Guests: Jim Kolbe, Shirl Giacomi, Wayne LaPierre, Jay Mariotti
RITA COSBY, HOST, “LIVE AND DIRECT”: Thank you for joining us. I‘m Rita Cosby. THE SITUATION with Tucker starts now.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST: Thanks.
Thanks to you at home for tuning in. We‘re continuing our preelection tour of the Northeast this evening from Bethel, Maine. It‘s good to have you with us.
Tonight, did “The New York Times” put American lives at risk by publishing information about the government tracking terrorist activist? President Bush calls the newspaper‘s actions, quote, “disgraceful,” while another prominent Republican called the “Times” treasonous and was calling for prosecution. Sorry, guys. The public has a right to know what its government is doing. More on that in a minute.
Also, one Republican‘s modest proposal: labor camps for illegal aliens. Some critics are even calling them concentration camps. Just ahead, a Republican congressman on why he finds the whole idea deeply offensive.
And a bloody rampage in a Las Vegas casino, and it is all caught on tape, as if everything in a casino. The suspect‘s still at large tonight. We‘ll have the latest.
But first, the latest from Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha. He‘s been making a name for himself with his outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq, but it may not be the name he had in mind. Some are calling him the Marine veteran, quote, “the male Cindy Sheehan.”
That controversy stems from comments Murtha reportedly made in Florida this weekend, in which he claimed the American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear weapons in North Korea or Iran. That‘s right; the U.S. is more threatening than Kim Jong-Il or the ayatollahs in Tehran.
Here to explain what he may have meant, MSNBC contributor and a personal friend of Jack Murtha, Flavia Colgan. She joins us tonight from Burbank, California.
FLAVIA COLGAN, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Good evening, Tucker. Thank you for having me.
CARLSON: The U.S. Presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear weapons in Iran or North Korea. We couldn‘t believe that Congressman Murtha, who I don‘t think is a bad person, incidentally. I‘m not attacking him personally. I couldn‘t believe he would say something like that.
We called the “Sun-Sentinel” in Florida, talked to a reporter who was there, and indeed he did say that, and I‘m going to give you a chance as a friend of his to explain what you think he might have meant.
COLGAN: Well, I obviously can‘t speak for Jack Murtha himself, but what I can say is look at what he‘s been saying for the last couple of years, and again, the direct quote from that paper was that it‘s more of a threat than a nuclear threat from Iran and Korea.
What he has been saying for a number of years is that, No. 1, we are talking about non-nation states, someone like al Qaeda, you can‘t have sanctions, containment. The six—you know, the six bilateral talks, six-party bilateral talks we‘re talking about right now with North Korea, the fact that our allies and world is all joining us and really trying to make sure that the situations are contained there.
What he‘s talking about is that our presence in Iraq is not only recruiting more terrorists, more al Qaeda members, but the amount of money and the amount of troops that we have there are training our ability to even be ready if we were to have another confrontation. So for instance, if we had troops going out of South Korea to go to Iraq, troops coming out of Afghanistan to go into Iraq. So since his position of redeploy...
CARLSON: I understand that critique. I understand that critique that you just made, I think that there‘s some validity in it. I‘m against the war in Iraq. I think it was a mistake. I‘ve said that, of course, many times. And I agree with Jack Murtha to that extent.
What‘s really going on is, and you know as well as I, is that Murtha has been intoxicated by the amount of publicity he‘s gotten from his antiwar crusade. And he‘s become progressively more unreasonable, progressively more left wing as the days go on, and he‘s in the thrall of people who, I think, have hostility toward the United States.
And I hate to see Jack Murtha, who‘s a reasonable, decent with some good ideas, parrot their line. That‘s what‘s going on. There‘s no way you can rationally argue that the United States is a greater threat than North Korea, an insane criminal state, or the lunatics in Iran. That‘s just not a reasonable thing to say.
COLGAN: And I don‘t think that‘s what he did say. And with all due respect, Tucker, what I think is going on is that Republicans, you know, want to bring about flag burning amendments or talk about stay the course or call people cut and runs, and some Democrats want to take half measure or try to have it both ways.
And somebody like Jack Murtha, who has shown over decades not just his experience in terms of his service to the Marine Corps, but his service to this country has shown a huge, huge commitment to our troops and really looking at the nuance of these situations. So they don‘t want to take the time to really understand what redeployment and a strike force in Qatar or Kuwait or the UAE, what that would mean in terms of being able to go back in if we should need to, if things devolve there. I think the people don‘t want to address those issues.
CARLSON: Let‘s get specific, because you bring it up.
COLGAN: Research and talking about—yes. So I think people don‘t want to address those issues.
CARLSON: Well, I do. I do. Flavia, you‘ve come to—hold on. Hold on. I‘m not attacking anybody personally. I merely think that what he said is wrong and it‘s exactly the kind of rhetoric you hear from the people who, frankly, have another agenda. That‘s an anti-American one. Not that he does.
Here‘s a line that I want to address very specifically. Quote, “We do not want permanent bases in Iraq,” Murtha told an audience this weekend. We don‘t? How can we redeploy forces back into Iraq if we don‘t have bases there? Moreover, what‘s the point of 2,500 American dead if we don‘t even leave behind a strategic stronghold? That‘s like the one good thing to come out of this war. And American base in Iraq? Why would we give that up?
COLGAN: Well, you‘re on your own on this one, because even the administration won‘t admit that there are $1 billion they‘re spending on an embassy there and their plans to have a permanent base, I don‘t think, are...
CARLSON: That‘s their problem. That‘s because they don‘t tell the truth. I agree.
COLGAN: Puts us in a very—puts us in a very, very bad position, and I do not think that it‘s very sound at all for us to say that we‘re going to have large permanent bases there. I see no reason like—and what I found very interesting, by the way, speaking about this network, is when Murtha went on “Meet the Press” and said those things, Tim Walter came on “IMUS IN THE MORNING” the next day and said that people from the Pentagon were calling him the whole day after Murtha‘s appearance, saying, “We agree with Murtha.” So you know, I think that there‘s a lot of agreement for Murtha‘s proposals.
CARLSON: That‘s great. But an anonymous source is—but on that subject I think he‘s clearly wrong, on leaving the bases there. I mean, you know, that is the one good thing about it: we would have a place to gather intelligence about a region in the world that threatens us. I think that even if you hate the war, you can...
COLGAN: I could not disagree with you more, Tucker. And I think that if you were really convinced that we need to go after the global war on terror, the people who killed thousands of Americans on our soil, we need to redeploy and reevaluate our priorities and make sure that we‘re spending money not only on combating terrorism here, homeland security measures, but also in Somalia, which is now being taken over by an al Qaeda operative and other countries being taken over by al Qaeda..
CARLSON: You can go down the list, and I would half agree with you on all of that, but we‘re out of time. And I appreciate you coming on. Thanks.
COLGAN: Thank you, Tucker.
CARLSON: There are more than 10 million illegal aliens living in this country at this point, and the question is, what do we do with them? Well, here‘s a thought: put them to work. That idea comes from Don Goldwater. He‘s a Republican running for governor of Arizona. He suggested that undocumented migrants could be enlisted to build a border wall.
My next guest says this is, quote, “a sad day in the national debate on immigration policy.” He describes that idea as, quote “not deeply offensive.”
Congressman Jim Kolbe is a Republican from Arizona. He joins us tonight from Washington. Congressman, thanks for coming on.
REP. JIM KOLBE ®, ARIZONA: Thank you. It‘s good to be with you, Tucker.
CARLSON: I‘m not sure what‘s so deeply offensive about this idea. First, it‘s kind of an interesting idea. Maybe before dismissing it we should talk about it. But second, there are almost 20,000 inmates in American prisons who work for 23 to $1.15 an hour making products for the private sector.
I mean, there‘s a long tradition of putting lawbreakers to work. It‘s good for them; it‘s good for us. Why is this privation a terrible idea?
KOLBE: Well, Tucker, first of all, the initial report over the wire service was that he called them concentration camps. To his credit, he didn‘t seem to use that word. But he has talked about...
CARLSON: So other people described them that way?
KOLBE: Yes. He‘s talking about these detention camps.
KOLBE: What makes them fundamentally different from what you just talked about in prison today is those are people that have been convicted. They‘ve been adjudicated. These are people who have been swept up. They haven‘t been convicted of anything. They‘ve just been rounded up because they came across, apparently illegally, but they have not gone through any process.
So you‘re going to hold them, what, indefinitely and not put them through some kind of a process for making a determination? I just think it‘s a terrible idea.
And by the way, if we have 10, 11, 12 million undocumented persons in this country, we‘re going to round 10, 11, 12 million of these people and put them somewhere?
CARLSON: I don‘t think that was the suggestion, you take people out of their homes who are living here illegally, but the idea was I think, if I understand Mr. Goldwater, is people you sweep up along the border, actually, among other things, clean up after themselves. Here‘s what he said. Quote, “They can be used as labor construction of a wall and to clean the areas of the Arizona desert they‘re polluting.
Your deserts are polluted from illegal immigrants. Why shouldn‘t they clean it up?
KOLBE: Trust me, I represent that area. I know about the environment and degradation.
Yes, I know.
COLMES: That exists along there. I live in that area, but the idea of taking people who have not gone through any kind of legal process, they‘ve just been picked up. That‘s literally all that‘s happened to them. They‘ve been picked up out of the desert, out of a van, and they—you might have somebody in there that‘s not an illegal alien. He might be a citizen, but he‘s swept up in that, and you are going to detain him for how long before you allow him to have some kind of judicial proceeding?
That‘s what we do all right, of course. You sweep them up and detain them and find out what their status is?
KOLBE: No, they‘re back across the border. It‘s called voluntary departure. They say, yes, you right, I am from Mexico, and we should take them to the border and they go back across the border.
CARLSON: But I guess what I don‘t understand is, OK, so you have on the one hand, 12 -- let‘s say 12 million illegal immigrants living in this country, and they are, by a lot of people description hurting our country. You have on the other hand this candidate for governor who suggests make cleaning up litter in the desert, and that‘s deeply offensive. Is it anywhere nearly as deeply offensive as the -- 10, 12 million illegal aliens.
KOLBE: The question is not whether it‘s deeply offensive to have them cleaning up litter. The question is whether you‘re going to have detention camps for 10, 11, 12 million people in the United States, and have them doing forced labor, building these fences, these walls along the border. It‘s—not only is it totally impractical, but it is a deeply offensive idea, I think.
CARLSON: I don‘t know. Why should we pay to clean up their mess? Why should we pay to build walls to keep them out, when they‘re the ones making the mess and they‘re the ones crossing the border? I don‘t know. There‘s a bit of justice in it, you‘ve got to admit. What bout the Mexican government, why don‘t they pay for it?
KOLBE: If they have gone through processing, and they are—and we have people that are in detention facilities that are being held because they‘ve committed crimes. They‘ve gone through process. They‘ve been convicted of those crimes. They‘re in a federal prison, a federal detention center. That‘s perfectly sensible, but that‘s not what we‘re talking about.
We are talking about the people who are just picked up, just like you go off in the streets and say, “We‘re going to round up all those hoods down there in the neighborhood, and we‘re going to round them all up, and we‘re going to have them doing work tomorrow. We‘re not going to bother with any kind of judicial proceeding here.”
CARLSON: I think you—you obviously make a fair point. Congressman, I appreciate you coming on. Thank you.
KOLBE: OK. Thank you.
CARLSON: Still to come, the Roman Catholic Church has decided to protect illegal aliens, even if it means exposing young children to pedophiles. We‘ll bring you the details after the break.
Plus, should the “New York Times” be prosecuted for disclosing a secret government program that was tracking terror activity? The Bush administration calls the leak disgraceful while another Republican calls it treasonous. We‘ll tell you why leaks are actually good for America.
And I‘ll speak exclusively with the man at the center of the gay slur controversy that has rocked Major League Baseball. Stay tuned for all that.
CARLSON: Still to come, I‘ll have the head of the National Rifle Association, Wayne LaPierre, about the U.N.‘s assault on gun owners.
Plus, a new nicotine drink has some health groups buzzing it will turn young adults into addicts. The answer when THE SITUATION returns.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Tonight‘s “Under the Radar” segment comes to us from Orange County, California. That‘s where the Catholic Church is apparently putting the welfare of illegal aliens ahead of protecting kids from pedophiles. The diocese is going back on a plan to fingerprint all volunteers who work with children. According to church leaders, fingerprinting illegal immigrants is nearly impossible without government photo I.D. and the church could lose too many volunteers in heavily Latino parishes.
Here to defend the decision, or to explain it, Shirl Giacomi. She‘s chancellor of the diocese of Orange County. She joins us tonight from Gulfport, Mississippi.
Shirl Giacomi, thanks for joining us.
SHIRL GIACOMI, CHANCELLOR, ORANGE COUNTY DIOCESE: Good evening, Tucker.
CARLSON: This almost doesn‘t sound real. The idea that the Catholic Church, which has had so many troubles in the past 15 years with pedophiles in its ranks is not fingerprinting people because it doesn‘t want to hurt illegal aliens? I mean, you couldn‘t make this up. Is this true?
GIACOMI: No, that‘s not the situation at all. We have worked hard to make sure that we‘ve done all that we can to protect children, and we have fingerprinted over 21,000 both employees and volunteers, and this process evolved as we began to deal with the whole situation of how we could best do this, and at first we were told that the Department of Justice, the DOJ would accept matricular consular I.D.‘s, and that we could, in fact, fingerprint the undocumented.
As we got closer to being able to put this in practice, we were told that they had changed their minds and that they could only use a government photo I.D., and so then we had to look for alternative ways to make sure that we could do background checks. We‘re not obliged to do background checks.
CARLSON: I‘m sure you‘re not obliged to, but morally it seems to me you‘re absolutely obliged to if it‘s a choice between making absolutely certain there is not a convicted pedophile in your ranks, or allowing illegal aliens to volunteer. It‘s a pretty easy choice, I think, for most people. You go with protecting kids.
GIACOMI: Well, we do want to protect kids. I‘m a mom and I‘m a grandma, and children‘s safety is paramount to me.
What we‘ve done, because we still do screen the volunteers that are in our classrooms, they have to sign an affidavit saying that they have not been convicted, and they have to supply us with two references which we check to make sure that they have, you know, we check the references from neighbors, from sometimes their employers, and to make sure that there is no history that anyone is aware of.
CARLSON: But if that‘s enough, than why isn‘t it the standard for everybody? That‘s not the standard for everybody. You just said that most people are fingerprinted, and the Department of Justice makes certain they‘ve never been convicted of molesting a child, but you‘re suspending those standards for a single group of people, illegal aliens, because you want them to volunteer for you. And that‘s just—it‘s obvious that you‘re lowering the standards for this group of people and by your own definition not doing all you could to protect children. I‘m just confused.
GIACOMI: I would be glad—we would be glad to fingerprint them, Tucker. We would be glad and we would start tomorrow if the DOJ would accept the I.D. that they do have.
CARLSON: Well, why don‘t you have legal Americans working for you, then? That would kind of solve it in about—let‘s say instantly. Wouldn‘t it?
GIACOMI: Yes, we do have lots of—we do have lots of people who are fingerprinted who are working for us.
The other thing that I didn‘t mention is that a person who is not fingerprinted cannot be in the classroom alone with children. They are an assistant only. And most of these people, I‘ say 99 percent, are moms or grandmas who want to be a part of their children‘s faith formation, and they so they go into the classrooms, not our schools. This is in our religious education program. And they are part of the program helping a teacher that has been fingerprinted.
CARLSON: OK. But, again, that‘s not everything that you could do to protect children. I understand that there are a lot of safeguards in place, but this is the Catholic Church we‘re talking about, which has lost congregants and donations and a good part of its, I think, hard earned reputation because of the pedophiles in its ranks. You have a lot to prove. Why not prove it? Why suspend any standards at all? You know, is it really that important to have illegal aliens on your staff?
GIACOMI: They‘re not on our staff. These are volunteers who come in...
CARLSON: Working, working there.
GIACOMI: ... who want to help out with the teachers who are already in the classroom who have been fingerprinted. And so we would be glad to have them fingerprinted if the DOJ would accept the fingerprints and get the reports back to us. We‘re ready to do that as soon as the DOJ can assure us that they‘re willing to proceed with that process.
CARLSON: All right. Shirl Giacomi, thanks a lot for joining us.
GIACOMI: You‘re welcome.
CARLSON: Still to come, is the U.N. plotting to take a way your guns? Sound impossible? According to Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association, it could very well happen. He joins us next.
Plus, a shooting spree in Las Vegas. Police are looking for the man caught on tape in
CARLSON: Welcome back.
Today the United Nations is kicking off a two-week conference, aimed at getting rid of privately firearms around the world. But since when does the United Nations have jurisdiction in America? Here to tell us, Wayne LaPierre, and he‘s the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
He‘s also author of “The Global War on Your Guns: Inside the U.N.‘s Plan to Destroy the Bill of Rights”. Wayne LaPierre join us tonight from New York. Wayne, thanks for coming on.
WAYNE LAPIERRE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: Good to be with you, Tucker.
CARLSON: So the United Nations, I mean, I understand that this gets people whipped into a frenzy and increases donations to the NRA, and I‘m not against that. But this can‘ really be true. The NRA can‘t actually have an effect on my right to own a firearm, can it?
LAPIERRE: Yes, the U.N. thinks they can.
I mean, the sad thing, not one of these governments that the U.N. and this club of governments guarantees the individual rights and freedoms we have as American citizens under our Bill of Rights.
Their philosophy that they‘re trying to push on the world is governments get all the guns, and they‘re picking off countries around the world. They‘ve got most of Africa, and these regional protocols, most of south Americas, and their philosophy is government gets the guns, take them away from all individual citizens.
And yet, the U.N. has no solution for what to do when one of their governments goes bad and goes genocidal and starts killing people. If you look at...
CARLSON: Wait. So if this has worked, as you said, in Africa, and the United Nations has succeeded in taking private firearms out of the hands of private individuals, than I mean, Africa must be a pretty tranquil, peaceful continent without bloodshed right about now, right?
LAPIERRE: Yes, you look at most of the genocide in the 20th Century. It was committed by those same governments that the U.N. wants to give all the guns to. You look at Africa right now, you look at the Sudan, the killing that is being done in the Sudan right now, and the United Nations applauds the Sudan gun collecting plan is being done by guns that are being slipped by the government of Sudan to those Arab gangs that are killing the dark-skinned Muslims in Darfur. I mean, it is—is such a joke. I mean...
CARLSON: I couldn‘t agree with you more. And that is the story of the 20th Century: government sponsored killing, of course. That‘s why the Bill of Rights is so important. But how could it happen here? How could the U.N. actually affect our rights to protect ourselves with our own firearms?
LAPIERRE: Well, one, they think they can pick-off the rest of the world, and only the U.S. will be left. Second, they can do it by a treaty. That would take two thirds of the Senate, and hopefully, we‘ll have enough strength in the Senate to prevent that from ever happening.
If they call it an international agreement, they only need a simple majority of the House and Senate for that. That‘s how President Clinton passed NAFTA.
They also are working on theories, as a Professor Fry (ph), who‘s one of the U.N. rappateurs, to say it‘s a human rights violation if a country does not adopt the U.N. gun plan. They have a lot of money behind this.
CARLSON: And the U.N.—just to make it clear, the U.N. gun plan would disallow, preclude, make illegal the private ownership of firearms?
LAPIERRE: Yes, they believe in a form of government supremacy where individuals can only seek protection from the government. They don‘t have the right to do it on their own. That gives the home intruder a decided advantage over the homeowner.
The U.S. at this conference this next two weeks. I‘ll give you an example. Iran had been pushing to prohibit the transfer of firearms to non-state actors, they call them. That will prevent the United States from ever supporting any of the freedom fighters around the world. It would have prevented sending guns to the French resistance in World War II. I mean, this whole thing is...
CARLSON: This is Iran, the largest sponsor of terrorism, state sponsored terrorism in the world. The backer of Hezbollah is saying that other governments should not be allowed to send guns to non-state actors. Let me—that‘s a joke.
LAPIERRE: Cuba is going to be sitting here the next two weeks in New York right beside North Korea, right beside Iran, criticizing the United States, pushing this U.N. gun stuff. It‘s just unbelievable and outrageous, but they‘re dead serious about it.
I debated the woman, Rebecca Peters, who runs the IANSA staff up at the U.N., International Action Network on Small Arms. She ran the Australian gun ban, and then she went to New York to work for George Soros.
She said she wants to ban all rifles that shoot over 100 yards. I said, “You have them all.” Wants to ban all pump shotguns, all handguns, and she said Americans have to realize self-defense is outdated. That happens only in the movies. You better get in line with the rest of the world and start abiding by the rules of the world, America.
CARLSON: You tell that to the people of New Orleans who sat by when their police department abdicated, fled their posts and went and looted Wal-Mart, while people went door to door and killed people and citizens weren‘t able to protect themselves because their guns had been confiscated. I mean, that‘s ridiculous.
LAPIERRE: And in countries around the world that adopt this U.N. fantasy, where the U.N. will become a global nanny with a global permission slip, the rest of the United States and the rest of the world would get what happened in New Orleans after that hurricane, where robbers ruled the streets and home owners were completely disarmed. I mean, thank goodness...
CARLSON: Well, just a minute. Tell me, in the 30 seconds we have left, we‘ve got a lot of different people running for president. Give me the top three potential candidates running for president you think would be most likely to support a U.N. style plan?
LAPIERRE: Well, I‘ll tell you—it‘s already—they‘re already talking in the corridors that once they get beyond the Bush presidency, they think they may get somebody like Hillary Clinton in there, or a John Kerry, and then they can really rock ‘n‘ roll on this stuff.
A lot of this stuff can be implemented by the back door, by executive agreement. The U.N. also knows you get a couple of really bad Supreme Court appointments on there that say the Second Amendment is not an individual right only the government right, there‘s nothing in the U.S. Constitution then to prevent a U.N. treaty from taking effect.
CARLSON: I agree with that completely. And I think it could happen, and I‘m glad you‘re there watching.
LAPIERRE: Thank you.
CARLSON: Wayne LaPierre, thanks.
Still to come, lemon flavored nicotine drinks. Are they saving lives or are they simply getting young people hooked on an addictive drug?
Plus, shocking news for Harry Potter fans, millions of them. Why has author J.K. Rowling decided to kill off two of the main characters, possibly even Harry himself? Find out when THE SITUATION returns.
CARLSON: Still to come THE SITUATION‘s “Top Five” unsolved murders. Patsy Ramsey has died. Can we finally admit she didn‘t do it?
As one of the richest men in the world has decided to give his money away, who gets it? All that in just a moment, but first, here‘s what else is going on in the world tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OZZIE GUILLEN, MANAGER, WHITE SOX: I was not calling people that way; I was calling him that. I don‘t mean people. I got friends in that community. He‘s garbage. And he‘s always be garbage, and always will be a garbage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: That was White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, insisting he wasn‘t attacking gay people in general when he called “Chicago Sun-Times” sports columnist Jay Mariotti, quote, “a fag.” Guillen was ordered to undergo sensitivity training and later apologized to gay groups, but not to Jay Mariotti.
So joining us from Chicago with his side of the story, Jay Mariotti.
JAY MARIOTTI, SPORTS COLUMNIST, “CHICAGO SUN-TIMES”: I‘m just heartbroken, too, Tucker, that he hasn‘t apologized, but thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
CARLSON: There you are, in his words, a garbage.
MARIOTTI: I‘m garbage, yes.
CARLSON: A garbage. Who cares? I mean, so he called you a mean name. As you point out in a column you wrote later, you get called worse all the time, and anybody in journalism does, if he‘s doing his job correctly. So what?
MARIOTTI: Yes, well, I‘m not offended by that. He can call me anything he wants, as you say. I mean, that‘s part of the job. I‘ve been called much worst getting my coffee in the morning.
The problem is, Tucker, the second time in less than a year where he‘s gone down that path. He did it in New York in Yankee Stadium last year; now he‘s doing it here. He had to apologize last year. He hasn‘t learned anything from it. And if you‘re watching Ozzie Guillen, he‘s a tremendous baseball manager, but I swear, he has 10 to 15 episodes a year. I mean, he‘s moved on to other people since me, and if you kept a running tally of Ozzie and all his targets, you couldn‘t—you wouldn‘t have enough room in the newspaper every day. So...
CARLSON: But is that—you said he hasn‘t learned, though. You said he hasn‘t learned from this. Is it our job to teach him? I mean, you suggest that he go to sensitivity training, which really is, I think we can both agree, a fate worse than death. Why should he be sensitive? He‘s a baseball manager. It‘s so unfair.
MARIOTTI: He‘s a baseball manager and—well, you‘ve been to a ballpark. What do they have at the ballpark? Family Day at the ballpark. They celebrate baseball, Tucker, as a family event, a Dad and his kid. That‘s what—baseball, apple pie, the Dad and the son go out to the ball game. And you can‘t have this homophobic manager wondering around spewing these terms. He already said it once...
CARLSON: Why? Why not? Come on. It‘s all about the children. I mean, come on.
MARIOTTI: I told you.
CARLSON: This is not a world—this is a world filled with people with opinions that we don‘t agree with. And at some point, you have to say, you know what? It‘s your opinion. You have a right to be a pig if you want, to have unsanctioned opinions. Indeed, even to be insensitive. And shouldn‘t we in the press be defending an individual‘s rights to be insensitive if he wants?
MARIOTTI: To a certain degree, but this is just—it‘s not fair for people. Where do you draw the line, Tucker? What if he is slurring people ethnically? Then we‘re making enemies. If I were the owner of a baseball team, and I want to sell particular yes to fans, I don‘t want my manager slurring this group, this group, this group. He‘s costing me money. Right?
CARSLSON: I agree with you. I agree with you. That‘s not the position of the guy who owns the team.
And look, he used a word that I never used, and in fact, I hardly ever hear people ever use any more. I mean, it‘s a word that is clearly a slur and it‘s considered a bad one. I‘m not defending the word to be used, just to be totally clear about that. On the other hand, why shouldn‘t we let the owner of the team decide or the fans decide. If they‘re offended by him, then they don‘t go to the ballpark, but a lot of them appear agree, they don‘t like you, so they are going to see the team.
MARIOTTI: The owner of the team happens, Jerry Reinsdorf (ph), happens to be the co-chairman, Tucker, of the Equal Opportunity Committee of Major League baseball. Does that answer your question? You can‘t have it both ways. He ran...
CARLSON: But wait, that‘s what—he‘ not saying—but Guillen‘s not saying, “Gay people ought not to play baseball or they ought not to see the games.” He‘s saying you, Jay Mariotti, you‘re whatever. And what he called you. He‘s just attacking one man, one sports columnist. I mean, that‘s not a slur against gay people; it‘s a slur against you.
MARIOTTI: Well, again at Yankee stadium I knew, he saw friends and said, “Hey, he‘s a child molester. Hey, he‘s a homosexual.” Look, I don‘t believe that Ozzie Guillen doesn‘t understand the language. Wait a minute. He‘s been—he‘s been in this country for more than 20 years and knows the word accountable, because he says, “I am not accountable.” He knows an awful lot of fairly large words, Tucker. He knows exactly the connotation of what he was saying.
CARLSON: If you could peel back the accent, he was saying I am not a cannibal, which I think really is true, probably. Any way, Jay Mariotti, thank you.
CARLSON: And in fact, I think you seem like a great guy, and I‘m not jumping on the Ozzie Guillen band wagon with this. But I appreciate it.
MARIOTTI: This—we have to place the story in the proper perspective. It‘s a little zany, but you have to be careful from a business respective? That‘s all I‘m saying.
MARIOTTI: OK. Thank you.
CARLSON: Thanks, May.
MARIOTTI: All right, man. Yes, you take care.
We turn now to a man who once hosted a show with Jay Mariotti, and called him much worst things than Ozzie Guillen did on a daily basis. He is, of course, “The Outsider”, ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing host, Max Kellerman.
MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO: Only Jay gets cursed out getting his coffee in the morning.
CARLSON: I thought all managers talked this way but, you know, what do I know about sports? Well, is the “New York Times” guilty of treason for publishing details of a government program that secretly monitors the finances of suspected terrorist? That the latest question and that‘s what some people are saying tonight.
President Bush did not mince words in criticizing the newspaper today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We‘re at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CARLSON: The “Times” ran a story about the program which began shortly after the attacks of 9/11 last week. New York Republican Congressman Pete King called the paper‘s actions, quote, treasonous. “The Times” executive editor, Bill Keller, said the newspaper spent working with the Bush administration, discussing whether or not to publish that report.
“The Times” ran a story about the program which began shortly after the attacks of 9/11 last week. New York Republican Congressman Pete King calls is not guilty of treason, Max. The administration ought to stop pretending the rest of us don‘t have a right know that we need to know these things
Look, I think the “New York Times” hates Bush. I think they probably go out of their way to hurt Bush. I think they would probably even reveal things they shouldn‘t real in order to hurt Bush. I‘m not even develop the “Times” but instead, the principle that the restive and about what our government is doing. It‘s our government. Not the bush administrations. It belongs to all of us.
That might be news to the Bush administration to milk. Bush does not have any credibility when he says we‘re at war, because you know, we went to war in Iraq over terrorism, and really, the two things are not really related.
So he has no credibility, and this is another in a long line of, you know, failures by the Bush administration, trying to give over the port security to a foreign owned government—to a company owned by a foreign government. Spending all the surplus and etc., etc., in this case, I think that there is a case to be made to defend the administration.
Doesn‘t the government have any right to act in security, to ask secret for any measures of security, or do they have no right at all, Tucker?
CARLSON: I think yes, there are cases when the government has—I think we all have an interest, in other words, in our government acting in secret.
But government has to take that case to whatever journalist has uncovered the information and make it, and I firmly exceeded my useful. if the administration had done that, this would be the effect if you run this piece, they wouldn‘t have run it.
I think to often, there is often used as cover, and the government is embarrassed and they will say don‘t reveal that, or also you are hurting the war on terror.
KELLERMAN: And they‘re trying to chill the press. They‘re trying to chill the press, clearly.
KELLERMAN: Especially when you use words like treason, which is Bush‘s credit, basically—that‘s the only thing you give him credit for nowadays—he didn‘t actually use the word treason. It wasn‘t him.
CARLSON: No, it was a member of Congress.
KELLERMAN: It was a member of Congress, exactly, which is, you know, doing the dirty work for him. I know you think it‘s healthy, leaks are healthy and I‘ve heard you use that argument in other cases.
KELLERMAN: And generally they are, but just because something is healthy doesn‘t make it legal or right all the time, and this—for instance, in cases of national security, severe cases of national security, and this is probably one of them. If this isn‘t, what is?
CARLSON: I don‘t know. I think that we all should be very, very concerned about our government having too much power. And just because we‘re at war with people who hate us, and we are, and we‘re fighting them. And we are and should be—doesn‘t mean that we need to forget or let our guard down against our own government.
KELLERMAN: Particularly this administration.
CARLSON: It‘s true with any administration.
Well, they‘ve already got cigarettes, gum and patches to get nicotine into your system, so why not make refreshing nicotine-laced beverage, as well? Yum.
A company called Nic Time is making a lemon flavored drink with nicotine in it that‘s supposed to tide smokers over when they‘re at places you can‘t light up. The eight-ounce bottle carries the same amount of nicotine as two cigarettes.
Critics say the drink is just one more easy way for young people to get hooked on nicotine and smoking. Helping people quit, what‘s the problem? Isn‘t it better than having people fill their lungs with smoke, Max? Of course it is.
What we need is moral alternatives to cigarettes, to get people off of smoking. Nicotine is not very harmful, actually, unless you have a heart condition. It‘s not that bad for you. Better to wean people get off cigarettes any way that you can car. Anything you can. I cannot imagine the argument against this.
KELLERMAN: Nicotine actually, depending on what kind of dose it is, can actually be good for you or bad for you. It‘s a drug.
KELLERMAN: You should need a prescription for nicotine, and the most dastardly thing in the long list the cigarette companies ever did was intentionally add nicotine, extract it and add it to tobacco, which already has some, in order to addict people. This is just a measure, you know if you put nicotine...
CARLSON: Wait, wait. So you should need a prescription for nicotine but not for marijuana, is that what you are saying?
KELLERMAN: Yes, yes I am.
CARLSON: OK, and...
KELLERMAN: That‘s a whole other subject, Tucker.
CARLSON: I know it is, right.
KELLERMAN: The bottom line is, the company adds nicotine to their product to addict you. That‘s the problem. Marijuana is not addictive, actually, physically. Nicotine is, severely addictive, like heroin, for instance, maybe worse.
The point is, any company that is putting a product on the market, for which you don‘t need a prescription, where they‘re extracting and adding pure nicotine is only doing it because they know that they have a customer for life.
CARLSON: No, no, no. Here‘s the truth, smoking kills hundreds—millions of people worldwide. We all know someone who‘s died from cigarette smoking, OK? Stopping smoking is a great thing. There‘s no getting around that.
KELLERMAN: So measure—so measure the curve where you can smoke and that socially people may look down upon smoking, must also be a good thing. Right?
CARLSON: No, I‘m saying nicotine replacement works. I was a heavy smoker. It worked for me. The gum worked for me, the patch worked, the nicotine drink works, anything that works, gets people to stop smoking, is a good thing.
KELLERMAN: Anything that stops people from smoking is a good thing. Good, I want you on record on that. And now I got you.
CARLSON: Don‘t hold it against me, Max Kellerman.
CARLSON: See you tomorrow.
Still ahead tonight, Patsy Ramsey, the mother of JonBenet, died over the weekend. What does she have in common with Gary Condit? We‘ve got the answer. We‘ll give it to you in a minute.
Plus, the world‘s second richest man his vast fortune to the world‘s richest man. Talk about wealth perpetuating itself. What was Warren Buffett thinking? We‘ll discuss that when THE SITUATION comes right back.
VANESSA MCDONALD: PRODUCER: Coming up, you‘ll see incredible surveillance video of Wild West shootout inside a Vegas casino.
Plus, is Harry Potter being killed off by the very woman who created him? We‘ll tell you when THE SITUATION returns in just 60 seconds.
CARLSON: In tonight‘s “Situation Crime Blotter, a local Los Angeles television reporter was doing a live report today about the hunt for a man believed to have shot and killed his neighbor last night. As he stood in front of the police headquarters, the reporter got a surprise visit from the suspect himself. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are Alvaro Williamson. Do you understand the police are looking for you?
WILLIAMSON: Yes, I‘m walking to turning myself in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could you tell us what happened, sir?
WILILAMSON: I was going to shoot my neighbors.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you shoot your neighbor?
WILLIAMSON: No comment. I‘m going to turn myself in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you kill your neighbor?
WILLIAMS: No comment.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Williams, where have you been?
WILLIAMSON: Where have I been? I was at Jack-in-the-box. I had a soda.
CARLSON: He seems calm about the whole situation.
Finally, some amazing security video shows a man opening fire inside a Las Vegas casino. A fight broke out about 4:30 yesterday morning at the Silver Nugget Casino. It started with punches but it turned horrific when a man pulled out a handgun and started shooting. A 20 year-old man was killed in the incident, and another woman was shot in the hand. Las Vegas police are still looking for the shooter.
Another sad chapter in the unsolved murder case of child beauty princess, JonBenet Ramsey. Patsy Ramsey, her mother, died of cancer over the weekend at her home outside Atlanta. She was 49 years old.
While the image of a grieving mother to some, Patsy and her husband, John, were sinister figures to many others, especially tabloid readers, expected the parents were someone behind their daughter‘s murder.
JonBenet was 6 when she was found strangled in the basement of the family‘s Colorado home nearly a decade ago. No one has ever been arrested in that murder.
For tonight‘s “Top Five,” we rummage through cold case files across the nation to find other notorious murders in which the bad guys have so far outsmarted the law.
CARLSON (voice-over): They baffle police and grip our imagination: infamous whodunits involving seemingly perfect murders. Perfect because the killers in these cold cases might never be brought to justice.
A honeymoon cruise along the Mediterranean last summer becomes a nightmare for Jennifer Hagel when her husband, George Smith, vanishes.
JENNIFER HAGEL, WIDOW: This is a sick joke, right? Because you just I thought that this was a sick joke.
CARLSON: There are signs of foul play, but the FBI can‘t solve this mystery. The Connecticut groom is presumed dead, and no suspect in custody.
As a Washington, D.C., intern, 24-year-old Chandra Levy made headline news when she disappeared in the summer of 2001. Her remains were found a year later. And why police did uncover an affair with Levy and Congressman Gary Condit of California, who was never need a suspect.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Condit, can you tell us against her.
CARLSON: But the uproar destroyed Condit‘s political career. Chandra Levy‘s murder remains.
She was just another high school grad from Alabama until her disappearance in Aruba a yeah ago, turned Natalee Holloway a tragic, figure. Aruban authorities say it‘s unlikely she‘s alive, but Natalee‘s mother has not give up hope she‘ll one day find know what Kimmer Center,
BETH HOLLOWAY TWITTY, NATALEE HOLLYWOOD‘S MOTHER: I know pretty Natalie. These things are taken care of. That god is with her.
CARLSON: His disappearance in the summer of 1975 may be one of the greatest mysteries ever. But given the labor leaders Jimmy Hoffa: as long ties with organized crime. It was, perhaps, just a matter of time before he got whacked. Despite many guesses and numerous searches around the country, Hoffa‘s body remains missing in action.
It‘s been more than a dozen years since Nicole Brown and her friend, Ran Goldman were savagely knifed to death outside Nicole‘s condo. And why the murders did lead to the so-called trial of the century, the murderer has never been convicted of the crime.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder.
CARLSON: Fortunately, Nicole‘s ex-husband, O.J. Simpson, stands firmly on the side of justice. He‘s vowed never to stop looking for the real killer.
Coming up on THE SITUATION...
SIMPSON: I think I cut a little too much.
CARLSON: Coming up on THE SITUATION, get out the straitjacket. What would possess a grown man to behave like this? We‘ll tell you what set off one of the most entertaining moments in sports history when we come right back.
CARLSON: Welcome back. Time for the “Cutting Room Floor”. Well, the A-Team is here at the Bethel Inn in Bethel, Maine. Unfortunately, Willie Geist, still stuck at the children‘s table back at MSNBC.
WILLIE GEIST, PRODUCER: And you mean that quite—you think that quite literally tonight, Tucker. I think I might a time out. I don‘t know what this thing is, but—do you ever see when parents go to back to school night and they have to sit in the little kids‘ desks and chairs. That‘s kind of what this is kid.
CARLSON: I can just—I can picture your finger painting, Willie.
GEIST: It‘s good.
CARLSON: Well, Warren Buffett shocked the world and plunged family members to stand at benefit from his will into deep depression, when he announced today he will give about 85 percent of his estimated $44 billion fortune to charity. The bulk of that money will go to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Buffett was the world‘s second richest man behind Gates said today, “I‘m not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth.”
GEIST: This is obviously very generous, but it‘s kind of amusing that there‘s literally, statiscally, only one person on the face of the earth who needs the money less than him, and he found him and gave him the money, Bill Gates. There are six billion others who can probably use it, too, but let‘s just go with the one guy who really doesn‘t need it. But let‘s go to the one guy that does not need it.
CARLSON: Yes, I‘m not a fan of either one, actually. Someone needs to do a serious piece on what that foundation does.
GEIST: I agree. And those kids have to recalibrate their expectations. They can return those yachts.
CARLSON: As the Harry Potter series draws mercifully to an end, the book‘s author made a socking announcement today. J.K. Rowling told British TV two characters will die in the seventh and final Harry Potter book. She wouldn‘t say who she kills off, but she would not rule out the possibility that Harry himself could eat it.
The Harry Potter books have sold an estimated $300 million copies worldwide and made Rowling the richest woman in England, even richer than the queen.
GEIST: Tucker, I‘ve never read a word or seen the movies, so I shouldn‘t comment. I just get it confused with “Lord of the Rings”. Are they different?
CARLSON: I think so.
GEIST: I honestly don‘t know.
CARLSON: Joe Mikulik is the manager of the minor league baseball team the Asheville Tourists. He‘ll enter the game‘s history books for his performance yesterday.
Mikulik took exception to an ump‘s call and proceeded to throw one of the most remarkable public tantrums in recorded history. He went nose to nose with the umpire before mock sliding into second base, ripping base off the field and finally chucking it in the outfield.
The manager then went to the dugout and threw bats on the field. He punctuated the whole display by kicking dirt on the ump and dumping water on home plate. Wow.
GEIST: That‘s a disgruntled man at work, Tucker. He had a bad day.
CARLSON: He did have a bad day. Boy, I don‘t think he should be sent to sensitive training, though.
CARLSON: Willie Geist.
GEIST: All right, Tucker.
That‘s THE SITUATION from Bethel, Maine, tonight. Thanks for watching.
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.