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

'Scarborough Country' for August 7

Read the transcript to the Monday show

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST:  Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, bombs and bloodshed.  As fighting escalates in the Middle East, 15,000 Lebanese troops rush to the front lines, as that country rejects a U.N. peace plan, while the United States and the United Nations stand helpless to end that bloodbath.  Then, a new scientific report says the music your kids are listening to will drive them to have sex sooner.  An NBC report is coming up next.  Plus, McCartney mud slinging as Sir Paul and his ex-wife take the gloves off.  It‘s a battle with a billion dollars at stake, so why are they fighting over cleaning supplies?

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

And welcome to the show.  First up tonight, violence raging throughout the Middle East as Hezbollah terrorists spent another day making the leaders of Israel, the United States, France, the Arab League and the United Nations look powerless to do anything that can stem the tide of violence that‘s sweeping through Lebanon, Israel and the entire region.  Today, Israel intensified its strikes into southern Lebanon, as if such as strategy would actually bring Hezbollah to its knees.  But with every day that passes, it becomes more clear that neither Israel missiles or United Nations missives will bring the Iranian-backed terrorists to heel.

Hezbollah continues firing missiles across northern Israel, while its mullahs gains legions of support across the Arab world for doing what no Arab military machine has been able to do over the past 50 years since Israel‘s creation, and that is stand up to Israel.  And that‘s making it easier for other Arab countries to do the same thing, with Lebanon now deciding to send 15,000 troops to the southern part of their country, sending a clear message that Israel‘s presence is no longer to be permitted in that country.

Mr. Bush and company must understand that Israel has no answer to this Mideast meltdown, leaving the president with little alternative but to come out today, pointing the finger of blame at Hezbollah.


GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  And the actions of Hezbollah, through its sponsors of Iran and Syria, are trying to stop that advance of democracy.  Hezbollah launched this attach.  Hezbollah is trying to create the chaos necessary to stop the advance of peace.  And the world community must come together to address this problem.


SCARBOROUGH:  The same world community that was scared out of Iraq after one bombing in 2003 doesn‘t have the stomach to stand up to these terrorists.  U.N. peacekeepers?  Right!

Also today, more evidence that getting the real story out of the war zone is not always easy, as Reuters is forced to admit to publishing worldwide doctored images of battle scenes, this while body counts in some battles have been reduced from 40 civilian casualties to 1, proof enough that when it comes to war coverage, in this battle, Hezbollah seems to have won the heart and minds not only of the Arab world but also of many covering this conflict.

Now, to get the real story—and we are going to get the real story and give it to you of what‘s going on right now in the Middle East—let‘s go to the Lebanese city of Tyre and NBC‘s Richard Engel.  Richard, what have you got for us?

RICHARD ENGEL, NBC CORRESPONDENT:  Joe, Lebanese officials say that At least 15 people were killed in Israeli air strikes tonight in south Beirut.  And here in south Lebanon, the humanitarian crisis is getting worse by the day.  Today, we were with volunteers from Doctors Without Borders as they were trying to bring in relief supplies from Beirut where they‘re need most, in south Lebanon.  But this morning, Israel destroyed the last bridge over the Litani River, so today, we were with the relief workers as they were knee deep in water, forming a human chain, passing boxes of syringes and bandages hand to hand.  They said this is no way to form a really sustainable humanitarian relief effort in the south.

Hezbollah is now stepping in, taking advantage of the shortages that are going for the last 20 days or so.  People here said that Hezbollah stepped up humanitarian program, going door to door, trying to win loyalty, win support by giving out free medicine and free food—Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  Thanks so much, Richard.

And let‘s bring in now Mort Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of “U.S. News & World Report,” and also Ian Williams of “The Nation.”  Ian...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... certainly looks like Israel is helpless.  The United States is helpless.  France is helpless.  The world community is help helpless in any efforts to stop Hezbollah.  Is that what it looks like to you?

WILLIAMS:  Well, yes, up to a point.  But there‘s two sides to this.  I mean, I really think that from what you‘re implying, as well, that Premier Olmert of Israel has gone up a gum (ph) tree. He‘s got into a thing with no exit strategy.  He doesn‘t know what he‘s doing.  And I suspect he‘s looking desperately for a good excuse to pull out, and a strong U.N.  resolution backed by the United States would give him that excuse.  But I don‘t think that President Bush is going to give it to him because then, of course, he will be accused of selling out Israel and betraying them in the battle against Hezbollah.

So it really is difficult.  But you know, this problem wouldn‘t have been put in the laps of the United Nations if—unless Israel and the United States thought it was insoluble because they‘re both showing their disdain for the organization.  If they...

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes, but you know...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... for good reason.  The United Nations, of course, allowed slaughter to go on in Bosnia and Rwanda and Sudan.  Do you think the United States is going to be able to take on Hezbollah in the southern part of Lebanon, when there‘s one bombing in Iraq that killed one or two U.N. people, and they, you know, hightail it out of there?  I mean, the U.N. can‘t stand up to Hezbollah!

WILLIAMS:  Well, in the end, in Bosnia, once the great powers decided to do something about it, once the British and the French and the Americans decided they couldn‘t put up with the Serbs any longer, then it worked.  And that‘s the lesson.  The United Nations isn‘t a separate institution, it‘s a tool that the big powers can use or discard whenever they want.  And mostly, they just use it as an excuse.  If they want this serious resolution, to work, they can do.

SCARBOROUGH:  Mort Zuckerman, do they want a serious resolution?  I mean, it seems to me, at this point, if you support Israel, you want to sue for peace as quickly as possible.

MORT ZUCKERMAN, “U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT”:  No, I don‘t think that‘s the case.  But let‘s just address the U.N. issue for a while.  The only people who are stopping this U.N. resolution from going through are the Lebanese.  Everybody else has agreed.  The five permanent members of the Security Council have agreed on a resolution, and they would be in a position to go forward.  The Lebanese don‘t want to do this, I‘m sure in part as a result of the pressure from Hezbollah.

The second point that you raise, Joe, which is a very serious point, is can U.N. forces do anything at all to ensure that there is peace there?  You know, there‘s an old cliche, Don‘t go to a doctor whose plants have died.  The United Nations has been a failure most of the time.  There have been a few times where it‘s been a success.  I don‘t know if this is going to be one of them.  They have not been successful here for over—almost 30 years.  UNAFIL has been a useless force there for all of those years, not doing anything at all to stop the violence.

SCARBOROUGH:  When Mort Zuckerman‘s talking about years of futility, Israel has been able to do absolutely nothing in southern Lebanon since 1982.  They were stuck there from 1982 to 2000.  They got out.  Now they‘re going back in.  And the more they stay there, the more powerful Hezbollah seems to be, the more supporters they get throughout the Middle East.  So what‘s the answer for Israel?

ZUCKERMAN:  Well, I don‘t think there are going to be too many easy answers.  The real problem here—and this is that the Arabs may forget, but the Israelis will remember—is that this was a provocation that was begun by Hezbollah six years after the Israelis, in fact, withdrew from Lebanon.  There was no issue of occupation, no issue of territories.  Hezbollah just wanted to attack the Israelis.  They could not sit there and do nothing.  What could they do?  The only thing they could do is to go back and try and stop Hezbollah from continuing this.

What‘s more, as you have seen from some of the weapons which not only surprised the world, but surprised the Israelis Hezbollah is continuing to build up their armaments through the help of Iran.  That would have created an even greater threat to Israel‘s normal life.  All the Israelis want to do is have a normal life there.  They don‘t have any easy choices, either, without question.

SCARBOROUGH:  No easy choices.  And Ian, I want to ask you a quick question about Hezbollah, but first, you do agree with me that Hezbollah‘s a terror organization, right?

WILLIAMS:  It sometimes uses terror, but it‘s—I think...

SCARBOROUGH:  Sometimes uses terror?

WILLIAMS:  Well...


SCARBOROUGH:  Do you have a question as to whether it‘s a terror organization?

WILLIAMS:  Joe, what my experience is that the use of terrorism is a -

using the word “terrorist” is a substitute for thought.  You‘ve got to deal with them.  They have the support of 40 percent of the population...


WILLIAMS:  You have to negotiate.

SCARBOROUGH:  ... Osama bin Laden a terrorist, then I‘m taking an intellectually weak approach to that problem?

WILLIAMS:  Osama bin Laden is a terrorist because he doesn‘t do anything else.  What Hezbollah does, they‘ve run the south of Lebanon.  They run a social welfare state there.

SCARBOROUGH:  They blow up American Marines.  They blow up Israeli children.  They kidnap Israeli soldiers.  I guess I should have asked you that question first because that sort of colors our whole discussion, doesn‘t it, Ian.

WILLIAMS:  Yes, but you‘ve got to talk to them.  You cannot eliminate them without eliminating 40 percent of the Lebanese population.

SCARBOROUGH:  I‘m not—I‘m not saying—I‘m not saying you don‘t talk to Hezbollah, even though they‘re terrorists.  I‘m just shocked that you can‘t call them terrorists here tonight on the show because my point was going to be, if all the great powers were able to unit against the Serbs, why can‘t they unite against a terror organization?  But you don‘t think they‘re a terror organization!

WILLIAMS:  Remember—I keep bringing this up.  I was originally from Britain, and the British government, in the end, called the IRA terrorists, but they still had to talk with them because there were people who voted...


WILLIAMS:  ... for them.  They were in parliament.

SCARBOROUGH:  I agree...

WILLIAMS:  So you still have to negotiate with them.

SCARBOROUGH:  So you agree that IRA terrorists are terrorists, you just don‘t want to say that Hezbollah...

WILLIAMS:  Well, it‘s a distinction...

SCARBOROUGH:  ... is a terror organization.

WILLIAMS:  IRA were terrorists.  Sinn Fein wasn‘t.  The military wing of Hezbollah could be terrorists, but there‘s a whole different political strategy there.

SCARBOROUGH:  Could be terrorists, Mort?  I got to say, Mort—no, seriously...

ZUCKERMAN:  I don‘t know what to say.

SCARBOROUGH:  ... how do we debate these things—and let‘s expand this out, where you have the French foreign minister praising Hezbollah, saying that they are a force for stability in that region!

WILLIAMS:  Well, everybody else...



ZUCKERMAN:  I‘m sorry.  I‘m sorry, Ian, I...

SCARBOROUGH:  How do we even discuss this?

WILLIAMS:  Hezbollah was prepared to negotiate.



WILLIAMS:  They thought it was business as usual.  They kidnap people...


WILLIAMS:  ... the Israelis swap people for the prisoners that they have kidnapped, in return.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right...

WILLIAMS:  That‘s what‘s been happening over 20 years.

SCARBOROUGH:  Mort, I‘ll give you the final word.

ZUCKERMAN:  OK.  They are no less murders because just because, occasionally, they pick up the garbage.  They‘re murderers and terrorists.  They‘ve been that way since they started.  That was the whole raison d‘etre of their beginning.  They were started by Iran.  That‘s all they‘ve done, basically.  Their principal mission has been to kill people, and in that way, to get whatever political objectives they had in mind.

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much, Mort Zuckerman.  Thank you, Ian Williams.  We appreciate both of you being with us.  And I—I really do appreciate Ian coming on this show.  I just—I can‘t believe, for some reason, that so many commentators on the far left and some on the far right can‘t just come out and call Hezbollah what it is, and that is, a bloodthirsty terror organization that‘s killed Americans, that kills women, that kills children, that indiscriminately kills anybody that gets in their way of their stated goal, which is the elimination of the state of Israel.

Now, coming up, a new scathing report in the Duke rape case showing that the lead prosecutor rushed to judgment without having all the facts.  That‘s our “Showdown.”  That guy was more interested in getting elected than getting justice.

Plus: You thought the break-up of the Beatles was nasty?  Wait until you hear what Paul McCartney and his ex-wife are going through.  That‘s when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.


SCARBOROUGH:  In tonight‘s “SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY Showdown,” during the early days of the Duke University rape case, Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong practically called his case against three Duke players a slam dunk.  But a stinging new report in “The Charlotte News and Observer” proves what we told you months ago, and that is this is a hanging DA who seemed to be shooting from the hip and was less interested in getting justice than getting votes for his upcoming election.

Now, in March, Nifong was quoted by the same paper as saying, quote, “By next week, we‘ll know precisely who was involved.”  But that statement, made shortly after the samples were taken, was just one of the many statements made that the DA failed to deliver on.  And almost half a year later, those samples have been released to the public, and not one player has been connected to the stripper who alleged rape.

Let‘s bring in Wendy Murphy.  She‘s a former prosecutor.  Also Bill Fallon, also a former prosecutor.

Wendy, you‘ve got to a admit, this DA basically shot first and asked questions later.  He‘s probably destroyed these three you guys‘ life—these lives.  And he just doesn‘t have the evidence to back it up.  Isn‘t it time for him to apologize, and you to apologize, for casting aspersions on these guys, when there just wasn‘t evidence there?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  Is this the Comedy Central channel or Scarborough—lookit, first of all, nobody has any business characterizing the strength of the case until, oh, I don‘t know, how about the evidence comes out?  Instead of getting swept away by every little nugget of information...

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, Wendy...

MURPHY:  ... the defense team...


SCARBOROUGH:  Hold on a second, Bill.  Wendy, I‘m just—I‘m just judging this man by his own words.  So what‘s he say?  He goes—he says the DNA—We‘ll know next week, after the DNA comes out.

MURPHY:  OK, let‘s talk about the DNA...

SCARBOROUGH:  The DNA—hold on!  Hold on a second, Wendy!


SCARBOROUGH:  The DNA comes out, and then he goes, Well, maybe a condom was used.  Well, he knew that the police report showed that no condoms were used.  And then he‘s talking about this gang rape, when now we have hospital report that show that there wasn‘t the trauma there.  This woman reportedly had sex with her boyfriend beforehand.  I mean, it goes on and on and on.  This guy is a runaway beer truck if...

MURPHY:  You know, I‘m not even going to...


MURPHY:  I‘m not going to ask you the question about how much trauma you cause to your wife because trauma in that area is not something that comes with consensual sex.  And you want to toss that away as nothing, you would be wrong.

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, it‘s...

MURPHY:  But let me say one thing about the DNA.

SCARBOROUGH:  No, no!  That is...

MURPHY:  Let me say one thing about the DNA!

SCARBOROUGH:  ... a shocking statement that you just made.  Do you—are you like the feminists that believe there is no such thing as regular sexual relations, that every time a man has sex with a woman, it‘s rape?

MURPHY:  Would you stop!  I got five kids!  I‘m a feminist who believes that...


MURPHY:  You are comparing...

MURPHY:  Let me tell you something about...

SCARBOROUGH:  ... consensual sex in marriage to a gang rape?

MURPHY:  I said you‘re tossing away her vaginal injuries as if they‘re irrelevant because she had sex with someone else, as if consensual sex...

SCARBOROUGH:  I‘m not a doctor!

MURPHY:  ... routinely causes vaginal injuries!

SCARBOROUGH:  I can‘t tell—I can‘t tell you...

MURPHY:  Can I just say something about the DNA evidence?

SCARBOROUGH:  ... whether that‘s consistent or not, but the...

MURPHY:  Please!

SCARBOROUGH:  ... hospital said it was inconsistent.


BILL FALLON, FORMER PROSECUTOR:  ... about the DNA, but let me just say...

MURPHY:  Where are the DNA reports~!  I want to know~!

FALLON:  We don‘t have them, but...

MURPHY:  Don‘t tell me what they say...

FALLON:  ... the prosecutor shouldn‘t have been...

MURPHY:  ... give them to me!

FALLON:  ... talking about them.  Wendy...

SCARBOROUGH:  All right, Bill?

FALLON:  ... you know, as an ethical prosecutor, I was the judge of hundreds of these investigations.  He should have shut his mouth!  He has not helped this victim.  Joe, we may not know the particulars of how somebody is raped.  There are plenty of rapes that don‘t have DNA.  There are plenty of rapes that don‘t have medical evidence.  But what the problem here is, this guy threw it up like on a platter.  He looks like he‘s trying the Michael Jackson case.  These prosecutors have to know to shut up when it‘s time to...

SCARBOROUGH:  All right...


MURPHY:  How about the defense attorneys shutting up...


MURPHY:  Give me the DNA reports!

SCARBOROUGH:  Bill Fallon—hold on, Wendy.  Bill Fallon, why did he do that?  He did it because he was running for reelection.  He wanted to be out in front of the cameras, and he didn‘t give a damn about this case...

MURPHY:  He got...

FALLON:  You know, I...


SCARBOROUGH:  ... was getting elected!


FALLON:  I don‘t know that this really helped his reelection.  He would have been much better off, in my mind, saying, We got this complaint.  We‘re putting it in front of the grand jury.  There‘s nothing worse than a prosecutor yapping about, Oh, the medicals are going to show that she was raped.  Medical and testimony giving to a nurse never shows they‘ve been raped.

MURPHY:  You know—you know...

FALLON:  It might only show some kind of corroboration.

MURPHY:  You—you—look, you...

FALLON:  And what he should have done was shut up.

MURPHY:  You should—look, you stop for one second, Bill, for a change, OK?  You have a—you know, you have a lot of gall harshly judging a prosecutor for not having evidence when you haven‘t seen the DNA reports.  The defense attorneys are hiding them.  I have asked for them.  You‘ve asked for them.  I‘ve seen you ask for them!

FALLON:  Wendy...

MURPHY:  And if they won‘t turn them over, you have no business saying there‘s no evidence in those reports!

FALLON:  Wendy -- - Wendy, what I said was—so you know...

MURPHY:  You don‘t know...


FALLON:  ... he should not have been talking about this evidence before he got it.

MURPHY:  Please!  Compared to the defense, he...


SCARBOROUGH:  A good prosecutor, you‘re exactly right, keeps their mouth shut.  He Chris (ph), did—do we have the clip of back—I guess it was back in March, where—back in April?  Back in April, when I came on—I think I was the first one to come on and say, This doesn‘t add up.  Do we have a clip?  Go ahead and play that.


fairly clear the DA rushed into this prosecution, and he‘s made some terrible mistakes tonight.  And I believe that he‘s tarred and feathered some players that may not have even been at the house at the time of the rape.


SCARBOROUGH:  And that‘s—of course, we said that back in April, when nobody else was talking that way.  I‘ll tell you what.  I think we‘re going to be proven right.  These players are owed an apology, but they‘re not going to get it from this DA because, again, all he cared about was getting reelected.

Thanks a lot, Wendy Murphy.  Thank you so much, Bill Fallon.

And coming up next in scar: The CIA would love you to believe Fidel Castro—well, that this guy‘s the next Rasputin, incapable of being killed by ordinary means.  But could it just be that they‘re gang that can‘t shoot straight?  And also up next: From MTV to iPods, your kids being bombarded with images sex and raunchy lyrics.  And now there‘s a new study that prove it‘s going to have serious consequences for our children.


SCARBOROUGH:  Hey, welcome back.  Now, you remember those claims rock-and-roll and dancing would lead to sex and babies.  Well, most of us laughed at those claims, but now a new scientific study reported on by NBC News finds that if your children are listening to sexually suggestive songs on their Ipods or on radios, as many are, he or she has a much better chance of having sex at an early age.  NBC‘s John Larson has that frightening story.


JOHN LARSON, NBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):  Let‘s face it, way back in the ‘60s, the Rolling Stones built an empire on sexually suggestive lyrics.  Before them, Elvis kept teenagers and their parents awake at night.  But now, in the age of sexually explicit lyrics, where nothing is left unsaid and everything is downloadable to any iPod, comes news that there just might be something to parental concern about music, lyrics and sex.  A study by the Rand Corporation found that teens who listen to a lot of sexually explicit, degrading lyrics were almost twice as likely to begin having sex sooner than teenagers who didn‘t.

REBECCA COLLINS, RAND CORPORATION:  The kids who were having sex because of listening to these kinds of lyrics are probably learning that sex is a very casual, very unimportant thing.

LARSON:  But before generations of parents shout, I told you so, the study points out that it‘s not so much whether lyrics are sexually suggestive, but rather specifically what it is that the lyrics suggest.  The study suggests it is explicit, especially degrading sexual lyrics popular today that trigger early promiscuity.  When he heard his daughters listening to this song, “San Jose Mercury News” columnist Mike Cassidy (ph) urged parents to take action and talk with their kids.

MIKE CASSIDY, “SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS”:  But also talk to her about, Hey, do you know what they‘re saying in that song?  That really doesn‘t put women in a very good light.

LARSON:  But music lovers are skeptical.

PETER LEVY, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, “ROLLING STONE”:  This report singles out music, and it doesn‘t speak to television, the Internet, video games.

LARSON:  And teenagers?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  I think people are a bit overreacting.

LARSON:  While the study is new, the concern, of course, is not, today‘s study once again leaving parents longing for the old days.  John Larson, NBC News, Los Angeles.


SCARBOROUGH:  Coming up, O.J. Simpson uncensored, revealing new video of the former football star which may answer once and for all if he‘s guilty.  And later: From Easy Street to Penny Lane, Paul McCartney‘s marital mess gets even nastier as the former Beatle fights to keep his money from his estranged wife.



SCARBOROUGH:  Let‘s see, $108 million Powerball, price of gasoline, that will be about 15 gallons for each one of those employees of gasoline over the next couple of weeks.  How exciting. 

Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.  Now, money can‘t buy me love, but that‘s not stopping Great Britain‘s top gold-digger, Heather Mills, from turning down divorce offers from Sir Paul McCartney that topped $60 million American dollars.  Paul, give me that money, and I‘ll do whatever you ask me to do. 

But now the gloves are off in the McCartney divorce case, and that‘s, of course, from his second wife.  The former Beatle has decided he‘s got to get her out of his life and he‘s ready to take drastic steps to make that happen. 

McCartney has reportedly locked Heather out of his north London home, has frozen their joint bank account, and has dropped support for Heather‘s beloved charity involving landmines. 

With me now to talk about the legal landmines littering McCartney‘s long and winding road to divorce are celebrity attorney Jeffrey Steinberger and also, from “The Sun,” Emily Smith. 

Emily, let me start with you.  This has clearly taken a nasty turn. 

We hear now they‘re even fighting over cleaning supplies.  What‘s going on? 

EMILY SMITH, “THE SUN”:  It‘s turned really nasty.  I mean, Paul had hoped that she would just expect 30 million pounds and $60 million U.S.  dollars and walk away and that would be the end of it, but she hasn‘t.  She wants to fight him to the bitter end.  She wants it to be a huge legal battle, and now the gloves are off. 

This week, we‘ve seen him freezing all their bank accounts, and she‘s been trying to take out money and has been unable to do so.  And then it climaxed this week when she went over to pick up her daughter, Beatrice, from their north London home to find the locks had been changed.  That‘s how bad it‘s got.

SCARBOROUGH:  But, you know, McCartney is worth, I guess, close to about $1 billion American.  Why are they fighting over such small issues like cleaning supplies? 

SMITH:  Well, this is another amazing thing that happened this week.  He has moved her into a house very near his estate in Sussex so she can be near their baby.  And he hit the roof when her maid took three half-opened bottles of cleaning supplies over to clean her house.  But the problem is that it‘s become so petty that every little thing now they‘re fighting over, everything.  It‘s become a huge P.R., both sides briefing against each other, and it‘s really just turned nasty. 

SMITH:  Jeffrey Steinberger, how do you have a guy who‘s a billionaire fighting his wife over cleaning supplies?  I mean, isn‘t that the proof—especially McCartney, who‘s just been a P.R. genius for the past 40 years or such.  Does that just show how dirty this divorce is going to get in the future? 

JEFFREY STEINBERGER, CELEBRITY ATTORNEY:  Joe, send in the clowns.  Let the games begin.  It‘s show time.  Look, this is a smashed relationship.  Smashed relationships are the same things that you and I and everybody out there in the world has.  We all have smashed relationships, and there‘s fallout out of it.  There‘s garbage, trash, and there‘s dirt.  And we‘re getting a lot of dirt, we‘re getting a lot of garbage, and we get a lot of trash because there‘s anger, emotion, fear, all kinds of stuff that go into a regular divorce.  This isn‘t just...


SCARBOROUGH:  Now, they offer her like, what, $60 million.  She turns it down, but that‘s pretty smart on her part, isn‘t it, because without a pre-nup she can make a lot more than that off of McCartney?

STEINBERGER:  Joe, it‘s not a bad deal for her.  You know, $30 million up front, he could have brought out some of this other stuff.  She gets to avoid a sleazy trial.  But $30 million is a starting point.  That‘s where we all start off at. 

You‘re right.  He‘s got an exposure of $750 million.  That‘s an enormous amount of money.  But, you know, it‘s just the beginning of the war.  It‘s just starting here.  Thirty million dollars is $30 million.  She doesn‘t take that, we up the ante.  We can go to $60 million, $90 million, you know?  She can go through a trial, get sleazed out, go through all this documentation and testimony about how bad her life is and how bad a mother she is.  You know, it comes to a point of weighing the balance and the risks versus the benefits.  So $30 million, by his counsel, was a good point to start at. 

SCARBOROUGH:  All right.  Thank you so much. 

Hey, Emily, very quickly, who‘s wining the P.R. battle in the tabloids in Britain? 

SMITH:  Oh, Paul by a mile.  I mean, he has publicly defended her, saying she‘s not a gold-digger.  He stood by her until things have become really nasty, and there‘s allegations this week that she‘s tried to take up to a million pounds out of their joint accounts, so he‘s had to freeze them.  I mean, he has really played it very well and by the book.  But I think things are going to turn much more bitter from now on. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Played it straight and defended her when nobody else would.  And this is what thanks he gets. 

Jeffrey, thank you.  Emily, thank you.

STEINBERGER:  Thank you.

SCARBOROUGH:  Greatly appreciate you being with us. 

And coming up next, killing Castro.  The Cuban dictator is reportedly making a speedy recovery from his surgery last week and may have managed to cheat death yet again.  While Fidel is on his death bed, a London documentary set to air which outlines the ways the CIA allegedly dreamed up to kill the Cuban leader over the past years. 

Now, when Americans used to think of the CIA, most embrace the agency‘s burnished image of Cold War heroes who suavely sabotaged the old Soviet Union, stole state secrets from Soviet bloc allies, and knew what our enemy was doing before our enemy knew what our enemy was doing. 

But the colossal miscues leading up to 9/11 and the Iraq war may have deep-sixed that smooth operator status.  But even before 9/11, before WMDs, before Valerie Plame, there were the spy games with Fidel.  And in every inning of every game with the Cuban dictator, it always seemed like the CIA was the one striking out in ways that would have even embarrassed, I don‘t know, Austin Powers. 


SCARBOROUGH (voice-over):  How about the exploding cigar that was supposed to blow up in Castro‘s face?  That one sounds like it came right out of Austin‘s playbook.  With that plan behind them, the CIA focused their attention Castro‘s love for scuba diving.  How about a diving suit infected with fungus that caused the dictator a debilitating skin disease?

MIKE MYERS, “AUSTIN POWERS”:  That is not funny. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And while on the scuba-diving front, the agency also invested in Caribbean mollusks they hoped to load up with explosives to detonate when Fidel was underwater.  But so much for mollusk munitions; that idea also went belly up. 

On the day JFK was shot, the CIA sent an agent to Paris to kill Castro with a pin syringe.  Maybe they should have tried toothpaste instead. 

MYERS:  Flosses (INAUDIBLE) wire, the toothpaste is plastic explosives, and the tooth brush is the detonation device.

SCARBOROUGH:  They even tried to recruit one of Fidel‘s former lovers to put poison cold cream in his mouth while he slept, but the poison pills melted and the former lover backed out. 

The most recent attempt was a plot back in 2000 to hide a few hundred pounds of explosives under the podium while Castro was speaking at a Panama event.  But that plot, like the hundreds before it, never managed to knock off the old dictator.  Now the U.S. has since said they‘ve given up on killing Fidel. 

MYERS:  Yes, baby, yes!


SCARBOROUGH:  Again, all those plans are being revealed in a new British documentary and a book coming out next month.  Here now is NBC terror analyst Roger Cressey. 

Roger, we‘ve heard of some bizarre plans throughout the years with the CIA‘s efforts to kill Castro.  Why was it so hard to knock off a guy only 90 miles from Miami? 

ROGER CRESSEY, NBC TERRORISM ANALYST:  Well, Joe, the moral of the story is you never can find a shark with a laser when you need one, and I think that was the problem with the CIA.  Can I find a freaking shark?

The bottom line here is you give the agency plenty of points for creativity and then you deduct those points for execution.  Any time the agency has tried to go after one individual and has tried to personify U.S.  policy and taking down one individual, they‘ve always run into problems.  And Castro is just the latest and best example of that over the course of 40 years now. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Is it because Castro is too smart for us?  Or is just because the people that were in charge of this at the CIA, well, were just kind of dumb? 

CRESSEY:  Well, we don‘t whether or not “The Guardian” report is truly accurate, but you can assume that the agency looked at dozens, if not hundreds, of possibilities.  But the bottom line is, it‘s all about human intelligence, Joe.  We‘ve known that for some time.  And they never had the type of human intelligence that put them in a position to truly take down Castro.  So, as a result, they went through some of the most bizarre options that you could consider, and ultimately they always struck out. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Roger, whether you‘re talking about Cuba or Tehran, it always seems that human intelligence lies at the feet of every failure the CIA seems to have.  Why aren‘t we better at recruiting people that can carry out human intelligence for us? 

CRESSEY:  You know, we‘re still living the problem of the agency overly relying on technical solutions to deal with our intelligence challenges.  And it‘s taken years, if not decades, to really reconstitute our human intelligence capability.  But, Joe, there is a bigger problem here, which is, whenever U.S. policy looks at a policy challenge in terms of an individual, we always fall short.  Castro is the latest example of that.  Saddam Hussein was, as well.  So that‘s the cautionary tale. 

SCARBOROUGH:  It certainly is.  Hey, thank you so much, Roger Cressey. 

And we‘ll try to find you those sharks with lasers. 

CRESSEY:  Thanks, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH:  Maybe in our next show.  Coming up next, judging O.J., hours and hours of tape of O.J.  A raw and revealing look at the former football star, that‘s coming up straight ahead on SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY. 

Also, he was once the top gun of Hollywood, but now one mega studio is severing its ties with Tom Cruise.  Is his movie career coming to an end?


SCARBOROUGH:  So could “Mission Impossible 3” be Tom Cruise‘s last movie with Paramount Pictures?  The “Los Angeles Times” reporting that the studio wants Cruise to take a massive pay cut, and it‘s allowed a 13-year-old contract with Cruise‘s production company to expire. 

Now, some in Hollywood are asking if Cruise‘s strange behavior, including Scientology, could be hurting his career.  With me to talk about it, from “Star” magazine, Jill Dobson, and “OK” magazine‘s Katie Caperton. 

Hey, Jill, I start with you.  Tom Cruise no longer Hollywood‘s top gun? 

JILL DOBSON, “STAR” MAGAZINE:  Well, yes, I think you‘re right.  It looks like his stock is way down.  He had this 13-year deal with Paramount.  He was getting $10 million a year, his production company, in order to make lots of movies, some of which he starred in.  But now Paramount says, “You know what?  We‘ll give you a two-year deal for maybe $2.5 million.”  So definitely they‘re seeing that they‘re not getting quite the return on their profits that they used to with Tom Cruise.

SCARBOROUGH:  And here‘s a guy who reportedly made up to $100 million for “War of the Worlds.”  Do you think his antics are finally starting to catch up with him, all the bizarre behavior over the past several years?

DOBSON:  That‘s exactly what‘s happening.  And studios are saying to celebrities, “Hey, your bad behavior is hurting our bottom line,” so we‘re not going to take it anymore.  So in this case they‘re saying to him, “You know, you‘ve gone on the couch jumping at Oprah, and you‘ve been promoting Scientology, and you bashed Brooke Shields, and now people aren‘t going to your movies as much.”  And even when his movies make a lot of money, the studios don‘t make a lot of money, because Tom himself is getting such a big portion of the earnings, so that‘s why they‘re frustrated with him. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, of course, Katie we‘re showing all these images of Tom Cruise jumping up and down on Oprah‘s couch, of him attacking Matt Lauer, attacking Brooke Shields.  I mean, these are not wise things to do if you want to be America‘s sweetheart or whatever Tom Cruise would want to be, right? 

KATIE CAPERTON, “OK!” MAGAZINE:  Exactly.  Well, actually the catalyst for this renegotiation started years ago, before “Mission Impossible 3” started filming.  It had to do a lot with the production costs, so really this has more to do with sort of the big budget movies not doing so well than it actually has to do with Tom Cruise as an actor. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And, you know, here‘s what Paramount had to say about their negotiations with Cruise.  Quote, “We have the utmost respect for Tom Cruise and Cruise-Wagner Productions.  We‘re currently in discussions to renew their deal.”

But certainly, Katie, if Tom Cruise was still Hollywood‘s top gun, if he was still at the top of the heap, they wouldn‘t have allowed this 13-year deal to lapse, would they? 

CAPERTON:  Well, it looks like they actually are going to come to a negotiation.  They are going to keep in on.  Because, as his rep said, he‘s made more money for one studio than any actor has in the history of Hollywood.  So they are going to come to a negotiation.  Maybe you‘ll see the kind of movies change, he‘ll go back to something that shows more of his range, like “Rain Man.”

SCARBOROUGH:  Yes.  And, Jill, though, I mean, his last movie, “Mission Impossible 3,” while it would have been this huge smash for any other star, that was considered a disappointment, as was “War of the Worlds,” right? 

DOBSON:  Right, exactly.  Well, the interesting thing about “Mission Impossible 3” is that it‘s expected to gross $400 million worldwide, $200 million from DVD sales, and yet still the studio is expected only to break even because Tom himself gets such a huge portion of the profit.  So that‘s why the studio needs to renegotiate their contract, because they‘re not making money off him.  And, obviously, that‘s why the studio‘s in the game, to make the money. 

SCARBOROUGH:  It just doesn‘t seem to add up.  Thanks so much, Jill. 

Greatly appreciate it.  Katie Caperton, appreciate you being with us. 

And when we come back, in case you were wondering what O.J. has been doing for the past couple of years, we‘ve got the answer, we‘ve got the tapes, and it‘s not pretty.  That and much more when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.


SCARBOROUGH:  In case you were wondering what O.J. Simpson has been up to the last 11 years since he was acquitted in the murders of his wife and her friend, Ron Goldman—lord knows I haven‘t—but if you have, you can now see it for yourself on the Web.  It‘s O.J. uncensored featured on a Web site called  And clips taken from 80 hours of new, sometimes disturbing, footage.  Take a listen.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  You ever sniff coke?



SIMPSON:  I refuse to answer that question.  In recent years, no. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:  But in your life, if you refused, that means yes? 

SIMPSON:  Any way you want to take it. 


SIMPSON:  Let me tell you what.  When I retired from football, I went and did what everybody was doing. 

And then when they catch people doing it, they don‘t do nothing to them.  They catch people lying, they don‘t—like they caught Fuhrman lying, when that tape came out, and everybody said (INAUDIBLE)


SCARBOROUGH:  And in another clip, O.J. gets mocked while waiting at a bus stop.  Take a look. 


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  No bus wants to pick up O.J.  He‘s like kicked to the curb.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  O.J. is the new lowest low. 


SCARBOROUGH:  With me now, Web site owner David Hans Schmidt.  David, you peddle smut for a living.  You know why Americans like smut being peddled in their direction.  Why the morbid fascination with O.J. Simpson? 

DAVID HANS SCHMIDT, AGENT:  Well, you know, you just can‘t cut out a better cartoon or animated or unanimated character other than O.J. Simpson.  This guy is going to be good for entertainment, Joe, I think for the rest of our corporal existences. 

Every time this guy—you know, if he farts, he makes the news.  The guy is just an incredible phenomenon.  We all know what he got away with.  Anything he can do now at this point I think is just a bonus for their twilight of his character or however long he‘s going to stay with us, but like what we had up here just about a month ago on, his sex tape, we saw a whole different side of O.J. Simpson.  This just shows another side of this incredible figure that‘s been a part of the American legacy. 

SCARBOROUGH:  And you look at the pictures that are on your screen right now, it certainly doesn‘t look like he‘s searching for Nicole, does it? 

SCHMIDT:  No, I don‘t think he‘s as sincere about that as what he claimed after the conclusion of that long and protracted trial.  Remember, he always came out stating that he wanted to put up an award for the real killers, and he was going to use his own money and his retirement funds to get to the bottom of the truth of this thing.  But the bottom of the truth of that might be in a bar there in Florida some place that he frequents, who knows? 

SCARBOROUGH:  What‘s the possibility, because O.J.‘s lawyer has come on and said he is not going to sue.  O.J. is not going to sue the makers of this video, which—and also it makes it look like he was a part of it.  Could this just have been a publicity for a man who‘s desperate to get limelight, no matter how it comes his way? 

SCHMIDT:  Good point, Joe.  In our case, we invited a lawsuit.  We asked Yale Galanter, “Hey, where‘s the papers, man?  Come serve us.”  He didn‘t sue us there.  I don‘t think they‘re going to sue here.  If he‘s involved with this one, I don‘t have any cognizance of that.  But I do have a feeling there‘s an obsequious outcry from O.J. himself, maybe to fan the flames on this thing, and maybe we‘re both—you and I are just promoting this unwittingly right now. 

SCARBOROUGH:  Well, and more video—hopefully than what we‘re showing now.  I think it‘s time for us to move on.  Chris, you can move on from this video. 

More video should be coming out as we move forward.  And chances are good Americans are going to remain fascinated with it.  But again, it‘s going to make this guy look worse and worse.  And yet, Americans are going to still be curious to see what O.J. Simpson‘s up to.  I just don‘t understand it.  I mean, it‘s train wreck TV, isn‘t it? 

SCHMIDT:  It‘s that morbid fascination once again.  What is this guy doing know?  What act, what of the three rings circus is this guy in now, is it one, two, or three?  You know, anywhere the guy goes, anything he does is always going to be captivating by the public, fascination by the news media.  And this is another classic example of it right here, Joe. 

SCARBOROUGH:  David, try to explain to us, if you will, why Simpson isn‘t suing these people and why he never came...

SCHMIDT:  Two reasons, Joe...

SCARBOROUGH:  ... because we heard that he was possibly going to sue you.  He never sued you, did he? 

SCHMIDT:  No, we never got served with a TRO, never got served with a complaint, not in any court or any venue.  And in this case, too, if he‘s in on that deal, time will tell, because we can track where the credit card numbers are going to and find out who‘s taking the payments on this deal. 

But if he does sue somebody and if he‘s not involved in this, whether it‘s us or these people here, he‘ll be cross-complainted by the Brown and the Goldman family who have a $33 million judgment hanging over his head.  That‘s been accruing interest, Joe, since 1995.  That‘s probably up to $70, $80 million, O.J. owe these people now.

SCARBOROUGH:  David, we‘re going to have to leave it there.

SCHMIDT:  You bet.

SCARBOROUGH:  Thank you, porn purveyor of SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, David Hans Schmidt, greatly appreciate it.  That‘s all the time we have for tonight.  Stay with us.  “LOCK UP: LOUISIANA” starts right now.  See you tomorrow night.



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