decapitate Canada‘s prime minister, and why one report predicts a terror attack on American soil by the end of the year.  And soldiers with a gun in one hand, a camera in the other.  The result, friends, it is an amazing up-close look at Iraq and the troops who fight there.  You‘ve never seen anything like this.

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  No passport required, only common sense allowed.

We‘re going to have all of that, plus the latest Kennedy saga straight ahead.  But first, as National Guard troops continued streaming to the U.S./Mexican border, President Bush visited a border patrol training facility in New Mexico and he watched recruits as they stopped fake illegal immigrants at a fake border checkpoint.  Mr. Bush then made yet another pitch for his guest worker plan that some Republicans are calling amnesty.


GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  ... come over here in a legal way, if you pass a background check, for a temporary period of time, and do work Americans are doing.  It‘s called a temporary worker plan.  And in my judgment, any comprehensive bill that will work requires a temporary worker plan.


SCARBOROUGH:  You can blame it on the heat or maybe blame it on Mr.  Bush‘s sunny disposition, but gloomy souls who inhabit Washington, D.C., couldn‘t help but scoff at the president‘s prediction that any immigration bill that he could sign would have that worker program in it because, again, Republicans are calling that amnesty.

The House and the Senate remain hopelessly divided, with Republicans at war with themselves.  And they‘re also at war with the media.  Still, the Republican House of Representatives refuses to strike any deal that would allow amnesty provisions to be signed into law by this president.  Conservatives are citing the Heritage Foundation study that predicts the passage of the Senate bill that the president supports would lead to immigration of over 100 million new immigrants over the next 20 years.  That‘s right, 100 million new immigrants coming to the United States if the president‘s plan is put in place.  This despite the fact that almost 80 percent of Americans want immigration levels frozen or cut back.

And I got to tell you this, friends.  In all my years in Washington, either covering it or being in Congress or following it as a citizen, I have never seen such a disconnect between middle America and the political and media machines that run Washington, D.C.  Something has got to give.

Here to talk about the president taking it to the borderline are MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan.  We have another guest who should be with us soon.

Pat, the president says he‘s going to get tough on the border, but again, he continues to insist on this guest worker program, that it‘s passed into law.  So I guess the question is, is it worth the trade-off, this tough border security strategy in return for this guest worker program that you and many others call amnesty?

PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST:  With due respect, Joe, the president has no credibility on this.  And the idea that we got to give him an amnesty or a guest worker program before he does his duty and enforces the immigration laws of the United States is preposterous.  This is an act of extortion!  The president‘s saying, Unless you give me what I want, this program, I‘m not going to do my constitutional duty to stop this invasion.

Joe, I mean, how does the president of the United States sit there and look those border patrol guys in the eye and say, You‘re doing a great job, when they‘re risking their lives to defend the border against this invasion and he‘s about to legalize it, and amnesty those who got around the border patrol?  His position is utterly non-credible!

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Pat, so you and I have been in Washington long enough to figure out that things usually aren‘t as they seem.  So let‘s just say that the president understands that 77 percent of Americans are opposed to this type of plan, or actually opposed to any plan that would allow one more illegal immigrant in this country than projected levels.  What‘s going on here?  Is there some sort of cynical plot where the president‘s thinking, Well, if I play in this game, if I keep fighting for this amnesty program, I win favor with Hispanics, while Republicans in the House can play it tough.  And we all win in the end, despite the fact we‘re not going to get an immigration bill.  could that be going on here?

BUCHANAN:  I think the president—first, I do believe he is authentic in wanting this bill, and I think he‘s got a strategy, Joe, and I think it‘s this.  He‘s got to know by now and Rove knows this Senate bill will not get through the House.  There‘s not a prayer of it getting through there.  I think what he‘s doing is he‘s fighting for it.  He wants to get it into committee, in the conference committee, where the inside game takes over.  He calls Hastert and Boehner, and he gets the Chamber of Commerce guys to hammer the House guys and say, Look, we‘re not going to have amnesty, but we got to have something so our guys are not prosecuted.  You got to give us something, or the checkbook is shut for you guys for good.

SCARBOROUGH:  OK, so that‘s extortion, where the president...

BUCHANAN:  It‘s hardball, yes.

SCARBOROUGH:  The president‘s going to get it into this committee.  It‘s hardball.  He‘s going to get it in, into this closed committee.  And then all of a sudden, all the lobbyists are going to start calling the House congressmen, saying, Either give us this bill, or we don‘t support you in the elections this fall.

BUCHANAN:  Yes.  I think first, you get to the—get to Hastert and get to the conferees and tell them—and they‘ve got to change the bill in conference.  And then the president‘s going to have to talk to the Democrats and say, Do you want anything?  We‘re going to have to give some stuff up.  And then they cut a deal and they try to get it to the House floor.  At that point, if they can get it to the House floor, I think they got enough Democrats who might go for it, and they really can put the pressure on the Republicans.

So the Republican House is holding firm now.  I think the president‘s cracking a little bit, and he‘s got to move to their position, and I think he knows it.

SCARBOROUGH:  I think he knows it, too.  And I talked earlier, Pat, to Arizona congressman J.D. Hayworth.  You know, he‘s toured the border, and he‘s talked immigration with the president.  And I asked him tonight whether Mr. Bush was right when he said the Senate bill had a chance, a real chance, of becoming law.


REP. J.D. HAYWORTH ®, ARIZONA:  It‘s stinkeroo coming in from the U.S. Senate.  There‘s no way to sugarcoat it.  It is an amnesty bill.  And the progress could be made if the president and others just recognized what they all they say they recognize, and that is enforcement is important.  Enforcement first is the way to go.  And Joe, I know I come from the valley of the sun out there in Arizona.  The rain really comes during the monsoon season.  But even I know, when you have a hole in your roof, you fix the leak first, and then you worry about the water damage.  You don‘t try to do both at the same time.

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, hasn‘t the president suggested that the House approach is a mean-spirited approach?

HAYWORTH:  Well, I haven‘t heard him say that directly.  I would say this about—and he is my friend.  Listen, we have a polite but profound disagreement.  Why subordinate enforcement to the notion of a guest worker amnesty plan?  The only people clamoring for the amnesty are the special interests on the right and the left, the left for cheap votes, the right for cheap labor.  The American people...


HAYWORTH:  ... want security.

SCARBOROUGH:  ... the president and the Senate will not give you border security unless they get what you and I would call amnesty.

HAYWORTH:  Well, what was that that Ronald Reagan talked about, cheerful persistence?  And I remain cheerfully persistent in the notion that the common-sense consensus is for enforcement, and I believe the president can be persuaded of that.

SCARBOROUGH:  The numbers are compelling -- 77 percent of Americans want to either freeze or reduce immigration levels.  They‘re pushing a plan that will allow 40 million to 100 million new immigrants into this country over the next 20 years.  And it will even force U.S. taxpayers to pay Social Security benefits for illegal immigrants!  Look, they‘ve got to know that Main Street America is dead set against that!

HAYWORTH:  Yes.  Yes.  The bottom line is this.  And if you ever saw a situation where the special interests are trying to drive an argument, it is here, where this euphemism of comprehensive reform is, in fact, a sop to the special interests on the right and the left, when most Americans, regardless of party label or previous political philosophy, go, No, no, no.  In a time of war, it‘s enforcement first.

And so here is the dynamic at work.  Either the House will stand with and for the American people or succumb to the rallying cry of the special interests that will give us a world of problems and fail to adequately secure our borders.  And no matter how many photo ops in border states we see, and usage of the bully pulpit, that does not change.  That‘s why I respectfully again renew my call for the president and the Senate to go where there is true consensus, with enforcement first.  We do that, and then we can move forward after we secure our borders.

SCARBOROUGH:  Congressman J.D. Hayworth, greatly appreciate it, as always.

HAYWORTH:  Thanks.


SCARBOROUGH:  You know, Pat, when J.D. was in Congress with me, this was a guy that went along with the party most of the time.  He was loyal to Newt Gingrich longer than I was and longer than a lot of other people were, always loyal.  I mean, again, this guy would fall in line and do what he thought was best for the party—and best for the country.  But here you have him really knocking the president around here, saying, We—you know, I really don‘t care how many times he goes to the border.  I don‘t care how big his bully pulpit is.  I‘m going to stare him down, and I‘m going to say no.  This has to be a profound shock to the White House, if they have been totally abandoned by their base in the House.

BUCHANAN:  Well, they got to realize that these House guys—look, to vote for that Senate bill is to cut your throat if you‘re in any kind of competitive district.  Take the one thing that J.D. mentioned.  Can you see going back to Arizona and saying, Well, it‘s—I know the bill‘s not perfect, but we had to vote to give Social Security benefits to all these illegal aliens?  It is all over for you!  You‘ll have a third-party candidate against you, if the Democrats go for it.  These guys, Joe, realize in the House now—and again, Chris Shays is the best example.  Here‘s a guy who probably believes in his heart maybe this is a good bill.  He just said, Look, you know, I go to 18 meetings.  I‘ve had it.  I think I‘m going to go with the—my constituency.  I think they may be right.


BUCHANAN:  But the president‘s got—I don‘t know how the president gets a deal that the House can buy that he can send back to the Senate...

SCARBOROUGH:  I don‘t think he can do it.


BUCHANAN:  ... enforcement bill, but those liberals—I mean, Reid‘s appointing all them conferees.

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, I don‘t think he can do it.  Let me bring in right now Juan Jose Gutierrez.  He‘s national coordinator for the Latino Movement USA.  Juan, why should Americans work hard so the Senate bill can pass and they‘ll be forced, as Pat Buchanan said, to pay Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants?

JUAN JOSE GUTIERREZ, LATINO MOVEMENT USA:  Look, we have a crisis in our immigration system right now, and we need to do something about it.  You know, what‘s interesting is hearing Pat Buchanan, people like himself, you know, bashing any type of sensible reform bill, is that they don‘t propose anything.  I mean, they simply say, We have a problem.  There are more undocumented workers in the pipeline.  You know, We have a crisis.  You know, you mentioned 40 million to 100 million new immigrants in the next 20 years.  It sounds like they‘re coming across tomorrow.  People panic.  They want something done about it.

But in the end, you know, if we follow the logic of those arguments, is that we mustn‘t do anything about it.  All the wild clamoring that we have a crisis and we do something about it.  Look, the reality that we cannot continue to come up with formulas that will keep pointing guns to Mexico.


GUTIERREZ:  We need to put on the table—we need to put on the table...

BUCHANAN:  Lookit...

GUTIERREZ:  ... serious proposals to fix our broken immigration...

BUCHANAN:  Look, look, wake up, my friend!

GUTIERREZ:  ... system.  I‘d like to hear one of them!  I‘d like to hear one of them.

BUCHANAN:  OK, I‘ll tell you a couple of them first.  First, you don‘t know what you‘re talking about, my friend.  This year alone, first five months, they‘ve caught 800,000, more than that, on the border, trying to break in.  That‘s 1.7 million a year.  That is more per year than the 6 million we‘ve averaged in the last five years.  That‘s the crisis we‘ve got!

Now, as for ideas -- 2,000-mile fence is one of them.  Secondly, end the fact that automatic citizenship to anybody born in the United States to an illegal alien!  Third, enforce the sanctions against businessmen!  Fourth, end chain immigration, where folks can bring in, once they come in to work, not only the wife and their underage kids, but mom and dad and brothers and sister, who bring in their wives!  End chain immigration!


SCARBOROUGH:  Let me—go ahead.

GUTIERREZ:  Yes, you know, that‘s fascism.  You know, I mean, when you‘re talking...

BUCHANAN:  It‘s enforcing the law!

GUTIERREZ:  ... when you‘re talking about, you know, changing the Constitution of the United States so you that don‘t have...

BUCHANAN:  You don‘t change the Constitution!

GUTIERREZ:  ... a right to—hold on.  Let me speak.  When you say, Let‘s change the Constitution so that children who are born in American can no longer be American citizens by birth...


GUTIERREZ:  ... when we fought a Civil War over that issue, Pat Buchanan, I cannot believe that I‘m hearing you say...

BUCHANAN:  Juan, you don‘t—you don‘t understand the law!

GUTIERREZ:  ... that children should not have...

BUCHANAN:  Let me tell you!

GUTIERREZ:  No, no.  I do understand the law!

BUCHANAN:  No, you don‘t, either, because let me tell you...


GUTIERREZ:  You want to change the Constitution.  That‘s wrong!

BUCHANAN:  After the 14th Amendment was passed, the United States did not grant automatic citizenship to the children of Indians on the reservation because Congress interpreted it.  They could reinterpret it tomorrow and say, Anybody born to an American citizen, yes, but if you‘ve broken in illegally, your child is not an automatic American citizen!  They could do it with a law, Juan!  They did it again and again in the late 19th and early 20th century.  You don‘t know your history, Juan!

GUTIERREZ:  No, I do know my history, and the history right now is that we have a broken immigration system.  We have millions of people that everybody says that we cannot simply go out and arrest and deport, you know, that that would be bringing back the Gestapo.  You yourself said...


GUTIERREZ:  ... the last time, you know, that we talked on this program, that you‘re against that.  Yet you insist that too many people are coming in...

SCARBOROUGH:  Gentlemen...


SCARBOROUGH:  Stay with us...

BUCHANAN:  Let me make a point, Juan...


BUCHANAN:  All right, let me...

SCARBOROUGH:  Pat, Juan, we‘ll be right back.


SCARBOROUGH:  We‘re back debating Bush‘s border wars.  I want to go back to Juan.  Juan, you‘ve—you‘ve—I wrote some of these terms down.  You used some tough talk here.  You‘ve accused Pat Buchanan of being a fascist.  And before, last week, a bigot.  What‘s Pat saying that you would compare to, let‘s say, what Adolf Hitler doing in Germany back in the 1930s?

GUTIERREZ:  Well, and let me add that he‘s a fascist of a most despicable form, for the following reason.  I asked for some kind of serious proposal to fix our broken immigration system, to legalize the millions of people that are already here, and instead of talking about that, he goes on to lecture about how we need to basically become a police state along the Mexico-U.S. border, to get rid of the millions of people that are already here, even though he claims that he wants to somehow find a way for them to be here.

And then he misstates the facts.  I mean, the president of the United States said today that over the last five years, the border patrol agents have actually caught (INAUDIBLE) about 6 million people, a little bit less than that.  That averages a little bit less than 1.2 million per year.  He‘s talking about 1.8 million.  So he‘s adding 600,000 more people to that number to panic the American public...


GUTIERREZ:  ... you know, to make them feel that we have a crisis of such proportions that that justifies...

BUCHANAN:  Look, Juan...

GUTIERREZ:  ...  (INAUDIBLE) a police state...


GUTIERREZ:  ... depriving children of American citizenship.


SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on, guys.  Hold on, Juan.  You‘ve given us a lot to talk about here.


SCARBOROUGH:  Pat, he said you‘re a fascist of the most...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... despicable kind because you would like to turn the United States into a police state along the border.


SCARBOROUGH:  There others who feel the same way, that those of us who believe that we should take the troops to the border are somehow backward, somehow fascist.  You‘ve heard these terms before.  How do you respond to that?

BUCHANAN:  Well, I‘m really unconcerned about what Juan says about me, but let me say this.  Putting troops on the border is what Mexico does.  And felonies charges against illegal aliens is what Mexico does.  And the abuse and mistreatment of Guatemalans and the rape of those women, that is what is done in Mexico by this corrupt, incompetent government, which is pushing its people toward our border, half of whom are so unhappy, they said they would like to live in the United States.

Let me make a factual statement.  On the Web site today Drudge.com, it reported that up through May, over 800,000 were apprehended on the Mexican border.  By my mathematics, that‘s averaging out 1.7 million a year.  And I know math is a little beyond Juan here, but if he goes there and he can multiply by 5 and multiply by 12, that‘s the number you will get, Juan.

SCARBOROUGH:  And Juan, what I‘m intrigued by here is your saying that Pat is using fascist rhetoric to whip people into a frenzy, to make them believe there is this crisis.  But you‘ve got to admit there is a very significant immigration crisis in the United States.  Do you not have to admit that?

GUTIERREZ:  I agree that there‘s a crisis, in the sense that people that are concerned about people coming into the United States and don‘t really believe in a free market, in the sense that, Let supply and demand take care of the problem, you know, are being driven into a frenzy by demagogues like Pat Buchanan and others, you know, who don‘t tell us whether or not they want the people that are here already to be legalized.  One thing is to talk about law enforcement.

I think we can debate that.  But I think that when you say that you don‘t think we should set up a Gestapo system in America and start going after people, arrest them and send them back to Mexico or anyplace else, and then you don‘t put an offer on the table that would creatively and justly take care of the people that are here without documents, I think that you‘re speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Juan...

GUTIERREZ:  And no matter what kind of nice rhetoric you use, that doesn‘t solve the problem.


SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Juan.  Thank you so much.

BUCHANAN:  Let me say very quickly...

SCARBOROUGH:  We‘re going to have to leave it there.  Pat, I‘m sorry.


SCARBOROUGH:  Pat, I‘m sorry.  We‘ll get you tomorrow night.  Thank you both for being with us tonight.


GUTIERREZ:  Thank you.

SCARBOROUGH:  And while America fights the war on terror overseas, it‘s the terrorists next door that could be our bigger threat.  You can just ask Canada, where police stopped a major terror attack that apparently took root on its own soil.  It‘s the changing face of the war on terror, and many expect America to be the next target.

Let‘s take a look.  I mean, you all have all heard about what happened in Toronto this past weekend.  Let‘s look at what these Canadian terror suspects—we‘re not talking south of the border, north of the border—were allegedly planning to do: storm Canada‘s parliament and behead the prime minister, blow up buildings using three tons of ammonium nitrate, to take over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation—serious threats.

So has America learned from its mistakes leading up to 9/11?  And will we be able to stop the next terror attack on U.S. soil?  With me now is Peter Beinart.  He‘s the author of the book, “The Good Fight: Why Liberals and Only Liberals Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again.”  Peter‘s also the editor-at-large at “The New Republic.”

Peter, this Canadian plot proves, I think, that domestic terror is the wave of the future.  Nobody‘s waiting for signals from Osama bin Laden, they‘re moving on their own.  Do you think America is any better prepared it stop these attacks than we were before September 11?

PETER BEINART, AUTHOR, “THE GOOD FIGHT”:  We‘re not nearly well-prepared enough.  One of the great dangers is our ports, where a lot of cargo is not inspected, and that the easiest way to probably get a nuclear weapon into the United States would be in the hull of a supertanker bringing in oil, for instance.

The best thing America has going for its protection is, ironically, the fact that we actually are better at assimilating, integrating Muslims in our society than the societies of Europe.  It‘s ironic partly because we‘re a more religious society.  Because we‘re a more religious society, I think we make Muslims feel more comfortable here than in Europe, where they‘re forced to become secular and they feel like outsiders.  That‘s ultimately, in the long term, our best hope for being safe.

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, I‘m fascinated by the title of your book, only because liberals, at least since Vietnam, have seemed to have an aversion to tough national defense strategy, to U.S. military might, to things like the Patriot Act and to so many other things that Americans have supported after 9/11.  How can you say that only liberals can win the war on the terror?

BEINART:  I think what liberals understand—and my book is particularly about the liberal tradition of the 1940s and ‘50s and ‘60s, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy—the recognition that the way America fights for freedom is becoming a better society at home, that we live up to the ideals that we preach.

You know, George W. Bush talks a lot about democracy, and yet we look like a hypocrite to the world because of what we‘ve done in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.  The tradition that I‘m talking about, the liberalism that I‘m talking about, says that we fight fiercely for freedom around the world, while we also fight for freedom at home.  And what inspires the world is America is becoming a better society, that Civil Rights and anti-communism were interrelated...

SCARBOROUGH:  Right.  Right.

BEINART:  ... in the 1950s.

SCARBOROUGH:  But when you talk about liberals like John Kennedy or Harry Truman, that‘s a lot different from liberals like George McGovern and let‘s say Howard Dean.  I mean...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... much different specimens there.

BEINART:  It‘s also very different, though, from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  You know, one of the key ideas behind Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy I think we need to recapture today is that only when America becomes a stronger society at home—and I talk about this in my book—can we be strong enough to defeat our enemies at home.  And one of the things that I think you‘ve seen under conservative leadership is that life has been getting rougher and rougher for working-class Americans over the last couple decades.  And America‘s ability to sustain this long war, to keep spending money on the military, on homeland security, on foreign aid, which we need to do, is really imperiled by the fact that our government is not taking care of people at home.  And that‘s the way in which the Republican, I think, domestic economic agenda really saps our strength to be able to defeat the jihadists around the world.

SCARBOROUGH:  So Peter, can you name for me a liberal, a national figure who could be running in 2008 that is the liberal that you‘re talking about that is also strong on national defense, that‘s also going to be strong on domestic security, that‘s also going to assure people in middle America that they‘re not going to be a McGovern Democrat?

BEINART:  Yes.  I think a lot of Democrats are going to try to do that.  Let me suggest a couple names that might surprise you.  Al Gore.  Al Gore, to his credit, supported the Gulf war, and he was one of only a small number of Democrats who did that.  He was very hawkish in the Clinton administration on Bosnia and Kosovo.  He opposed the Iraq war, but you know what?  In retrospect—I say this as someone who supported the war—he looks pretty good for that decision now.  He supported the war in Afghanistan.  Al Gore has actually been right on a lot of these tough national security issues over time.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  I‘ll tell you what.  That doesn‘t surprise me at all, Peter, because I actually think Al Gore—like you said, Al Gore was tough on national defense in 1991.  He‘s played a centrist.  Of course, he‘s not playing that role right now, but I think a lot of that has to do with him being embittered by what happened in 2000.  And I think you‘re right.  I think if he runs, he certainly would govern as a centrist.  But we‘ll just have to wait and see.

Peter, I‘ve started reading the book.  It‘s absolutely fascinating.

BEINART:  Thank you.

SCARBOROUGH:  Thank you for being with us tonight, and look forward to having you back.

BEINART:  Coming up next:  Seeing Iraq like soldiers.  Do U.S. troops videotape their own tour of duty?  Their war tapes when we return.  And Patrick Kennedy says he wants to be treated like a black man if he gets charged for crashing his car on Capitol Hill.  We‘ll try to decipher that statement and much more when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.


SCARBOROUGH:  We‘ll give you a view of war like you‘ve never seen before when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.  But first, here‘s the latest news you and your family need to know.


SCARBOROUGH:  ... crashing his car under the influence, Congressman Patrick Kennedy is out of rehab.  He‘s got a special request of prosecutors:  Treat me like a black man.  We‘ll try to explain that one later.

And these are the soldiers whose video brought Britain‘s computer system to a halt.  “Must See PC” coming up later. 

Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  We‘ll be talking about those stories in just minutes, but first it‘s time for tonight‘s “Must See SC,” videos you just got to see. 

Up first, take a look at these incredible images out of Arizona.  You‘re looking at a dust storm rolling right through the greater Phoenix area as we speak.  Strong winds kicked up the dust, which was accompanied with lightning and strong blasts of rain.  Look.  It‘s just eating those neighborhoods up. 

Next up, across the pond to Doversill, England, (ph) for the annual shin-kicking contest.  Contestants strap on their finest boots, load themselves up with some hay for protection, and then let loose on each other‘s lower limbs.  The sport, if you call it that, was invented in the 1600s.  Yikes. 

And, finally, we couldn‘t let a show go by without a 666 reference.  A Tennessee woman gives birth to this baby boy today.  She entered the world at 6:00 a.m. weighing in at 6.66 pounds.  Yikes.  The Southern Baptist in me shivers. 

And now, bringing the Iraq war home.  A new documentary filmed by soldiers themselves called “The War Tapes” just picked up honors at the Tribeca Film Festival and it‘s set to hit theaters across the country later this month.  And as you‘re about to see, this movie delivers a look from the front lines like you‘ve never seen before. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Let‘s bring in Michael Moriarty and Deborah Scranton.  They are the director and, I guess you could say, the star of “The War Tapes.”  Thank you all for being with us.

Michael, let me start with you.  Tell me why “The War Tapes” is different from any other type of war movie America has seen. 

MICHAEL MORIARTY, SPECIALIST:  Well, the difference in “The War Tapes” is that, you know, there‘s no outside forces acting on the way we shot this film.  You know, typically you have journalists in the Green Zone or nearby the Green Zone telling their version of the story.  And, you know, everyone has their bias. 

Or you have an embedded reporter with the soldiers who‘s getting a shot of the soldiers doing their job.  And, in our case, we did our thing, and that camera was not intimidating in any way, shape or form.  I knew that I had full control over what that camera shot.  And if I didn‘t like it, I could do what I wanted with it.  I turned that camera on, did my job as well as everybody else, and it got the real deal. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  Come on, mother(bleep), I dare you to shoot just once.  Come on, mother(bleep).  Keep going, brother.  You want to play?  They‘re shooting at me.  I don‘t give a (bleep) if they‘re the pope. 


SCARBOROUGH:  What was the most compelling part of the movie for you? 

MORIARTY:  It‘s seeing the footage of what my wife went through at home.  You know, I understood, because I had communications with her.  We‘re very lucky soldiers to have today‘s technology and to be able to communicate through the Internet on, you know, almost a daily basis, but actually seeing on film my children at home, and seeing my son, you know, talk about me, and seeing the hardships that they went, that really got me. 


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  When Mike first went over there, we just told Matthew he was going to go and beat up the bad guys.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  There‘s my school!

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  And then, at daycare one time, a little girl there said, “You know, people get killed over there.”  It just completely freaked him out, like, “Is Daddy going to die?”  And, you know, it was really, really hard for him.  But I‘m afraid.  I‘m afraid for Mike. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Deborah, as director, you were actually offered the opportunity to be embedded with the troops, but you decided not to.  You decided to turn all the work over to the soldiers.  Why? 

DEBORAH SCRANTON, FILMMAKER:  Well, when I got the call with the offer to embed, based on an earlier film I had made, I literally woke up in the middle of the night with this idea of, “What if I gave them the cameras and directed (INAUDIBLE) because I was really intrigued about the authenticity of the experience, to try to climb inside so that you could feel and experience what it meant to have to lock and load and leave the wire every day. 

SCARBOROUGH:  You know, we‘ve seen so many war movies, going back to World War II, with John Wayne, all the way through Vietnam, and “Apocalypse Now, “Full Metal Jacket.”  Talk about how realistic this movie is compared to all those that Hollywood has been churning out for the past 50, 60 years now? 

SCRANTON:  Well, I have to say, some of those movies are some of my favorite movies, but I think the main difference would be that these guys are—they‘re real people.  They‘re not actors, and it‘s telling their story through their eyes.  I mean, one promise I made to them when we started this project, that we would tell their story through their eyes, wherever it took us, no matter what, and that was very important. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Do you think, Deborah, that this movie will do more to help Americans and people across the world understand what our soldiers and Marines and National Guardsmen go through every day? 

SCRANTON:  That is our hope, to put yourself in their shoes, you know, to walk a mile in their boots, and to see what it means to be on the ground.  I mean, they‘re there in our name.  You know, and it‘s my hope that people are able through empathy to understand what it means to be a soldier on the ground. 

MORIARTY:  The difference between “The War Tapes” and everything else is that it really shows, not only the sacrifice of that soldier and what a soldier really goes through, it shows what my wife has gone through, it shows what the mother has gone through, and what family members have gone through. 

It shows that the sacrifice of going to war, when you make the decision to go to war, that sacrifice is not, you know, one soldier.  It‘s a package deal.  It shows the family behind.  You know, my wife really put up with a lot to allow me the privilege of going to serve my country. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Deborah, what kind of response have you gotten from soldiers and family members from your movie? 

SCRANTON:  There has been a few responses that are just so amazing.  One active-duty soldier, actually, who wasn‘t with their unit said, you know, he hasn‘t talked much about his experiences.  And he said, “After seeing your film, I want to bring all my family to see it.  And then I can begin to talk.”

SCARBOROUGH:  Deborah, thank you so much.  Deborah Scranton and Michael Moriarty.  The film is “The War Tapes,” and it certainly is required viewing for anybody that wants to understand what our troops are going through day in and day out.  Thank you so much for being here tonight and thank you for your service. 

MORIARTY:  Thank you for having us.  We appreciate it.

SCRANTON:  Thanks so much for having us.  We so appreciate it.  Thank you. 


SCARBOROUGH:  And I‘m joined now by Rita Cosby.  She‘s the host of Rita Cosby “LIVE & DIRECT.”  Rita, what do you have coming up for us at 10:00? 

RITA COSBY, HOST:  Well, coming up we‘ve got some big developments tonight, Joe, and an all-out manhunt in the Clemson bikini murder case.  Just minutes ago, authorities released a picture of a man that they suspect raped and strangled Tiffany Souers. 

We‘re going to talk to her family.  We‘re also going to show you who cops are looking for.  They put out a photo.

Plus, if you‘re Oprah Winfrey and you can‘t get invited to a wedding, what do you do?  You crash it.  We‘ve got the pictures of Oprah in action.  We‘ll have that and a whole lot more, Joe, “LIVE & DIRECT” at the top of the hour. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thanks so much, Rita.  Looking forward to it, as always. 

And when we come back, Congressman Patrick Kennedy says he doesn‘t want to be treated like the son of a senator.  He wants Joe Law to handle him like a black man in D.C.  I‘m not so sure he knows what he‘s asking for.  We‘ll tell you what that means, when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.


SCARBOROUGH:  Congressman Patrick Kennedy is out of rehab, back on Capitol Hill, but still facing charges after his run-in with a concrete barrier last month.  Kennedy admits to being under the influence of painkillers at the time, but he insists he wants no special treatment.  In fact, Kennedy suggested he‘d like to be handled a certain way if charges are filed.  Take a listen. 


REP. PATRICK KENNEDY (D), RHODE ISLAND:  It‘s what anyone else would have done to them, if they were an African-American in Anacostia and they were picked up.


SCARBOROUGH:  All right, so if that‘s how he wants to be treated, fine, as if he were black.  We‘ll see.  But let‘s talk, instead of just that issue, let‘s bring in Ron Kessler.  He‘s the author of “Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded.”  Also, Jim Warren of the “Chicago Tribune.”

Jim, you spent time up in Boston.  You‘ve certainly—you know members of the Kennedy family.  Talk about this family, the problems they‘ve had in the past, and how somehow they continue this dynasty as it moves forward.  I mean, is this going to have an impact on Patrick Kennedy?

JAMES WARREN, “CHICAGO TRIBUNE”:  Well, I mean, let‘s see what happens next few elections.  So far, he has been a very, very successful politician, very well-liked.  I was in the Providence area on Memorial Day weekend, and Democrats and Republicans alike were voicing tremendous sympathy for him.

As we know, yesterday he got out after 28 days in drug treatment in the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota.  I don‘t think it‘s going to have much impact on him, if this pattern of behavior would desist.  As you know, Joe, and Ron knows, when you look at Patrick, he has been a very effective, successful congressman in representing a state which tends to get ignored, which has an aging, working-class population, particularly from his perch on the Appropriations Committee. 

He‘s been able to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars back to the state, particularly in defense technology start-up jobs, also created a huge community health center in one city called Woonsocket, which has generated health care for thousands of people who wouldn‘t get it. 

And for those who have this caricature of the Kennedys as these, you know, liberals who are against law enforcement, I want you to note that he personally stuck into the Patriot Act an amendment which boosted two-fold the amount of money that would go to spouses of police officers killed in the line of duty. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Ron, let me bring you in here, Ron.  We are showing images of the Kennedy family, obviously, a powerful dynasty for years now.  Do you think that dynasty is showing some signs of age?  And do you think they‘re going to be able to continue to withstand these types of crises in future? 

RON KESSLER, KENNEDY BIOGRAPHER:  Well, the royalty has certainly worn off them, and some of them have actually been defeated for election or re-election, particularly in Maryland.  I think people are getting tired of these constant problems, whether it‘s drug overdoses or Chappaquiddick or this latest situation. 

And you do a streak of arrogance.  First of all, Patrick came up with this story that he was going to a vote, when he was apprehended.  Well, he knows very well that going to a vote and debating are the two areas where he would be excluded from arrest.  Obviously, he was just trying to come up with an alibi.  And now his latest comment, he wants to be treated like a black man, I think, first of all, he‘s trying to cater to black jurors in Washington in case he is charged. 

WARREN:  Boy, do I disagree. 

KESSLER:  Well, I mean, regardless, I agree you can interpret that comment many different ways, but why inject race?  You know, for one reason or another, he‘s trying to deflect blame from himself and try to either win votes, or win sympathy, or win black juries.

I don‘t know what he‘s trying to do, but I think it‘s pathetic to bring up race in a situation where, if it were you or I, we would have been brought to the police station.  We would have been given a blood-alcohol test and, most likely, we would have been in jail all night. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Jim Warren, do you think in end—hold on a second, Jim.  I want you to ask you a bigger picture question about the Kennedys.  In the end, is the question whether the Kennedys remain effective?  As you said, Patrick is effective in Rhode Island.  Teddy Kennedy obviously, as he retires, will be seen as one of the most effective senators, whether you love his politics or hate him, in the history of the U.S. Senate. 

Is that, in the end, the test, even for the Kennedys, whether they can bring that power and influence to their home districts and their home states? 

WARREN:  Well, I mean, first of all, the bar is obviously set high for any Kennedy who does make elected office, but also let‘s remember, by using a much broader, perhaps fair-minded definition of public service, it‘s still a very, very impressive clan.  If you just look at one branch of it, the Shrivers, Maria, her brother, Sergeant Shriver, starting of the Special Olympics, you don‘t ever hear much from them.

And one of the folks, Bobby, one of Maria‘s brothers, is a good friend of mine.  He‘s a guy who is an elected official now in Santa Monica, serves on a big California state board.  He‘s a behind-the-scenes key aide to Bono and a lot of the work he has done in Africa, but he doesn‘t make a lot of headlines. 

So I think it will depend.  And, you know, in a broad sense, they are still—many of them are impressive public servants. 

SCARBOROUGH:  We‘re going to have to leave it there.  Thank you, Jim. 

Thank you, Ronald.  Greatly appreciate it.  We‘ll be right back.


SCARBOROUGH:  Welcome back.  My staff spends too much of their time on the Internet playing video poker and other things, but every once in a while they come across something we want you to see. 

Look at this first:  A sports stunt, almost unbelievable except we‘ve got the video (INAUDIBLE) are you sure?  She looks a little stunned she made it through.  So am I.  Did it really happen?  Let‘s look again.  I just can‘t believe it.  But it‘s the Internet, who knows?

And now to Britain, where troops in Iraq used some of their well-deserved downtime to make this hilarious home video at their base in Iraq before mailing it to Army friends in London.  The film spread like wildfire and actually crashed British defense computers. 


SCARBOROUGH:  Today marks the 62nd anniversary of D-Day.  You know, I traveled to Normandy two years for the 60th anniversary.  And I talked to one of the brave soldiers who stormed Omaha Beach that day and lived to tell about it. 


SGT. DAL ESTES, D-DAY VETERAN:  So here we are without tank protection.  A lot of our artillery went down, also, laid out our boys out too far.  We know that now.  And some of the boats swamped.  Some of them got hit.  I saw boats that were swamped halfway.  I turned around, some of them went back to England they were so badly beat.  But these are the things that happen in war, just mass confusion. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Mass confusion.  And, again, so many plans were made.  I mean, obviously, Eisenhower and his staff were planning this out as early as January or February 1943. 

ESTES:  Correct. 

SCARBOROUGH:  They have the plans—and, again, like you said, they were expected to have air cover out there as you men stormed the beaches.  They are expecting to have air cover.  They were expecting to have tanks. 

You had none of them.  There was mass confusion. 

I want to know—and, actually, two hours into it, the Germans were actually radioing they didn‘t need reinforcements, because they said, “The allies have lost.  We have slaughtered them on the beaches.”  How did you do it?  How did you pull the men together and bring them up? 

ESTES:  Well, in the first place, the Germans were mistaken about us being whipped the first two hours.  We all were well-trained boys, let‘s say that.  I trained for two years before we made the landing, and we trained for jungle fighting in Georgia.  We trained in the California desert for North Africa.  We trained up in Massachusetts.  And we were well-trained. 

And there wasn‘t a boy that was with me that didn‘t think he was coming back.  I‘ll tell you this:  There was atheist on the beach that day.


SCARBOROUGH:  Well-trained then, and still well-trained now.  God bless America and for those men.

That‘s all the time we have tonight.  Rita Cosby “LIVE & DIRECT” starts right now—Rita?



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 MSNBC.  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 MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.