Guests: Pete Hoekstra, Gil Cedillo, Susan Filan, Shanta Driver
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Thanks to you at home for tuning in. It‘s good to have you with us, as always.
Tonight, Saddam‘s weapons of mass destruction, reports that they have finally been found, and you‘d think the White House would be shouting that from the rooftops, considering WMD were, of course, the primary justification for this war. And yet they‘re not. A Republican member of Congress joins us in a minute to explain why the silence.
Also ahead, seven radical black Muslims arrested in Florida for plotting massive terror bombings in the United States. We‘ll tell you which landmarks they were allegedly planning to blow up.
And is Angelina Jolie‘s saintly image deserved? That story momentarily.
But first, the unholy grail, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There are new and explosive claims that they have finally been found. More than 500 munitions containers with mustard gas or sarin agents. Authorities say there‘s likely more to be discovered in Iraq.
Here‘s the Republican Senator Rick Santorum yesterday on the Senate floor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RICK SANTORUM ®, PENNSYLVANIA: But the bottom line is, that the statements that Saddam Hussein at the time of the second Gulf War or the Iraq war had no weapons of mass destruction is now categorically untrue. Categorically untrue. This report puts that to rest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: But if meaningful amounts of WMD have actually been found, then why the stunning silence from the White House? One Defense Department official said, quote, “These are not the WMD this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and they‘re not the WMD for which this country went to war.”
So what is the truth?
CARLSON: Joining me now from Washington, Congressman Pete Hoekstra.
Congressman, thanks for coming on.
REP. PETE HOEKSTRA ®, MICHIGAN: Hey, good to be with you.
CARLSON: Here‘s what the “Washington Post” says about these weapons of mass destruction. Quote, “Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.”
In other words, the White House, Pentagon and CIA are dismissing this, essentially, as not that significant. What do you think of that?
HOEKSTRA: I don‘t know. I just saw Secretary Rumsfeld‘s comments earlier this afternoon, where he said this was WMD. This is dangerous stuff; it‘s still lethal. We found over 500 shells, and there‘s still—there‘s still more to be found.
Iraq is not a WMD free zone, so obviously, it leaves some folks within the Pentagon are disagreeing with their own secretary of defense.
CARLSON: So there‘s still more to be found? Three years and three months after the invasion, we don‘t know where the rest of these highly deadly agents are. What does that say about our competence?
HOEKSTRA: Well, what it says is that Iraq is a very, very complicated situation. Saddam used—was a master of disinformation. Remember, this is also the guy that buried Mig-29s.
So you know, they were hiding stuff. We—I expect that we‘re going
to be finding things out about Saddam well over the next three to five
years. We just need to make sure that we are seriously looking for them
CARLSON: Well, what—OK, so if we take these agents seriously, if they really are the dreaded WMD that inspired the war in the first place, you‘d think we‘d be a little bit more serious about finding them. Why don‘t we send another 100,000 troops to Iraq right now and make certain these agents don‘t fall into the hands of bad guys in, say, Syria, or Yemen or other places where terrorists work?
HOEKSTRA: Well, I don‘t think these WMD or any single WMD were the reasons we went to war. It‘s the whole picture of the Saddam regime, what he did to his own people when he gassed them in the 1980s. You know, the evidence that came out of some of the Duelfer reports, the Iraqi Survey Group that said there were programs ongoing. There was research ongoing. There was the capability to produce this stuff relatively quickly once sanctions were lifted.
This is now just one more piece that says when Saddam told us and the world that he destroyed all weapons of mass destruction, guess what? He was lying.
CARLSON: Right. I don‘t think anybody believed him in the first place.
If, though—I mean, if this, again, is significant, and I want to believe that it is, why isn‘t the White House out there? You know, why isn‘t the White House spokesman or a whole team of spokesman on every TV show in the nation giving interviews to every reporter, presenting a comprehensive case for why Iraq did have these weapons we haven‘t been able to find until now?
HOEKSTRA: That‘s a question that the White House is going to have to answer. I think one of things that they are doing, though, they‘re looking forward. They need to win this war on terror. They do not want to look back.
For those of us that are on the floor of the House every day and are listening to various people saying there were zero, zero weapons of mass destruction found by the Duelfer report. There were zero weapons in Iraq. Finding 500, it‘s not necessarily all that significant to me. I‘m not surprised that we found those things, but for people who believed that there were zero there, I would think 500 is a pretty significant amount.
CARLSON: But wait. I mean, the idea that they‘re looking forward and the past doesn‘t matter, and you know better than anybody that‘s just not true. One of the reasons you‘re having the debate in the House right now is because a lot of people, the majority of the country, are opposed to our presence in Iraq, because they don‘t understand the rationale for being there in the first place.
In other words, the rhetorical case for being there not only matters; it‘s all important. You have to have public opinion on your side. And the White House, have you ever seen a lamer attempt to explain its rationale to the public?
HOEKSTRA: Tucker, I gave you an explanation.
HOEKSTRA: I didn‘t say that I agreed with their analysis or their approach.
CARLSON: Aren‘t you shocked by their inability to make their case on their own people, to the American public?
HOEKSTRA: I mean, the response that came out, I don‘t—I hate even repeating it. But the Pentagon last night saying, yes, this is WMD, but this is not the one the WMD that we went to war about. It‘s kind of like I was dumbfounded by that response. I‘m dumbfounded by some of the folks, the things that have come out of the intelligence community saying this is insignificant.
If it‘s insignificant, then release the entire report which talks about the lethality of these materials, which talks about how many you still think may exist in Iraq and where they are. But no, they will not. It‘s a lame approach by this administration, to put it mildly.
CARLSON: It‘s unbelievable. You‘d think they would go to trouble to defend their own war. Congressman Pete Hoekstra, thanks a lot for joining us. I appreciate it.
HOEKSTRA: Thank you.
CARLSON: Now to a story that will infuriate many Americans:
government financial aid for illegal immigrants. In California, students who are in this country illegally already have the right to instate tuition at colleges and universities. Now there‘s a bill that would also allow them to apply for taxpayer funded scholarships.
My next guest is the sponsor of that measure. State senator Gil Cedillo joins us tonight from Burbank.
Mr. Cedillo, thanks for coming on.
GIL CEDILLO, STATE SENATOR OF CALIFORNIA: Thank you, it‘s a pleasure to be with you tonight.
CARLSON: Thanks. This almost doesn‘t sound real, the idea that people who are in this country illegally, breaking our law, would receive money to go to school at a time when American citizens feel like there isn‘t enough funding for them to go to school. What could possibly be the rational for this idea?
CEDILLO: The rationale is this: we don‘t hold children accountable for the acts of their parents. For those who are undocumented and they are here, they were here and brought here with no decision on their part. Their only choice and their only decision was to work hard, to be studious, to be well and to be admitted to our universe tease and our colleges. So we don‘t want to blame them for that.
CEDILLO: They‘re here now, and let me finish.
CEDILLO: They‘re here now. We‘ve made an investment in them. We don‘t want to undermine that investment by not permitting them to simply compete on a fair level playing field with everyone else.
CARLSON: First of all, these are hardly children. I mean, these are 18-year-olds, right?
CEDILLO: Right, right. Well, now they‘re 18 years old.
CEDILLO: And you should know that 80 percent of this group are people that we‘re trying to level the playing field for are U.S. citizens. And so what we‘re trying to do is something that just doesn‘t make sense. If you make an investment, you require young people to go to school, they come here and many of them are here as children. At some point, their parents bring them here.
They do well. They perform well. They‘re admitted. It‘s a matter of law that they have to be in school. Now we want an educated work force, which is why the Chamber of San Francisco, the Chamber of Los Angeles, have supported us.
CARLSON: But, it‘s not—it‘s not our—hold on. It‘s on—when you say we like an educated population, of course. This isn‘t our population. These are people who are citizens of a foreign country. Why are they getting taxpayer money to go to our schools? They are not American.
CEDILLO: Well, it‘s a matter of law. We require all young people to go to school as a matter of law. We have a public policy reason for that, is because we want people to be educated in our society.
CARLSON: But that‘s not true. We don‘t require—we don‘t require people to go to college. No, we don‘t. We don‘t require people to go to college.
CEDILLO: Not to go to college, you‘re right.
CEDILLO: We require them to go to high school and to kindergarten through 12. That‘s the—a matter of law.
CARLSON: Well, it‘s pretty nice of us to educate illegal aliens for free. Why do we have to pay for their college, too?
CEDILLO: Well, we don‘t educate them for free. Their parents contribute to the economy. They‘re part of the tax base, like everyone else. It‘s not a segregated economy; it‘s an integrated economy. They are part of the foundation of the economy.
CARLSON: Well, some are; some aren‘t.
CEDILLO: Tucker, the point is this. Not all of them are. The point is this, Tucker, is that we‘ve made an investment in these young people. They are the best and brightest. They‘re the valedictorians of the classes. They‘re the honor students in our university system. Given that we‘ve made that investment, given that they have been successful, given that they‘re going to graduate, we want them then to do so and do so in a way that they perform and become future leaders of our society.
CARLSON: But wait a second. Why would we want—why would we want citizens of another country to become leaders of our society? I mean, don‘t we want Americans to become leaders of our society? And moreover, look, I‘m sure they‘re great kids. I mean...
CEDILLO: Eighty percent of them -- 80 percent—Tucker, 80 percent of them are Americans.
CARLSON: Yes. Then let‘s—I have no problem with that. That‘s not what we‘re talking about. We‘re talking about the 20 percent who are not.
CEDILLO: And the other 20 percent—and the 20 percent, let‘s talk about that 20 percent. The 20 percent who are not will become citizens.
CARLSON: How do you know? I mean, I don‘t know. You don‘t know that they‘re going to become citizens.
CEDILLO: Because they don‘t—I do know. I do know. It‘s a requirement. It‘s a requirement of this law, and none of them, there‘s no evidence, no evidence that any of them are going to leave and not become citizens. In fact, all of them are going to become citizens. And many of them are simply waiting for their legalization process to occur.
CARLSON: Well, I‘m sure everybody who‘s here illegally is waiting for his legalization process to occur, whatever that means.
CEDILLO: That‘s not true.
CARLSON: But we‘re talking about people who are here currently illegally. People who are already in the process or here legally, acknowledged by the government, I don‘t think anybody has a problem with this. We‘re talking about people who are by definition breaking the law. We are taking money away from American citizens to pay for people who are citizens of another country here without our authorization. That just seems wrong, I think, to people and certainly to me.
CEDILLO: You know, that‘s not what we‘re doing. I understand what you‘re saying, but that‘s not what we‘re doing.
We‘ve made an investment. We don‘t hold children accountable for the actions of their parents. Your parents at one point decided to move. You had no say in that.
CARLSON: That‘s right.
CEDILLO: The only say that you had was when you got to the community you moved to, you went to that school, you worked hard, you did a good job. You shouldn‘t be penalized for the actions of your parents.
CARLSON: We‘re not talking about penalizing them. We‘re talking about giving people taxpayer money when they shouldn‘t be here in the first place. That‘s all I‘m saying.
I don‘t think that I‘m going to convince you, Mr. Cedilla, but I appreciate you coming on to explain your point of view. Thank you.
CEDILLO: I appreciate you, too. You, too.
CEDILLO: Good to be here.
COLMES: Still to come, another startling revelation in the Duke rape hoax. Why did the accuser first tell investigators she was raped by five men and not the three currently charged with the crime? We‘ll have a live report from Durham on that.
Plus, the FBI arrested seven members of a radical Muslim group in the Liberal City neighborhood of Miami. Where were they plotting to attack? Late details when THE SITUATION returns.
CARLSON: Still to come, a Michigan teenager has filed a lawsuit to find the identity of his biological father. Who‘s he suing? The surprising answer when we come back.
Plus, Angelina Jolie is accused of buying her children. Details on that in just a moment.
CARLSON: We are back, another genuinely shocking twist in the Duke rape hoax tonight. According to NBC‘s Michelle Hofland, in one of the accuser‘s initial reports to Durham police, she told them she was raped by five men, not by three. The alleged victim also told cops there were four, not two woman at the party, including herself.
Earlier, it was reported that the 27-year-old escort told police she was raped by, quote, “20 white men,” then changed that number to three. So which one is it? Twenty, five, three or most likely, none?
Joining me now from Durham, North Carolina, MSNBC legal analyst, Susan Filan.
SUSAN FILAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Hey, Tucker.
CARLSON: So this is—this Michelle Hofland report is—if you could put another nail in the coffin of the prosecution, I don‘t—I‘m always speechless. I mean, this would seem to end it right here. There were—she had at least three different versions of the number of men she was raped by. The question I always ask you, can this prosecution continue?
FILAN: What I found so sobering about today was the seriousness of these proceedings. You know, having not been here before, I have been up in the ivory tower, analyzing this in a vacuum, spinning it this way, spinning it that way. Some days it sounds like a good day for the prosecution. Sometimes it sounds like a good day for the defense.
But today in court, watching the judge on the bench evaluate these gentlemen‘s arguments, objectively and very effectively, you did realize that there really is what we call a true case or controversy at heart here. It‘s not going to be dropped by the district attorney. It‘s not going to be won easily by the defense.
And so whatever you might think about it, Tucker, or I might think about it, after today, I realized, matters not. It does look like this is going to go into the hands of 12 jurors.
CARLSON: I don‘t understand. On what basis do you say that? I mean, what do you know that we don‘t? Because I have to say—and you‘ve looked at a lot of the evidence, and we‘ve talked about this. There hasn‘t, to this day, right now, been a lot of evidence that the prosecution has anything other than the I.D. of what seems to me an unbalanced woman. What else do you have, do you think?
FILAN: You know, I understand your question, Tucker, although after today I‘d have to say it‘s an idealistic question. Because what they have to go forward with? They have a prosecutor who is not dropping these charges. Short of him doing that the case will proceed to trial.
And the only way out of it, short of him dropping it, or a judge granting a motion to dismiss, which is probably a long shot when you have a complainant, whether you think she‘s credible or I think she‘s credible or not. If she‘s willing to testify, it‘s going to go to the jury.
And that‘s what was so sobering for me today. These adversaries were on both sides of the aisle, the district attorney and the defense lawyers, very articulate, very effective, very competent. Nifong is extremely confident, and so are the defense attorneys. Nifong believes in his case and so do the defense attorneys. So actually...
CARLSON: That‘s what‘s so baffling? On the basis of what? What you are saying is that the will of one man, Mike Nifong, is the crucial factor here. The case will continue because he wants it to.
You say he‘s confident. I‘m wondering, do you believe that he has evidence, serious evidence that we don‘t know about? An eyewitness, physical evidence, does he have anything more than the I.D. of this woman? Do you know?
FILAN: Well, the interesting thing is what‘s in these, you know, 500-plus pages that he delivered today, although to listen to the defense, again, nothing bad for them and nothing, really, what they‘re looking for.
I imagine that this district attorney is going to continue to investigate this case and maybe as time goes by. He‘s got a gut or he‘s got a hunch on something that‘s actually going to come forward with evidence or with witnesses.
But having looked at it as a paper case, just reading it on paper, and everything in trial is different. It‘s 3D. It comes to life. Witnesses always say different things than what they said in their statements. That‘s just trial law. That‘s just how it goes in the courtroom.
But looking at this case on paper, I‘ve got to tell you, I think it looks really bad for the prosecution. But to have a prosecutor as confident as Nifong go into that courtroom without flinching, without blinking and put forward his arguments to the judge, and some of his were sustained. Some of his were rejected, too. In other words, he won some and lost some. The defense today won some, lost some. This thing is going forward.
CARLSON: I know. I guess what‘s sort of disturbing about it is you have the lives of three men and their families in limbo. You had today Read Seligmann‘s father say tell the court, as you know, that the $400,000 bond that he posted from his son, he had to borrow from a friend of his. It‘s financially onerous to their family.
You know, their lives are basically destroyed at this point. They may be vindicated in the end, but there are real consequences to these families, so this case better be real.
FILAN: I hear you. I heard you. And what I think the district attorney is feeling is that, you know, his victim who he for some reason believes, has a gut feeling about, finds credible, he said in that e-mail to “Newsweek” that nothing for him has changed since day one.
I know that‘s incredible for those of us who have followed it. The things that he said would happen that didn‘t happen: there‘d be DNA, there isn‘t. The eyewitness I.D. is questionable. There are other—lack of corroboration in the medical evidence. A statement, you talked about it so many different times, it‘s different from what she says to the nurse, what she says to the doctors, what she says to the police.
CARLSON: It‘s unbelievable. If this guy doesn‘t in the end—and I hope—I assume you‘ll be down in Durham when this case does go to trial, if it does. This guy doesn‘t have something real, you know, I‘m just going to throw up my hands and pray that he is prosecuted in some way. I know it‘s unlikely, but we can pray for it.
Susan Filan, in Durham. Thanks for going down there. Thanks for talking to us.
FILAN: Good night, Tucker
CARLSON: Still to come, a group of Muslims file suit, claming they‘re subjected to special scrutiny at airports when they return from the Middle East. Illegal discrimination, or a sign the feds are actually doing their job? You know the answer.
Plus, the recent Florida sex for contraband scandal that led to two deaths. A 1971 inmate uprising at Attica that killed 49. Our “Top Five” prison breaks and riots when THE SITUATION returns.
CARLSON: Tonight‘s “SITUATION Crime Blotter”, seven people have been arrested in Florida for plotting to bomb Chicago‘s Sears Tower and a federal building in Miami. The alleged plotters are part of a radical black Muslim group. An FBI agent infiltrated that group and found the suspects trying to purchase bomb making materials.
Darren Mack, one of the FBI‘s most wanted, arranged to surrender to authorities in Mexico, but failed to show up. Mack, of course, is wanted for the murder of his estranged wife, as well as a shooting of a judge handling their divorce case in Reno, Nevada. He‘s been on the run for 10 days now.
The agent who brokered the deal with Mack said in a news conference today, quote, “If he calls me back again, we‘re going to have a heart to heart discussion about his credibility issues.”
And finally, the federal courthouse in Chicago was in a lockdown mode for more than three hours today while officials tried to catch a man who fled when he learned the judge had issued a warrant for his arrest.
Larnell Rogers was originally in court because he‘s accused of lying to a federal agent about the shooting death of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms informant. He was late to the hearing, hence the arrest warrant. Police eventually found Mr. Rogers a few miles a way, near his aunt‘s house. They always return to the aunt‘s house.
A federal investigation is now underway into a prison shootout that left a Justice Department agent dead, murdered by a corrections officer. It happened at a women‘s prison in Tallahassee, Florida. The prison guard opened fire as several FBI agents arrived there to arrests him and give other guards, all of whom were allegedly involved in a sex for contraband scandal. The gunman, who was an Air Force veteran, was himself shot dead when agents returned fire.
Another sad reminder that violence is an inescapable part of our nation‘s correctional system. And in tonight‘s “Top Five”, we round up some of the bloodiest, most bizarre incidents ever captured behind prison walls.
CARLSON (voice-over): If you‘re a law abiding citizen, chances are you‘ve only seen Hollywood‘s version of prison life.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You ready?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
CARLSON: But anyone sent up river knows that fact is definitely stranger and violent than fiction.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Move it out, move it out. Lay down.
CARLSON: In Mexico State Penitentiary, in 1980, this was the sight of one of the worst prison uprisings in U.S. history. It lasted only two days, but when it was over, 33 inmates were dead, and more than 100 others hurt. A dozen guards were also savagely beaten.
Alcatraz prison, a.k.a. The Rock. Once thought to be inescapable. That is, until 1962, when inmate Frank Morris and two cohorts accomplished the unthinkable, using dummies, makeshift tools and a raft. The trio was never seen again. But their amazing feat was captured in the 1979 thriller, “Escape from Alcatraz”.
One of America‘s most notorious serial killers, Jeffrey Dahmer was given 15 consecutive life sentences for killing 17 men, some of whom he partially devoured.
JEFFREY DAHMER, CONVICTED MURDERER: I acted on my fantasies, and that‘s where everything went wrong.
CARLSON: But Dahmer only served two years. In 1994, he was beaten to death by a fellow inmate. Some might argue it was justice served.
He first traumatized the nation in 1966 when he slaughtered eight Chicago nurses in a single night. But Richard Speck shocked us again three decades later with this prison video, revealing some of the seedier perks of life behind prison bars.
RICHARD SPECK, CONVICTED MURDERER: If they only knew how much fun I was having they would turn me loose.
CARLSON: September 1971, New York‘s infamous Attica Penitentiary becomes the scene of the worst blood bath in U.S. prison history when prisoners revolt for better living conditions.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A moment‘s hesitation will cost them their lives.
CARLSON: The four days siege ends with the deaths of 33 inmates and 10 hostages, all of them killed by officer retaking the prison.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I call it murder, pure and simple. They will call it some sort of restoring law and order.
CARLSON: Still to come, why are affirmative action supporters in Michigan so afraid to put their ideas to a vote? I‘ll ask the woman leading the charge to take an antidiscrimination measure off the ballot.
Plus, a Michigan teen sues his mother to find his biological father. Do kids have a right to know who‘s their daddy? Back with that in just a minute.
CARLSON: Still to come tonight, Arab Americans say they‘re tired of being hassled at the airport, so they are suing the government. Should they suck it up for the sake of national security?
Plus, a certain MSNBC anchor shows off her many talents.
First, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight.
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, himself hardly a model of public integrity, filed a federal lawsuit today, alleging that widespread voter fraud forced an anti-affirmative action initiative onto the 2006 ballot in Michigan. The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or MCRI, would ban the use of race and gender preferences in college admissions and in public hiring, effectively ending affirmative action in Michigan‘s public sector.
Mayor Kilpatrick and others claim the group that proposed the initiative somehow tricked 125,000 black and Latino voters into signing a petition by telling them the initiative, in fact, supported affirmative action.
CARLSON: Joining me now from Detroit, Shanta Driver. She‘s the co-chair of the organization By Any Means Necessary.
Shanta Driver, thanks for coming on.
SHANTA DRIVER, CO-CHAIR, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY: Hey, thank you.
CARLSON: So why are you afraid of democracy here? Why not just let -
why not let people vote on this proposition. They can read the language of it in the ballot box. And why not let the people decide?
DRIVER: You can‘t use racially targeted voter fraud to get a ballot initiative in the state of Michigan, lie to 125,000 black people in order to get them to sign a petition to take away their most basic civil rights.
CARLSON: OK. Wait.
DRIVER: I think anyone that stands for voting rights would agree that if there‘s a signature requirement to amend the Michigan state constitution and get something on the ballot, and you lie to black people in the collection of those signatures...
CARLSON: Who cares what color they are? There‘s so much cant in that sentence I don‘t know where to begin. You still haven‘t—and I‘m not going to ask you a third time, you haven‘t answered my question why you‘re afraid to let people decide for themselves. But let me suggest why you might be afraid. And it‘s this.
A proposition almost exactly the same as this passed in California in 1996. It passed two years later in Washington state. Voters—in California, a very liberal state said they didn‘t think that skin color ought to be the basis upon which people are discriminated against.
I mean, I don‘t know. You know that if this were on the ballot, it would pass. That‘s why you‘re against it.
DRIVER: We‘re against—we‘re against depriving black people of their voting rights, and we think equal access and full democracy ought to be the standard in this land. We don‘t want Michigan to become a backwater in which black people can be lied to, to take away their rights. That is socially and politically and morally unacceptable.
CARLSON: You know what, hold on, here, you look at any poll taken in this country that I‘ve ever seen—perhaps you‘ve got secret polls I‘m unaware of—but anyone in public that‘s been released shows very clearly people are opposed to affirmative action. Affirmative action...
DRIVER: That‘s not true.
CARLSON: Yes, it is.
DRIVER: That‘s not true.
CARLSON: If you describe affirmative action for what it is, which is the awarding of jobs, of positions in colleges and universities partially on the basis of skin color, you say should that be allowed in this country, people overwhelmingly say no. Black people say no; Hispanic people say no. People don‘t think race ought to be the determining factor in hiring or admissions.
DRIVER: You know, Tucker, when you pose the question honestly and you ask people are they for equal opportunity and equal access in this society, which is what affirmative action programs are. They‘re desegregation programs that change the quality and power of this nation and opened up opportunities to everyone. When you ask Americans do they support that, do they support realizing the dream of Martin Luther King, you will overwhelmingly get a yes answer.
CARLSON: Those are all bumper stickers. That‘s just propaganda. The truth is, it is not equal opportunity. If you have a pool of people and you are giving preference to some people based on their skin color, you are by definition discriminating against people who don‘t have the favored skin color. And I don‘t care what those colors are; it‘s still a form of discrimination. And you know that to be true.
DRIVER: It‘s—affirmative action programs are anti-discrimination measures.
DRIVER: And if it wasn‘t true that race and racism still structure every opportunity in this society, then we wouldn‘t be making this fight at all. We‘re talking about whether we‘re going to preserve the gains of the civil right movement and have an integrated, equal America.
CARLSON: OK, and—OK.
DRIVER: If MCRI thought that they could get this ballot petition passed without lying to black people, in order to be able to put out the type of propaganda that you‘re saying, then they should have done that.
CARLSON: You keep saying that. Look, here‘s an obvious question that people are afraid to ask but I always wonder, having lived in Washington, having been to Detroit quite a bit. If affirmative action is such a great thing, why is Detroit still kind of a disaster?
DRIVER: You know, first of all, Detroit isn‘t a disaster.
CARLSON: Oh, come on.
DRIVER: First of all, Detroit isn‘t a disaster. Let me say that.
But furthermore, I think it...
CARLSON: Yes, it is. It‘s one of the poorest cities, the most crime ridden cities in the country. Yes, it is. I like Detroit, but I mean, let‘s be real here.
DRIVER: Tucker, I think if you were to—if you were to ask yourself the question in an honest way. And I would submit this to you: unless you‘re a biological racist, when you look at the inequalities that exist in educational opportunity, in funding, in health care, you go right on down the list.
DRIVER: It leads you to the conclusion that if you‘re going to combat racism and gain equality, you‘ve got to have more affirmative action, not less; more democracy, not less.
CARLSON: Really? Because I oppose discrimination on the basis of skin color. And I do vehemently, and to my core. Then you oppose it in all instances, especially when government does it. That makes it particularly wrong, and that‘s why I oppose affirmative action.
If it was the answer it would have achieved some greater effect in the 30 years it‘s been in effect, but by your own admission, seconds ago, it hasn‘t. Maybe we ought to try something new, like stopping discrimination. What do you think?
DRIVER: You know, Tucker, I really—I hope that you‘re being sincere in what you‘re saying.
CARLSON: I‘m being totally sincere.
DRIVER: I know that if you are sincere, then you‘re going to be against the kind of racially targeted voter fraud we‘ve had in Michigan.
CARLSON: Oh, come on.
DRIVER: And you‘re going to be standing against this ballot proposition...
CARLSON: All right. All right.
DRIVER: ... going forward and denying black people equal, full voting rights.
CARLSON: You say these things. OK. Shanta Driver.
DRIVER: We had a Mission Civil Rights Commission Report prove it (ph).
CARLSON: Look, I can‘t let you throw out any more substantiated, but very inflammatory claims like that, but I appreciate your coming on and giving us your point of view. Thank you.
DRIVER: Thank you.
CARLSON: We turn now to a man who will spend the weekend lying by his heated pool, sipping umbrella drinks and reading the latest issue of “Ring” magazine. He‘s “The Outsider”, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host, Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO: Yes, we‘ve gotten to know each other well.
At least you‘ve gotten to know me well.
CARLSON: Yes. I‘m not telling you what I‘m doing this weekend.
KELLERMAN: I‘m actually going to do a fight this weekend, but otherwise that would be true.
CARLSON: I‘ll be watching, as always.
Well, first up, a class action lawsuit filed by a group of Arab-Americans. Seven plaintiffs are suing both the Department of Homeland Security as well as the FBI for civil rights protection. They‘re reportedly frustrated by the U.S. government‘s terrorist watch list which they say has led to harassment and uncomfortable climate of suspicion when they try to reenter the U.S. from abroad.
The lawsuit also contends that ordinary Americans should not be subjected to detention, questioning and fingerprinting.
Boo hoo. No one‘s civil rights are being violated here. As if your habit, Max, you will defend people on terrorist watch lists.
Look, I actually have some sympathy for these people. I do think that there are people on the watch list who don‘t deserve to be there. On the other hand, the issue of paradigm support is protecting the country from Islamic extremism. If you are coming back from Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, you name it, anywhere in the gulf, you are, I think, going to be subjected to higher scrutiny than somebody who‘s coming back, you know, from Toronto. And I think you ought to be. And I‘m sorry it‘s uncomfortable and unpleasant, but that‘s the price.
KELLERMAN: You know what, Tucker, you‘re absolutely—first of all, I agree with you. OK, I‘m playing devil‘s advocate here. But you‘re absolutely right, protecting this country from Islamic extremism.
Now physically on one hand, protecting us from the extremism, means keeping this country the way it is in terms of civil rights for its citizens. You don‘t want to become a police state, and it‘s a slippery slope. This is when your rights are tested, right now when it‘s unpopular to extend real liberty to all of our citizens.
That‘s when it‘s most important to do it, otherwise you haven‘t protected it from Islamic extremism. You‘ve allowed that extremism to change the country. There‘s one guy—first of all, the Department of Homeland Security...
CARLSON: Let me just say, that‘s an ACLU talking point, but I agree with it, actually. I‘m a civil libertarian, and I agree with you completely.
But don‘t you wish that so-called Muslim civil rights groups spent a lot more time protesting the insurgency in Iraq, the lunatics in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and less time protesting the U.S. government, which after all isn‘t forcing anyone to wear burkas.
KELLERMAN: I certainly do.
KELLERMAN: I absolutely do. But first of all, the Department of Homeland Security, another Bush debacle, everyone in the government who knows anything who‘s written about it or talked about it, has said it was a politically expedient to do. It looked good. It‘s unwieldy. It‘s large, it‘s ineffective. So who knows the people that wind up on the list that comes from this department.
There is one guy who said he was stopped on the border, Canadian border and asked for his party affiliation and how he felt about the Iraq war. Are you comfortable with United States citizens being asked these kind of questions?
CARLSON: That‘s totally absurd, and larger bureaucracies seldom solve anything, and as you‘ll remember, it was the Democrats who pressed for a unionized work force. Government union, government workers.
KELLERMAN: How do you figure out how to take a shot at unions?
CARLSON: Because they‘re not the most efficient way to serve the public. And if the public is paying for something, it ought to get the most efficient service, in my view.
Anyway, a 17-year-old kid is suing for his rights—speaking of rights—to know the identity of his biological father. His own mother, meanwhile, is fighting it.
The boy is suing because he says DNA testing the man he grew up believing to be his father is not. His mother has asked a Michigan judge to throw this out, the suit out, because despite evidence, she says, the boy‘s legal father is, in fact, his biological father.
And beside the obvious reason of wanting to know who your real father is, the boy says he has a right to know if he‘s genetically predisposed to certain illnesses.
His mother is obviously a creep who‘s mean, hiding something. It‘s hard to even see the other side of this debate, Max, but that‘s why we pay you $11 an hour. So what is the other side?
KELLERMAN: I‘m getting a raise? Yes. You know, what does it sound like on the surface? It sounds like this mother has been getting child support, from someone who‘s not the child‘s father, from someone she duped into believing she was the child‘s father and wants to continue getting it for another year.
I guess the counter is, she‘ll get it for another year. Of course, she‘s not going to want to let the kid take this test and really find out if it is the father, if it means that she will be denied that money for the year. At the end of that year when the kid becomes 18, when he is no longer a minor—I know it‘s arbitrary, 17, 18 but this is the law—then he can pursue it. And then I would suggest that, if the man who‘s been paying child support this entire time is not the father, he sue the mother.
CARLSON: I think that‘s awful. Just because somebody‘s not your biological child, doesn‘t mean you can‘t love that person like a child and doesn‘t mean you don‘t have a duty to support that person. You raise somebody as your child, you‘ve got a duty to support that child, in my view.
KELLERMAN: But, what if you raised the person as your child because the mother lied to you?
CARLSON: Of course, I mean, she‘s the villain in this, but I don‘t think it ought to dissolve the affection between father and son, even if they‘re not biologically related.
But this woman ought to be under intense legal pressure to fess up. The right to privacy does not extend to parents trying to keep secrets their children have, I think, an absolute right to know. And who your parents are is something you have an absolute right to know, period.
KELLERMAN: I agree, however the way the law is, he‘s 17 not 18. Another 10 months or eight months, whatever it is, he‘ll be able to find out whatever he wants.
CARLSON: I wish we had this woman‘s name and home address. We could put it out here so people could picket her home. I just think this is awful. That‘s how I feel, Max Kellerman.
KELLERMAN: Tucker, we better hope that she actually is the villain in all this, because what if it turns out she‘s not?
CARLSON: Well, two DNA tests said that the man is not the boy‘s father. So you know, I trust science in this case. This one and only case.
CARLSON: ... will soon be in Las Vegas, calling a fight for HBO.
We‘ll see you then, Max. Thanks.
Coming up on THE SITUATION Angelina Jolie announces plans to adopt again, so why does she go half around the world shopping for babies when there are plenty of good ones here? That‘s what one viewer wants to know. We‘ll discuss it when we come right back.
VANESSA MCDONALD, PRODUCER: Coming up, Tucker takes the heat for having the nerve to criticize Anderson Cooper.
Plus, a can‘t-miss song and dance from yet another MSNBC anchor. This one puts Connie Chung to shame.
CARLSON: Could it be meteorologist Bill Karins? We‘ll find out when THE SITUATION comes back in 60 seconds.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for our weekly voice mail segment. You know, they used to say that when men are home alone late at night and drinking bourbon, they call their old girlfriends in Phoenix. Well, that‘s not entirely true. Some call us. And here‘s proof. First up.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: A.J. from Washington, D.C. About the valedictorian, beating her fellow students with the Jesus stick. It‘s one thing to make a religious speech that you first submit to the school and they approve, but it seemed extreme just to impose your beliefs on your students.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: I have to agree with you. I‘m against these speeches, all of them. I don‘t think captive audiences ought to be berated by people with an agenda, even if I agree with the agenda.
But as long as we‘re having these speeches, I find it curious that the one person who has her mic cut off is the one who mentions God. If she have gone up there and talked about Satanism, right, or human sacrifice or hating the war in Iraq, right, or veganism, they never would have cutoff her mic. She mentions God, though, and boom, that‘s not acceptable, that‘s too scary. So I‘m on her side.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: Maureen from Binghamton, New York. I have a question for you. Why is it OK for everybody in other countries to display nationalistic pride, but as soon as we try to be patriotic, we‘re looked at as a-holes? Why the double standard?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: It‘s a great question. I mean, I think the double standard is imposed by people who are deeply suspicious of America, and it scares them when Americans shows pride in their country. It‘s somehow jingoist and scary.
It is a double standard, though, and an offensive one. Nobody beats up on the Belgians or the Liechtensteinians when they express Liechtenstein pride. Though it does make me a little nervous, I‘ll confess.
But no, I agree.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
CALLER: Sara in Wilmington, Delaware. What the hell is going on with Angelina Jolie? She‘s trying to collect, like, one kid from every country? Kids are not accessories. It‘s so (expletive deleted) ridiculous that people who have money, they can just go to any country and buy a kid. We have kids here that need adoption, but they‘re too white for her.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
CARLSON: I mean, I think Angelina Jolie is creepy and a little self-righteous and pious. On the other hand, she‘s adopting children. I‘m for that, always and everywhere. And she‘s adopting kids that other people wouldn‘t adopt. I‘m firmly on Angelina Jolie‘s side here, I have to say. You adopt kids from, you know, wherever, the Sudan. I think it‘s a worthy thing to do.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP0
CALLER: Christy from Akron, Ohio. I can‘t believe you guys who brought us the drunken midget KISS cover band are criticizing Anderson Cooper for not doing hard hitting news. Don‘t get me wrong; it‘s funny but wrong. Cut the guy some slack.
CARLSON: We cut him slack, and you‘re right, we shouldn‘t be casting stones since we did have the drunk midget KISS cover band. Sorry, little people.
But on the other hand, we‘re not bragging about our hard news credentials here, at least most of the time.
Still ahead, on THE SITUATION, it appears Connie Chung‘s seductive Michelle Pfeiffer impersonation has inspired another MSNBC anchor to do a little song and dance herself. It‘s Rita Cosby live and unplugged, and trust me. Trust me ladies and gentlemen, you don‘t want to miss it. We‘ll be right back.
CARLSON: Well, just when you thought it could not get any better, Willie appears from nowhere.
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: This is better? This is the end of the road, my friend.
Tucker, there‘s something in the water here at MSNBC.
CARLSON: Is that true?
GEIST: Everybody is a performer. You‘ll see what I mean in a second.
CARLSON: Well, that‘s kind of our job, isn‘t it?
GEIST: Yes, but not this kind of performance.
CARLSON: You‘re right, Willie, there has been a rather alarming rash of MSNBC anchors singing and dancing in public recently. If you have a television set or computer, you have no doubt this steamy video of Connie Chung‘s farewell to our network last week.
Tonight, as part of her “American Idol” special, our good friend Rita Cosby showed off her one of a kind singing voice for “Idol” winner Taylor Hicks. Listen and enjoy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COSBY (singing): Georgia.
TAYLOR HICKS, “AMERICAN IDOL” WINNER (singing): The whole day through.
COSBY (singing): The whole day through.
HICKS (singing): Just an old sweet song...
COSBY (singing): Just an old sweet song...
HICKS (singing): ... keeps Rita on my mind.
COSBY (singing): ... keeps Taylor on my mind.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GEIST: With all respect to Rita, our good friend, I am glad Ray Charles isn‘t with us any more to have seen that. Aren‘t you?
CARLSON: All I can say is Rita—and I mean this totally sincerely, as somebody who is often, you know, as in public, mocked a lot.
GEIST: And in private.
CARLSON: And in private. Rita Cosby is a brave woman, and I salute her.
GEIST: She is.
CARLSON: She is. She‘s great.
GEIST: Let‘s give her one more chance, see if she does a little bit better. That wasn‘t bad. A little better this time with Ace Frehley or some guy named Ace on the show.
GEIST: Somebody from the show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COSBY (singing): Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away. Now
I need a place to hide away. Oh, I believe in yesterday
(speaking) Come on, sing with me.
COSBY: Suddenly, I‘m not half the woman I used to be...
ACE YOUNG, “AMERICAN IDOL” FINALIST (singing): I‘m not half the man I used to be...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GEIST: Give her points for courage, Bravery. She puts herself out there.
CARLSON: That ace guy is a little creepy.
GEIST: I don‘t like him.
All right. So not bad on the singing. Let‘s see how she does with the dancing with some guy named Bucky Dent—Bucky. Bucky something.
CARLSON: Bucky Danson (ph).
GEIST: I‘m not sure what it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COSBY: Can you give us a little demonstration, maybe show me. Maybe you could teach me?
I don‘t have boots on, but I can try.
BUCKY COVINGTON, “AMERICAN IDOL” FINALIST: Well, it makes it harder, but it helps.
COSBY: Could you sing a little bit?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GEIST: OK. That‘s good, Tucker. We‘ve given her time. We‘re not so un-self aware that we can‘t show you this, because of course, we were much worse than her, right? We know. Welcome to the club, Rita.
CARLSON: But you know what? Like Rita Cosby, really, in our defense, we are not ashamed.
GEIST: I‘m not ashamed. I‘d do it again right now if you wanted.
CARLSON: No thanks.
CARLSON: I‘m against mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, of course, but I‘m glad guys who ride their bikes at 200 miles an hour have to wear a little protection. This is Moto Grand Prix champion Valentino Rossi taking a horrific spill during a race in Germany today.
Rossi lost control of his bike and fell off them tumbled down the track. Believe it or not, he‘s already been released from the hospital with only a small bone fracture in his hand. Amazing.
GEIST: Those guys are tough. I would be in traction. He‘s racing again on Saturday. Unbelievable.
CARLSON: So tough (ph).
And again, from the world of sports, the men‘s American soccer team was eliminated from the World Cup today, proving once again the U.S. and soccer just don‘t mix. But you know what does go well with soccer? Elephants. A group of students in Thailand played a heated match, or game, or whatever they call it, of soccer against elephants today. The humans won in a dramatic shootout after the game ended in a 303 tie.
GEIST: Why was that game so close? You‘re playing animals. You had to win in a shootout against elephants? What does that say about those people?
CARLSON: It‘s so sad.
GEIST: Soccer would be more interesting with wild animals. I‘d like to see more deadly wild animals. But it‘s a start.
CARLSON: I totally agree. The puma league.
GEIST: All right, Tucker.
CARLSON: Thank you.
That‘s it for us tonight and for the week. Have a wonderful weekend.
We‘ll see you back here Monday.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
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.