IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for June 8

Read the transcript to the Thursday show

RITA COSBY, HOST, “LIVE AND DIRECT”:  And that does it for me.  I‘m “LIVE AND DIRECT” tonight, everybody.  I‘m Rita Cosby.  THE SITUATION with Tucker starts right now. 

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Thank you, Rita. 

Thanks to you at home for tuning in.  It‘s good to have you with us. 

Tonight, the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  His death may be the biggest U.S. victory in Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein.  But will it turn the tide in the war?  And are American troops now in more danger than they were before?  We‘ll go live to Baghdad in just a moment.

Also ahead, remarkable new revelations in the Duke rape case.  Details on what the second dancer first told police about the new infamous lacrosse party.  That case may finally have fallen apart. 

Plus, more on Ann Coulter.  Even her friends say she has gone too far, and yet her book is now No. 1 on the best-seller list.  We‘ll bring you the very latest on that. 

But first we go live to Baghdad.  And NBC News‘ Jim Maceda. 

Jim, what is the latest there?


Well, the latest is that—let me continue with this out of my ear.  The latest—the latest is that samples, DNA samples, of the bodies, the four or five bodies that were recovered at the scene, those samples have now been brought to Quantico, Virginia, for testing, for DNA testing. 

However, it‘s pretty clear that that was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  As General Casey said today in a press conference, they checked scars, tattoos.  He was fingerprinted.  And there was a visual done on his face, which of course, we‘ve all seen now in those photos.  So it‘s pretty clear that that was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. 

But, again, just to be sure, there are samples that have just arrived in Virginia—Tucker.

CARLSON:  Jim, what can you tell us about the local reaction?  We‘ve got conflicting reports about how the people of Iraq on the street and in the shops are responding to the death of Zarqawi.  Have you seen any indication one way or the other of what people think of this?

MACEDA:  Yes.  We‘ve talked to people in the streets.  And it is mixed.  There‘s no question that it‘s mixed. 

We spoke to Shiites who, of course, are expressing more joy and relief.  Shiites, of course, being the key target, bearing the brunt of three years of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi‘s attacks. 

But also Sunnis.  Many Sunnis we talked to today said that Zarqawi does not represent them in any way.  He represents terrorism.  And that they have nothing to do with him.  Even Sunnis who support or sympathize with the resistance said that. 

So there is relief, but there is tempered relief in the streets, because these people, first of all, they‘re exhausted beyond belief, going through what they go through every day here just to survive.  So that tempers things. 

But also generally speaking, they understand that yesterday, on a day when they had hoped things would change, there were another 40 or 45 killed in at least five car bombs.  So they have a sense of reality here.  They know that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi‘s al Qaeda in Iraq represented a very small fraction, maybe two or three percent only, of the patchwork insurgency here, which is up to 15,00 to 20,000 insurgents, according to our latest figures.  They are home grown.  They‘re not foreign fighters.  Again, they are Iraqis.  And they are the new face, or the latest face of the insurgency. 

So, yes, there could be conflicting reaction, depending on whether you‘re Sunni or Shia.  But in general, there was again relief, some joy, some dancing we saw in Najaf, some in Baghdad.  But otherwise, pretty muted. 

Back to you. 

CARLSON:  Did—finally, did Zarqawi have an open constituency?  Were there people, religious leaders, publications that, before he died openly said, we support al-Zarqawi?

MACEDA:  He did, yes.  He did.  He had an open constituency.  You just looked at the al Qaeda web site, and you will see entry after entry supporting for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, calling him a martyr, calling him a hero.  That there should be 1,000 more Zarqawis and will be 1,000 more Zarqawis, they believe, to replace him. 

You go to Zarqa, the town, his village in Jordan, and Martin Fletcher, a colleague, was there today and spoke to people, and they consider him to be a martyr, as well.  And not just his immediate family. 

That said, about a year ago, his Bani Hassan tribe, one of the major Jordanian tribes, did renounce him publicly.  Still, in the town of Zarqa, there‘s a tremendous amount of support, as well. 

So as difficult as it is for us to imagine, that individual, despite the brutality that he inflicted on so many people, indiscriminate brutality, still he does have a constituency. 

Back to you. 

CARLSON:  NBC‘s Jim Maceda in Baghdad joining us live.  Thanks, Jim. 

We turn now to the aftermath of today‘s events.  The killing of al-Zarqawi was a major—significant, anyway—tactical victory.  But is it a turning point in the war on terror?  And will it make Americans safer in this country and abroad?  Here to answer those questions, Evan Coleman, MSNBC terrorism analyst and the founder of, joining us tonight from New York. 

Evan, thanks for coming on. 


CARLSON:  So what communication was there, do we know, between Zarqawi and bin Laden?

COLEMAN:  Well, we know that they were talking back and forth, and we know that their communications did not start off so well.  For almost the first year and a half that Zarqawi was involved in military operations against coalition forces in Iraq, he was operating under the name al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad.  He specifically was not operating under the rubric of al Qaeda. 

Now what we know is that, after protracted negotiations, which broke off entirely on at least one occasion, that eventually bin Laden and Zarqawi came to some kind of agreement.  Where Zarqawi would pay—would pay him lip service, would pay him his due respect, and at the same time, that Zawahiri and bin Laden would give Zarqawi the freedom to do what he wants to do in Iraq.  Recognizing that he had achieved quite a bit without any assistance, significant assistance, from al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. 

So yes, I mean, it‘s a complicated relationship.  It certainly—these guys have a lot in common.  They share the same goals; they share the same vision.  But egos get in the way.  Personal missions get in the way.  And things like Zarqawi‘s personal, I guess, obsession with killing Shiites also became an issue in their relationship. 

CARLSON:  Became an issue in their relationship.  I love how you phrase that. 

General Casey, the commanding officer of U.S. forces in Iraq, said something kind of tantalizing today.  That the United States has informants, he implied, anyway, within al Qaeda.  Zarqawi‘s position was given up by someone, someone who‘s going to get that $25 million reward. 

Do you buy that, that we have plants within his organization?  And if so, how many and how did that happen?

COLEMAN:  Well, it‘s very possible that we‘ve achieved—keep in mind that Zarqawi‘s organization at this point is a conglomerate.  It‘s not a very tightly knit, hierarchical group.  It‘s a group that‘s really—it‘s a patchwork group of different cells and networks that have come together, both foreign fighters and local fighters that kind of believe in the same things. 

So, yes, I mean, certainly these networks are ruthless, and they do follow what Zarqawi‘s orders are, but it also leaves a little bit of room to kind of sneak in at the edges.  And I‘m not—I wouldn‘t surprised to see that, especially because of the fact that we‘ve seen friction in recent weeks between Zarqawi and Sunni insurgents, Sunni-Iraqi insurgents who technically are supposed to be on his side, but many of whom, I would say, are starting to tire of some of the really blatant attacks against mosques, against killing Shiite civilians.

And, you know, lip service they‘ll say they love Zarqawi.  I mean, everyone in Iraq today will tell you, any insurgent will tell you Zarqawi is a martyr. 

CARLSON:  Right.

COLEMAN:  But in reality, there were people that stood to gain from Zarqawi being taken out of the picture.  They can try to move in on that power vacuum and try to take over some of his influence. 

CARLSON:  Well, what‘s interesting to me, it seems to me one of the maybe few good things to come out of this war is the intelligence network we‘ve been able to set up within Iraq.  All of a sudden, we can gather intelligence about terror networks on the ground, whereas we couldn‘t before and had to rely on foreign intelligence agencies to do so. 

Is it your sense that we have pretty good intelligence in Iraq now, three years into the war?

COLEMAN:  Well, let‘s not oversell the case.  Certainly, we‘re making a lot better progress than we were initially.  And I think, you know, Saddam Hussein was a much easier grab than Zarqawi was, because Zarqawi has a lot more fanatical supporters around him. 

So I think it is an indication that we‘re getting better, but there are still major holes in our intelligence.  And some of those holes, unfortunately, rely on the fact that we‘re dealing with a government that is dominated by Shiite militia in Iraq that it‘s not necessarily directly allied with us.

CARLSON:  Right.

COLEMAN:  These folks have a common interest in expelling Zarqawi, and they have a common interest in expelling the foreign fighters.  But after that, it‘s not clear that their goals are the same as the United States. 

And so, you know, our intelligence unfortunately is still in some ways contingent upon what native Iraqis hand over to us. 

CARLSON:  Right.

COLEMAN:  So we‘re going to have to curry their good favor in the meantime. 

CARLSON:  Evan Coleman from New York.  Thanks a lot, Evan. 

COLEMAN:  Thank you.

CARLSON:  Still to come, will al-Zarqawi‘s death actually lead to more bloodshed in Iraq?  And who on the left criticized the al Qaeda leader‘s killing today?  We‘ll tell you.

Plus, an absolute bombshell in the Duke rape case.  What did the second stripper tell police about the night of the alleged attack?  We‘ll bring you her stunning statement when THE SITUATION returns.


CARLSON:  Still to come, a genuinely shocking new twist in the Duke lacrosse case.  Did Durham police know the rape allegations were false just a week after they were made?

Plus did, a federal judge really allow a dispute to be decided by a game of Rock Paper Scissors?  Stay tuned.



GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  Now Zarqawi has met his end, and this violent man will never murder again. 

Americans can be enormously proud of the men and women of our armed forces, who worked tirelessly with their Iraqi counterparts to track down this brutal terrorist and to put him out of business. 


CARLSON:  That was President Bush earlier today, paying tribute to the American troops who eliminated the No. 1 terrorist in Iraq. 

And he‘s right.  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi‘s murderous rampage is over.  But will the mission of the U.S. troops be any easier as a result of today‘s killing?  And who‘s the new public enemy No. 1 in Iraq?


CARLSON:  Joining us from Washington now, General Barry McCaffrey. 

General, welcome. 

GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY:  Good to be with you, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  How did this today, the news of Zarqawi‘s death, affect American troops in Iraq, or does it?

MCCAFFREY:  Well, I think it‘s tremendously good news for the Iraqi people.  This guy was extremely effective at slaughtering Shias and trying to incite a civil war. 

At the same time, it‘s a terrific jolt of, you know, confidence, particularly to Lieutenant General Stan McCrystal‘s Special Operations troop, air, land, sea force that‘s been targeting these senior terrorists.  Big success, huge contribution to the war effort. 

CARLSON:  Do you think that soldiers fighting the war recognize it as a contribution to the war effort?  Do you think U.S. forces were focused on getting this guy?

MCCAFFREY:  Yes, no question.  I mean, the special task force had that as the high value targets been in their eyesight for a long time now.  In the last couple of weeks, they‘ve been focused on this guy specifically. 

But I think the entire 130,000 U.S. combat force will be encouraged to see the successful termination of such a dangerous character. 

CARLSON:  So who‘s next?  Is there a second in line on the who‘s wanted list in Iraq?

MCCAFFREY:  Well, they‘re now speculating on who will be up next. 

Clearly, it won‘t end the Zarqawi network. 

But Tucker, I just came out of Iraq in April.  It struck me that 90 percent of al Qaeda in Iraq is now Iraqi Sunni Muslim.  The foreign fighters, in a strategic and operational sense, are getting defeated.  So the Army-Marine elements, with very focused intelligence, have really taken the fun out of jihad. 

CARLSON:  So 90 percent of al Qaeda in Iraq are locals, I mean, that suggests more a civil war. 

MCCAFFREY:  Oh, yes.  I think the biggest struggle going on in Iraq, that concerns us from a strategic viewpoint, is a civil war.  The Sunnis want to take over the country again.  The Shia are fighting among themselves over who will lead the effort.  That‘s really what we‘re trying to sort out now. 

Plus, terrible criminality in the background.  Murder, rape, extortion, kidnapping.  It‘s a very violent, dangerous place.  Mr. Maliki, hopefully, will now establish a government and get a security force that will create order. 

CARLSON:  If we can get Zarqawi, does that give you hope we can get bin Laden?

MCCAFFREY:  Well, different challenge.  You know, Mr. Bin Laden is up there somewhere in the northwest frontier region of Pakistan.  You know, he‘s concealed in one of 11,000 mud-walled villages.  The Paks clearly want him dead, and so does the U.S.

If he starts doing videos, receiving delegations, making phone calls, eventually he will eat a Hellfire missile. 

CARLSON:  That will be the day. 

What does this mean for Bush?  I know that when Saddam was captured, you saw a pretty dramatic and immediate uptake in the president‘s poll numbers.  Are we going to see something like that, do you think, after Zarqawi‘s death?

MCCAFFREY:  Well, I don‘t know.  I think, look, the good news, the big good news today was that Mr. Maliki announced he finally had consensus among warring factions over the appointment of a minister of defense and a minister of the interior.  That‘s big good news. 

Now, if he can somehow get some kind of stability into the security force, a year from now, we‘ll have a third to a half of our U.S. troops out of there.  That‘s what we‘ve got to focus on. 

Zarqawi‘s death today was a very important event, a shot-in-the-arm for the Iraqi people.  But this is the minor part, foreign jihad.  The big deal is the low-grade civil war. 

CARLSON:  So you don‘t see this—I mean, a year from now, as you said, do you think we‘ll be looking back and recognizing this day as a turning point in the war?

MCCAFFREY:  Well, I think another good thing that came out of today was Zarqawi darn near got them into open civil war with a bombing of the Samarra mosque. 

CARLSON:  Right.

MCCAFFREY:  They came right up to the edge.  They didn‘t like what they saw, and they retreated from it. 

But I think killing this guy, we‘re now watching the Iraqi people definitely turn against the foreign fighters.  They do not want, generally speaking, a civil war.  So I think his death also underscores sort of an Iraqi rejection of that kind of jihad. 

CARLSON:  And finally, there‘s a pretty interesting piece today in the “New Republic”, suggesting that his death might, in fact, be good for al Qaeda, because his penchant for foreign Muslims was alienating a lot of people in the region from al Qaeda, and that his death means that people will now feel free to join ranks with it.  Do you think that‘s plausible?

MCCAFFREY:  Well, I think that‘s a pretty large leap.  But I think what is true is that Zarqawi and his ruthless violence directed against Shia had alienated the majority of decent Muslims, both Sunni and Shia.  So in that sense, he was actually helping consolidate some form of legitimacy to get a government in power. 

I‘m not too sure that the foreign fighters are going to be a major factor.  I think we‘ve killed so many of these people. 

You know, these Special Ops people with General McCrystal‘s air, land, sea forces are the most dangerous people on the face of the earth.  And they have systematically exterminated many of these foreign fighters. 

So we‘ve got to focus on the long-term.  That means get an Iraqi government, legitimacy, security forces.  And start getting out of there.  Probably by Christmas we‘ll start seeing withdrawals. 

CARLSON:  Retired General Barry McCaffrey from Washington.  Thanks a lot, General. 

MCCAFFREY:  Good to be with you, Tucker. 


CARLSON:  The war in Iraq has given rise to countless mixed blessings and moral ambiguities, but the killing of al-Zarqawi is not one of them.  Zarqawi was a terrorist and a pig who murdered innocents, including children.  He bombed a wedding reception.  He personally beheaded at least three Americans.  His death is cause for celebration, not for reflection. 

But that‘s not how some on the left see it.  Congressman Pete Stark, Democrat of California, told the “Washington Times” today that the U.S.  military killed Zarqawi, quote, “just to cover Bush‘s own war crimes.”

Michael Berg, a Green Party candidate from Philadelphia whose son Nicholas was decapitated by Zarqawi two years ago, said he believes Bush is more evil than the dead al Qaeda leader.  Quote, “I don‘t think that Zarqawi himself is responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.  George Bush is.”

Well, there‘s nothing wrong with disliking the president or with fervently disagreeing with the war he started in Iraq.  I do.  But when you get to the point where you can‘t tell the difference between the U.S.  government and an al Qaeda terrorist, you have crossed the line from hating Bush to hating your own country. 

Still ahead, “Godless” author Ann Coulter continues her verbal assault on the 9/11 widows.  Has her name-calling resulted in what she calls a smashing success for her book sales?  We‘ve got the numbers. 

Plus, lewd, crude, and in the end, completely nude.  That pretty much sums up the behavior of this New Hampshire mom.  We‘ll tell you what got her into trouble when THE SITUATION returns. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

Another mind-blowing twist in the Duke rape scandal to tell you about tonight.  It turns out the second stripper, Kim Roberts, told Durham, North Carolina police that the allegation of rape was, quote, “a crock.”

Roberts said she was with the accuser the entire evening, except for a period of fewer than five minutes.  She made that statement after the alleged victim said she was gang raped by three white men. 

Can this case continue?  Here to tell us, former prosecutor and now MSNBC legal analyst, Susan Filan, joining us tonight from Stamford, Connecticut. 

Susan, welcome. 


CARLSON:  I‘m not even sure what‘s left in this case.  But just quickly to what we learned today.  Kim Roberts told cops a week after the event, so apparently they didn‘t interview her for a week, which itself is bizarre in my opinion, but her first recollection was that this was not true, and that she was with this—the accuser, Crystal, for a week.  I mean, rather for the entire night except for five minutes.  I mean, I can‘t imagine why the police would have proceeded after hearing that. 

FILAN:  Well, because she is not the be-all and end-all as to whether or not this happened.  She‘s not a juror.  She may not be an impartial, she may not be a credible witness.  So she may say it never happened and have reason to lie because she didn‘t want people to know she was there or she didn‘t want people to know she knew something and didn‘t come forward.  Who knows? 

She‘s got other problems, Tucker.  She‘s got convictions.  She‘s on violation of probation.  She‘s out on bail.  She‘s got credibility issues to begin with.  So for the prosecutor to hang its case on her as if she‘s the be-all and end-all, wouldn‘t be a smart move. 

CARLSON:  Right.  And we can also point out that the accuser herself has had profound legal problems in the past, including trying to run over a police officer with a car. 

FILAN:  As you love to say.  Attempted. 

CARLSON:  But—attempted.  Good point. 

But you‘re right.  I don‘t think the case is hanging entirely on the testimony of Kim Roberts.  But then the question arises, well, what is it hanging on?

We also learned today that, apparently, in documents, sworn documents filed by the defense, that the fabled nurse‘s report that indicated that the accuser was physically damaged in ways consistent with sexual assault, that that‘s untrue. 

In fact, she did not have significant damage to her body.  She didn‘t have bruising around her neck, for instance.  That she did have some bruising in her genital area.  But it turns out the accuser told cops she had just done a sex show for other paying customers and used sex toys that could have bruised her downtown, so to speak. 

FILAN:  Right. 

CARLSON:  So where‘s the evidence anything happened?  What‘s the case?

FILAN:  You rest your case, right?  You just want to be a defense lawyer. 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know what the counter case is. 

FILAN:  OK.  Well, here is what the counter case is.  Whether or not she used a sex toy on herself and that‘s what resulted in redness is not the end of this case. 

For her to testify that she was gang raped, and for there to be some kind of corroboration, and the defense doesn‘t say there‘s no corroboration.  What the defense says is there isn‘t what you would expect to see.  There aren‘t strangle marks on the neck.  There aren‘t bruises on other parts of the body, but they can‘t deny that there was, in fact, that redness. 

Now, she‘s going to have to tell about the vibrator, and she‘s going to have to tell about the gang rape, and it‘s going to be up to the jury whether they want to toss that out.  I don‘t think that, in and of itself, is going to make the jury toss it out. 

CARLSON:  The jury—I mean, you really think it can make it to the jury stage?

She also told police that no condom was used during the rape. 

FILAN:  So what?

CARLSON:  Three men raped her, she said without condoms, and there‘s no DNA evidence. 

Moreover, the prosecution has told us from the very beginning there was that report that showed the physical damage to her body.  Now we find out that nurses found, quote, “no damage to arms, legs, head, neck, nose, throat, mouth, chest, breasts and abdomen.”  They were all normal. 

FILAN:  Still doesn‘t mean she wasn‘t raped.  But here‘s my problem with this. 

CARLSON:  Makes it much less likely she was gang raped by three men in a bathroom and strangled, as the prosecution has been telling us since day one. 

FILAN:  Not necessarily going to result in physical evidence.  I mean, if you were a jury, you‘d suspect to see something.  But you can‘t say because there wasn‘t a strangle mark around her neck she wasn‘t gang raped.

Here is my problem with the defense.  They‘ve gotten 1,300 pages from the prosecutor.  They‘re leaking out in drips and drabs highlighted little bits that sound very favorable to them.  If they want the media—if they want me to jump on their bandwagon, let me look at those 1,300 pages for myself. 

CARLSON:  Wait a second.  Wait a second.  Hold on.  It‘s not dribs and drabs.  This is a portion of the nurse‘s report. 

FILAN:  Let me see the whole thing.

CARLSON:  Now presumably—let me just say something.  Had she been strangled, I think—I don‘t need to be a physician to say unequivocally there would be some mark on her neck. 

FILAN:  No. 

CARLSON:  If you are strangled, there is physical evidence, sorry. 

That‘s just...

FILAN:  Degrees of strangulation.  It has to do with the amount of force that‘s used.  I mean, of course. 

CARLSON:  Well, I don‘t know.  Then it‘s difficult to call it strangulation if there‘s no physical evidence of it at all an hour later.  I mean, come on. 

FILAN:  No, not at all.  Not at all.  You can have—you can have rope on your hands and have no ligature marks on your wrist. 

Look, here‘s my problem.  I don‘t want them to lift phrases out of context for me to jump on their band wagon.  Let me see it in its entirety. 

CARLSON:  OK.  You know—you know as well as I, first of all, all of this stuff is sworn.  It‘s not like they‘re making this stuff up.  They filed these papers with the court. 

FILAN:  Not at all.  This is argument.  This isn‘t—this isn‘t testimony under oath.  This is argument. 

CARLSON:  Right, but this is not—in other words, this is not something that‘s leaked to the press.  This is an argument they are filing with the court. 

FILAN:  So what?

CARLSON:  This is not something they told, you know, sotto voce to some reporter.  Tell me this: Kim Roberts has basically killed this case at this point, hasn‘t she?

FILAN:  Not at all.  Again, you can do this case without Kim Roberts.  And if you were the prosecutor, you almost want to do it without Kim Roberts.  But the peril in doing that is you certainly don‘t want her to be introduced by the defense as if you were hiding something. 

So what you do with Kim Roberts is you put her up and you impeach your own witness. 

CARLSON:  You‘ve got not a single witness who‘s credible.  Not a single witness.  You have no physical evidence.  You have no DNA.  You also have counterevidence that shows—proves, I believe, one of accused wasn‘t even there. 

I don‘t think you‘ve got a case.  I think you‘ve got an out of control prosecutor.  I think you‘ve got a Justice Department that needs to go investigate this guy. 

FILAN:  Well, you can have a case that you can‘t prove and it doesn‘t mean it didn‘t happen.  For example, O.J.  And I‘m not comparing this to O.J.

CARLSON:  All right.

FILAN:  But I mean, there was a case where people could say he did it, but it couldn‘t be proven.  Just because this case has proof problems, doesn‘t mean it didn‘t happen. 

CARLSON:  All right.

FILAN:  But you know what, Tucker?

CARLSON:  It didn‘t happen.  Susan, I‘m sorry.  We are totally out of time.  Well, I could—I could go on for hours with this.  This does get me exercised, but I appreciate your coming on. 

FILAN:  It‘s a pleasure.

CARLSON:  Thanks, Susan.

FILAN:  Thanks for having me.  You‘re nice.

CARLSON:  Still to come, illegal immigrants may be masters at sneaking across the border.  But should they master the English language before we let them come and become U.S. citizens?

Plus, the standup at Waco to the showdown with Saddam‘s sons.  We bring you our “Top Five” fugitive face-offs of all time.  Stay tuned.


CARLSON:  Still to come, a judge orders quarreling lawyers to sort out their differences the same way 10-year-olds resolve their disputes. 

Plus, what‘s more popular on college campuses, beer or iPods? 

Surprising answer coming up.

But first, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight. 


CARLSON:  We turn now to a man who, in light of today‘s news, has moved up a spot on the FBI‘s most wanted list.  He is “The Outsider”, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host Max Kellerman. 

Congratulations, Max. 

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  Have I cracked the top 10?

CARLSON:  I don‘t think so.  You‘re down on the list.  We want you, though. 

Well, as a new immigrant to the U.S., it makes sense that you‘d want to learn the language and the history of your new country, right?  This week, President Bush encouraged immigrants to learn English, as well as American history and civics. 

As Bush put it, one aspect of making sure we have an immigration system that works is to actively reach out and help people assimilate into our country. 

Well, critics say immigrants should not be forced to integrate into society and that that very idea is racist. 

It‘s not racist to ask people to speak the language used by everyone else in the country, their country.  I‘m not sure you can defend this, Max.  But good luck trying. 

KELLERMAN:  I don‘t know that I would call it racist. 

However, I don‘t know where it‘s necessary to learn English and American history before you can become a citizen.  Learning a language takes a lot of time.  Learning—I mean, people—how many years before they learn American English...


CARLSON:  Oh, is it hard?  Is that right?  Is it hard to show respect for someone‘s language, to make an effort to integrate into a society, to not separate yourself out and destabilize the society you hope to join?  Is that difficult?

KELLERMAN:  Tucker—Tucker, learning English and learning the—learning a little American history is not really what this is about.  This is not even really—you can say it‘s germane.  The issue is not really about—this is George Bush. 

As Reagan was called the Great Communicator, George Bush‘s name should be the Great Distracter.  Because, you know, gay marriage amendment.  Now make them learn English.  How about oil crisis and Iran and Iraq and the economy?  There are so many other things before make them learn English. 

CARLSON:  The economy.  You‘ve got to be kidding.  There‘s not much the president can do about the economy, other than screw it up.  I mean, God hopes he won‘t. 

This issue of language is central to our country, who we are, who we‘re becoming, how we get along with one another.  It‘s what ties us together as a nation.  I can‘t think of anything more important than that. 

KELLERMAN:  It‘s a softball issue that he can toss up and self hit it that is not really actually addressing the immigration issue.  It‘s a way for everyone to say, yes, they should. 

And a few people come out and say, look the argument that they shouldn‘t is simply that, yes, English is our language.  However, Spanish is a growing language in this country, largely because of immigrants, both legal and illegal.  And it is possible to be an American citizen and live a fulfilling life never having known English in your life. 

CARLSON:  Yes, it‘s possible.  Is that good for the rest of the country?  No.  Not only is it central to the immigration question, it is the immigration question.  I mean, that‘s what it‘s about. 

The question at hand, when it comes to immigration, is do huge numbers of new immigrants help our country or destabilize it?  They help it when they integrate into the larger culture.  They destabilize it when they don‘t. 

KELLERMAN:  Even if the first immigrants don‘t know English, the next generation will learn it.  I mean, it‘s going to happen.  Eventually, they will assimilate.  If it takes a little bit longer, is it a threat somehow to the fabric of American society?


KELLERMAN:  It kind of reminds me of the gay marriage issue.  It threatens the institution of marriage.  I‘m married.  I‘m married.  I‘m heterosexual.  I don‘t feel threatened—I don‘t feel threatened by it. 

CARLSON:  Actually, the difference—that‘s obviously a complete canard.  But he difference here is it‘s provable.  Name—we‘ve talked about this before.  Pick a society where there is a split along language lines, a bilingual society, multilingual society.  And you have a society at war with itself. 

KELLERMAN:  I argued it passionately, though, didn‘t I?

CARLSON:  And you were wrong then, and you‘re wrong now, Max. 

KELLERMAN:  I know.  But I did argue it, you know, zealously.   This leads to our next topic.

CARLSON:  Now to a story from the “you can‘t make this stuff up department.”  That‘s a good department, by the way.

A U.S. district court judge in Florida has ordered two lawyers to settle their dispute by playing the game Rock Paper Scissors.  The attorneys could not agree on whether to take the sworn statement of a witness in their case.  So the judge called for the Rock Paper Scissors showdown as, quote, “a new form of alternative dispute resolution.”  The match would be held at a neutral site, so neither lawyer has an unfair advantage.  If they can‘t pick one, it will be held on the courthouse steps.

I personally think this a great idea, because it exposes these lawyers as the bickering children they are.  Max, you incorrectly believe that Rock Paper Scissors cheapens the American system of justice. 

I think it reveals the lawyers authentically.  I mean, they are little kids.

KELLERMAN:  Well, it‘s kind of unfair to set up rules in a way that forces people—look, a lawyer‘s job—you‘re not doing your job if you‘re not zealously defending your client.  That‘s why I had to argue against—I had to argue against you on our last topic, Tucker.  Right?  I had to do it intensely because that‘s what I‘m here to do, to argue.  That‘s what lawyers are there to do.  You have to zealously defend your client.


KELLERMAN:  And the idea behind that system of jurisprudence and that system of having—our legal system is that, if each lawyer does that, and you have a judge and a jury, then you will get to the bottom of things somehow.  But it‘s two sides competing.  And they shouldn‘t be giving an inch. 

CARLSON:  That‘s right.  It is, in essence, a free market system.  And it works well until someone decides to gum up the gears and become an obstructionist to no good end. 

I think, in fact, the only problem with the judge‘s order in this case is it doesn‘t go far enough.  I think these guys ought to be required to wear beanies with propellers on top, hold metal Raggedy Ann and Andy lunch boxes and stand outside in short pants as they play. 

KELLERMAN:  But it‘s not fair to give someone a job to do and then tell them as they‘re doing their job, you‘re bickering like children. 

CARLSON:  Unless you are bickering like children!

KELLERMAN:  But their job is to bicker.

CARLSON:  It‘s not unfair.  It‘s appropriate.

KELLERMAN:  Listen, maybe they‘re just at an impasse.  Maybe it‘s not such a simple situation. 

CARLSON:  You know what?  Making lawyers humiliated is a good end in itself, and for that reason, I applaud it.  Max Kellerman, nice try, though, defending the lawyers. 

KELLERMAN:  Whenever I try to humiliate my wife, she disagrees.

CARLSON:  That‘s your wife.

KELLERMAN:  She‘s an attorney. 

CARLSON:  She‘s tougher than most lawyers. 

KELLERMAN:  Yes, she is. 

CARSON:  Have a great weekend, Max.

KELLERMAN:  Thanks, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  Tonight‘s “SITUATION Crime Blotter”, we find Canada‘s CBC television reporting that the 17 men arrested last week in that alleged terror plot planned to detonate truck bombs at the stock exchange and an unspecified military installation and at the headquarters of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The men are also said to have been planning to storm the Canadian parliament to behead that country‘s prime minister. 

Well, a Maryland man has been arrested and charged with making the bomb he planned to use to blow up an abortion clinic.  The 25-year-old discussed his plan with friends, who later turned him in to the ATF. 

The nail-filled pipe bomb actually exploded as authorities tried to defuse it at the home where the man was hiding it.  The man turned himself in and also admitted he planned to use a gun to shoot doctors that perform abortions. 

And a 30-year-old mother of two has been arrested in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, charged with hosting booze and sex parties for local teenagers. 

Cops say Peggy Bick (ph) provided alcohol to minors before having sex with them.  Earlier this year Bick (ph) was arrested for indecent exposure when she flashed her breasts to a 13-year-old and his mom.  Wow.

Military forces in Iraq can now cross one more name off their list of most wanted terrorists.  Abu al-Zarqawi, who led a vicious campaign of car bombings and beheadings, was killed when U.S. warplanes bombed the supposedly safe house outside Baghdad yesterday. 

Zarqawi managed to elude justice for many years, but ultimately he met the fate of so many other fugitives throughout criminal history.  For tonight‘s “Top Five”, we launched a manhunt for other infamous outlaws who mistakenly dared to say, “catch me if you can.”



CARLSON (voice-over):  Words of wisdom to heed if you happen to be taking it on the lam.  But it‘s an inescapable fact few desperados are willing to consider until it‘s too late. 

Like father, like sons.  Uday and Qusay Hussein were feared throughout Iraq as ruthless rapists and killers.  Their reign of terror, though, came to an equally brutal end in July of 2003 when the brothers confronted American troops.  Needless to say, it was not the mother of all battles. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  It was a good day. 

CARLSON:  “Forbes” magazine once listed him as the 7th richest man in the world.  Is it any wonder Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar thought he was beyond the long arm of the law?

But in 1993, Escobar was cornered on a Medellin rooftop and, to use a military term, put out of commission with extreme prejudice. 

After busting out of county jail using a wooden gun, John Dillinger led a bank robbing crime spree across the Midwest.  With the FBI hot on their trail, he and his gang eluded the coppers for months.  But Dillinger‘s infamous crime wave came to a bullet-riddled end in July of 1934 when the Lady in Red ratted him out to the feds in Chicago. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  The FBI closed in as Public Enemy No. 1 was leaving a Northside theater. 

CARLSON:  This aspiring rock-n-roll guitarist wanted his own band, but the Clinton Justice Department considered David Koresh‘s Branch Davidians a band of outlaws.  So in April of 1993, after a 51-day standoff, federal agents stormed the sect‘s Waco compound.  Koresh and 75 of his followers, including 17 children, perished in the fiery scene. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  There was only one true leader in this whole operation, and that was David Koresh. 

CARLSON:  Their four-year crime saga captivated America‘s attention during the depression and eventually Hollywood. 

FAYE DUNAWAY, ACTRESS:  We rob banks. 

CARLSON:  They also committed murder.  But justice caught up with Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow in 1934 when they were ambushed by a posse of lawmen in Louisiana.  It took 130 rounds of ammo to get the job done. 


CARLSON:  Coming up, Ann Coulter made news on this show when she said the 9/11 widows ought to just take their money and shut up.  Would anyone defend a comment like that?  We‘ll find out when we check THE SITUATION voicemail.  That‘s next.


VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER:  Coming up, can Ann Coulter still call herself a Christian after blasting the 9/11 widows?  Someone doesn‘t think so.

Plus, what does Oprah have to do with the arrest of a hooker in New Hampshire?

CARLSON:  We have all the answers when THE SITUATION comes back in 60 seconds.


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

It‘s been seven days, and it‘s that time again.  Time for THE SITUATION voicemail.  You‘ve been calling in avidly this week.  Let‘s check it.

First up.


CALLER:  Bob from Orlando, Florida.  I just wanted to talk about your guest, Ann Coulter.  She should be ashamed of herself.  She is such a hypocrite, and I‘m ashamed to call myself a Christian if she‘s wearing a crucifix on her show.  Where does she get of passing judgment on people like the widows of 9/11?  She is such a hypocrite. 


CARLSON:  Well, first things first.  I mean, I agree.  I think when you‘re espousing a political point of view, it‘s best to keep your religious affiliation out of it, because you can cast discredit on your religion.  It‘s a really bad thing.

On the other hand, of course, she‘s allowed to attack the 9/11 widows.  I think she attacked them in a really unfair way, but attacking their political point of view, that‘s allowed.  And that is Ann Coulter‘s point, actually. 

Lost in all of this in the crazy things that she said is a deep and true point, and that is simply because someone‘s a widow or a victim of something doesn‘t mean you‘re not allowed to question that person‘s point of view.  You are.  And that‘s part of the problem with using widows to make political points of view. 

But again, she went too far in attacking them personally.  I think. 

Next up.


CALLER:  Ray Boylen (ph) from Redondo Beach, California.  I am very upset with you.  You gave a total pass to Robert Kennedy Jr. when can JFK‘s own election was bought by 1,000 votes in Cook County, Illinois.  You never mentioned that. 

And then earlier on, you took on his cousin, Patrick, as being a disgrace for having a car accident.  Nobody drowned in that accident.  How about taking on Patrick‘s old man?


CARLSON:  Hey Ray, Ray in Redondo Beach, wake up, Ray.  Yes, of course I know that.  I know both of those things.  I was tough on both Kennedys.  But I didn‘t attack their parents because I don‘t attack people‘s parents. 

You‘re not responsible for what your parents do. 

I don‘t respect what former President Kennedy did with the help of the mayor of Chicago in 1960, and I certainly don‘t respect anything that happened at Chappaquiddick.  But that‘s not the fault of the nephew and the son of the men who did those things. 

I don‘t attack people‘s families.  People aren‘t responsible for their families.  Bottom line rule.  I‘ll never do it, ever. 

Next up. 


CALLER:  This is Robert Davidson.  I‘m from Walnut Creek, California.  President Bush has broken his oath to defend this country.  He refuses to protect the borders.  Immigrants is not the issue.  Illegal immigrants is.  Impeach him. 


CARLSON:  Impeach him?  I don‘t think it‘s just illegal immigrants.  Immigration has changed in the country.  Maybe for the better, maybe for the worse.  In any case, dramatically.  We have a right to control how much immigration we have in this country.  As it stands, the left wing of the Democratic Party and big business are in control.  That‘s a shame.  And I think it‘s heavily Bush‘s fault at this point. 

You can criticize him.  I don‘t want to impeach him, but I mean that. 

I wouldn‘t vote for him (ph).

Next up. 


CALLER:  Hal Horn (ph) in Bradford, Pennsylvania.  When you‘re in one of those dog friendly restaurants in Florida, I hope some dog comes up and leaves a big pile of shit under your table and ruins your meal and everybody‘s meal within 20 feet in all directions.


CARLSON:  Well, Hal, looks like someone forgot to beep your message.  We apologize to out viewers for that.  You are exactly the people I was talking about, when I talked about the anti-dog forces in our society.  Hal from Orlando was exactly the man.  Fight back.  You‘ve a right to bring your dog to dinner.  In fact, it‘s a God given right.  It‘s why this is America and not North Korea. 

Keep the calls coming.  The number: 1-877-TCARLSON.  That‘s 877-822-7576.  We‘ll invest (ph) your voicemails again next Thursday.

Still ahead on THE SITUATION, an incredible crime story about a hooker, a magical fairy, and Oprah.  We‘ll connect those dots when we come back. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back. 

If it‘s Thursday, or Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday, for that matter, it‘s “The Cutting Room Floor” with Willie Geist.  Here he is. 

WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER:  Every day but the weekend I‘m here, Tucker. 

We‘ve got some good stuff here off the top.  Remember the woman who sued because she was spanked in the work place?  She wanted $1.2 million. 

CARLSON:  How could I forget?

GEIST:  Her name was—I don‘t know.

CARLSON:  Janet Orlando. 

GEIST:  Janet Orlando. 

CARLSON:  Couldn‘t forget.

GEIST:  Got some video over here.  She was an old friend.  We talked about it for several nights on the show. 

And she fought her case hard.  She was—it was part of a prank at work, a corporate prank, where she was on the losing team.  They were made to dress up like babies, and they were spanked as losers. 

CARLSON:  Right.

GEIST:  We had—the lawsuit was so absurd we had her attorney on the show.  He goes by the name of Nicholas “Butch” Wagner.  There he is.  We heard from Mr. Wagner on official Wagner and Jones letterhead from his law offices in Fresno, California. 

He writes, quote, “Dear Mr. Carlson, On April 27, 2006, I appeared on your show to talk about my case entitled Orlando v. Alarm One wherein my client, Janet Orlando, was spanked in the workplace.  You told me and your viewers that it was absurd that I asked the jury to award $1.2 million.  You were right.  The jury awarded $1.7 million.  Would you mind consulting with my firm on all our cases?  I would hate to make the same mistake again.”

Tucker, he got you.  He got you.

CARLSON:  He did get me.  And I am man enough to admit it. 

GEIST:  The case might have been absurd, but he won. 

CARLSON:  Next time I‘m involved in a slip and fall...

GEIST:  Yes.

CARLSON:  ... or I spill coffee on myself at Wendy‘s and I want to get rich, I‘m calling Butch Wagner first off. 

GEIST:  If you live in the greater Fresno area and you want to get off, Nicholas “Butch” Wagner.  Wagner and Jones, the law offices.  There he is. 

CARLSON:  He does have the last laugh.

GEIST:  That guy is—that guy is a good lawyer. 

CARLSON:  Pretty clever, I have to say. 

GEIST:  Maybe not a good citizen.  But a good lawyer. 

CARLSON:  Exactly.

Well, there is cause for alarm in our college campuses tonight.  It appears students at our institutions of higher learning are not drinking enough beer. 

A new study finds college students now think iPods are cooler than beer.  Seventy-three percent of students surveyed said iPod are the “in” thing on campus.  Seventy-one percent said beer was the “in” thing.  In fact, beer was tied for second place in the coolest category with 

GEIST:  Nothing cooler than 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know what it is.  It doesn‘t sound too cool to me.

GEIST:  No, I don‘t know what it is, either. 

There‘s people—I‘ve seen this all over the place.  They‘re trying to read some great societal meaning into this.  I, for one, am not concerned.  Beer may not be in at the moment, but it‘s classic, right?

CARLSON:  Yes, of course.

GEIST:  So it‘s not in, it‘s not cool, but it‘s always steady.  So

iPods will come and go., you won‘t—you won‘t remember that

in 20 years.  Beer it‘s a steady.  It‘s a constant.  The fact that it‘s

still in second is impressive

CARLSON:  Alcoholism is always in vogue in college. 

GEIST:  It is.  Binge drinking is always cool, man. 

CARLSON:  Almost by definition.  That‘s right.

Last night we showed you parrots and guinea pigs playing soccer together in South Korea.  Tonight we take you right back to that southern peninsula for some penguin soccer.

GEIST:  Oh, boy.

CARLSON:  It‘s all part of the country‘s effort to generate excitement for the World Cup, starts tomorrow.  From the look of things, that effort is failing miserably. 

GEIST:  Indeed.  Boy, look how much fun those penguins, just cooped up, pecking each other, dressed up in uniforms. 

If there are animals playing soccer, Tucker, as you know, you do not have to ask what continent we‘re on.  It‘s always Asia.  You‘re in Asia.  It‘s always Asia.

And we spoke of that neck and neck race with Japan, who had fish playing soccer. 


GEIST:  South Korea just pulled ahead by a couple lengths in that race. 

CARLSON:  Oh, by a furlong.

GEIST:  And the race is almost over.  We‘re coming up on the tape here.  Congrats. 

CARLSON:  Really, you know, how do they get to be an economic power house is the question?

GEIST:  I know. 

CARLSON:  A 38-year-old New Hampshire woman was arrested and booked on charges of prostitution late last week, but she says the cops have it all wrong.  She calls herself the Amazing Goddess, and she says she merely accepts donations from clients for healing, healing that admittedly includes oral sex, as well as intercourse. 

Well, the Amazing Goddess says she was called to sexual healing by fairies, fairies she talks to quite regularly.  She plans to fight the charges against her.  She says she might even call Oprah to help on the matter. 

GEIST:  Well, this is clearly just a mix-up, Tucker.


GEIST:  They—they didn‘t realize what she was doing there.  It‘s all a charitable...

CARLSON:  That‘s right.

GEIST:  ... tax deductible.  It‘s all on the up and up.  Don‘t call Oprah.  Call us.  We look hookers who talk to fairies.  Oprah won‘t give you the time of day.

CARLSON:  Oprah would turn up her nose at such a story. 

GEIST:  Not us. 

CARLSON:  Not us.  We‘d jump (ph) right in.

GEIST:  Come on, Goddess. 

CARLSON:  That‘s it for us tonight.  Thanks, Willie. 

GEIST:  Have a good weekend.

CARLSON:  Hope you have a great weekend.  See you Monday. 



Copy: Content and programming copyright 2006 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2006 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.