All In With Chris Hayes, Tuesday, November 26th, 2013

November 26, 2013
Guest: Pete Williams, Sandra Fluke, Tim Carney, Eric Boehlert, Paul
Wolfowitz, Joe Cirincione, David Sirota

York, I`m Chris Hayes. The Supreme Court will be hearing a new challenge
to the Affordable Care Act in conservatives never ending quest to kill or
gravely damaged the law. But interestingly enough, what`s at stake in this
case is less about health care and more about what rights corporations


UNIDENTIFIED MAN: What is a corporation?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: A corporation as defined in American law is an
organization formed with approval of the government to act as a single
entity, most often carry on business.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: You start with a group of people who want to invest
their money in a company and then these people apply for a charter as a
corporation. The state government issues a charter to that corporation.
Now that corporation operates legally as an individual person.

HAYES (voice-over): And ever since the idea of corporate person hood
established in the early 19th century, the limits of the rights of those
corporate people have been a hotly contested issue in American politics.

people, my friend.

HAYES: In a landmark 2010 decision, the United States Supreme Court
decided that corporations deserve the same first amendment protections on
political speech as individuals.

PRES. BARACK OBAMA (D), UNITED STATES: Last week the Supreme Court
reversed a century of law that I believe will open the flood gates for
special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in
our elections.


HAYES: The President`s brush back of the Supreme Court was met with
one of its corporatist justices shaking its head. But if corporations can
have some first amendment rights, what about the rest of them?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I believe the corporations should be -- all the
rights of human beings. The right to free speech, the right to bear arms,
right to get married?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Right to get married?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Sure, I mean, not gay married, I wouldn`t want, you
know, Johnson & Johnson getting together, you know?

HAYES: Needless to say, expanding the rights of the constitution to
corporations is an idea most Americans finds laughable which makes today`s
news from the Supreme Court so worrying.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Breaking news from the Supreme Court. The justices
have now decided to take up a key piece of the president`s health care law
to make a major ruling potentially about how religious beliefs can shake a
way a business operates.

HAYES: Today, the Supreme Court decided to take up two cases that
could dramatically expand the first amendment rights of corporations. You
see as part of ObamaCare, employers who provide insurance to their
employees must provide comprehensive contraceptive coverage. Religious
institutions like churches and mosques are exempt from the rule, but four
profit corporations are not. Challenge comes from two such corporations.
Hobby Lobby, a chain of craft stores with more than 15,000 employees.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: A Christian owned business arguing it should not
be forced to pay for emergency contraception for its employees.

HAYES: And Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, a Mennonite owned
wood working company.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The whole family Conestoga Wood Specialties in
East Earl Township said it shouldn`t have to provide birth control coverage
to its 950 employees on religious grounds.

HAYES: The owners of these companies are making the incredibly
radical claim that their corporations have religious rights under the first
amendment, that the government requiring them to provide robust
contraceptive coverage violate the conscience of their corporations.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Here`s the problem, if the Supreme Court says as it
might, that a company like Hobby Lobby can assert a religious freedom
claim, then what`s to keep any company from saying, well, you know, we
don`t want to serve Jews, we don`t want to hire gays.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: That`s the slippery slope here.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Right. Right. That`s what the Supreme Court has
to be very concerned about.

HAYES: And so the question here is, can a corporation hold
constitutionally protected religious beliefs. What if the Westboro Baptist
Church started a greeting card company and decided not to give people HIV
treatment, a possibilities are endless, terrifying. The court is poised to
effectively decide if a company can pick and choose which laws it will
follow, based on the personal religious beliefs of its owners.


HAYES: Joining me now is NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete
Williams. And Pete, why did this case come before the court. My
understanding is, each of these cases came up in different circuits, and
there`s a split at the lower federal court level about whether or not these
parties have a claim.

Hobby Lobby won its case in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.
The court said that the constitution does give personal rights to
corporations, the Supreme Court has given a number of them over the years,
including the most recently noted, free speech rights. And for that reason
and many others, it said, this is valid right for Hobby Lobby.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals though in the Conestoga Wood case,
the other one the Supreme Court agreed to take today, said no not only can
corporations not assert this claim, but the owners of the corporation can`t
claim that it violates their rights because it`s the corporation that
provides the contraceptive care not the individuals. Couple of things to
notice, I know here before we go on. Number one, the Hobby Lobby doesn`t
object to all the provisions of the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate. Only
four, they said those four are tantamount to abortion and they violate
their religious beliefs.

Secondly, many of the religious groups that are involved in this case
is in the lower courts. And they`re like 40 of them that have been filed
on this question of whether for profit corporations have religious rights,
actually a support many of the goals of the ObamaCare law, many of them
support, for example, universal health coverage and have said so in their
legal briefs. So, it is an interesting constitutional question, one the
Supreme Court has never answered before and one of the reasons they took
the case is precisely the one you mentioned because the lower courts are

HAYES: And in the lower court case with the Mennonite furniture at
manufacture Conestoga, that court -- the party there made an explicit
argument based on Citizens United, that was rejected by that lower court.
I mean, they basically said, look, the Supreme Court handed down Citizens
United, it confers this first amendment rights, I don`t see how you can
draw a line between those first amendment rights and these as well.

WILLIAMS: Right. And the Tenth Circuit said just the opposite, that
it`s a continuing line. So, the Supreme Court is going to have to sort
this out. You know, there are a lot of legal scholars here on this
question who don`t think that it all hinges on Citizens United. The judge
who wrote the Tenth Circuit decision thought that it did. That`s one thing
the court is going to have to sort out. But Citizens United is not the
only time the courts have ever said that corporations can exercise what are
in essence, individual rights. Some they have, some they don`t.

HAYES: NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams. Thank you so

WILLIAMS: You bet.

HAYES: Joining me now, Sandra Fluke, former Georgetown law student,
now social justice attorney. Last year, Republicans famously denied her a
chance to testify at her house hearing on insurance coverage for birth
control. And Tim Carney, senior political columnist at the Washington
Examiner, visiting fellow at AEI conservative think tank.

Tim, I`ll begin with you, you have been a very vociferous defender of
the conscience clause of whether it`s religious institutions, Catholic
hospitals and education institutions. Do you think that extends to just
your any for profit run corporation?

TIM CARNEY, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Look, Barack Obama has his own
sexual morality, I have my own, that follows a Catholic teaching. They
differed. That`s great. This is a free country. Guess what? I don`t
think Barack Obama should get to impose his morality on me the second that
I go into business.

HAYES: But do you think an employer should be? I mean, this to me is
the key element here, when we talk about freedom interests, is that the
employer here is saying that their freedom is being impinged because the
Affordable Care Act requires them to pay for insurance that gives birth
control without a co-pay. Right?


HAYES: The question is, not giving that right, has some encroachment
on the freedom and liberty of the employee?

CARNEY: I don`t see that as having any encroachment on the employee.
Because the employee is perfectly free to go out and by his or her own
birth control separately. You guys on MSNBC, you infringe on the ability
of your hosts to go out and make, you know, anti-gay comments on their -- I
think that`s great that you have that right and I think it`s great that you
make those decisions. To say that I`m not going to pay for my employees
birth control, is not the same as saying my employee may not get birth
control. That`s a distinction I think is very important to make and I
think that is upheld in previous, you know, court jurisdiction.

HAYES: Sandra? Sandra?


HAYES: So, what do you think about that argument?

FLUKE: Well, I think the problem is that the argument goes much
farther beyond the contraception issue which is you pointed out. This
could be about a lot of different aspects of health care. And employer
could decide that they want to deny access for blood transfusions. And I
supposed him could say, you can go out and pay for your own blood
transfusion because your employer doesn`t believe in that on the religious
basis. But many of these are cost prohibitive health services and beyond
that, it goes even beyond health care.

It`s a corporation picking and choosing which types of laws they want
to comply with. And our belief in this society has always been that we
protect the religious liberty of individuals in their private lives. But
that when you cross that line and go into the public`s fear and decide you
want to operate as a company, make a profit off of the public --


FLUKE: You need to abide by the public`s law.

HAYES: And that`s not really true, Chris. Look at this, right now
you and I are, you know, putting our opinions out on television. You are
making money off of this, I am not. Would it be OK if the federal
government said, oh, well, you know, Chris is in business on TV, so we`re
going to infringe on his first amendment rights, but Tim and Sandra, well,
they`re just doing this --


That`s a bad thought experiment for about 90 different reasons, the
first being that the actual depressed is a name party in the first
amendment -- and there`s specific constitutional name parties.

CARNEY: And religion is a name party.

HAYES: Yes. There is but there`s specific constitutional case law
around that. But taking that aside, the argument that Sandra`s making and
I think this is the key point here is, there is no iteration of the
argument that doesn`t prove too much which is to say this. There are
presumably some faith traditions that believe that aids is the punishment
of a wrathful God and that it would violate to conscience of the --


Aids coverage and I cannot imagine any conceivable universe in which a
justice society could allow a corporation, let`s say Goldman Sachs, let`s
say Microsoft, let`s say whoever, to assert that conscience clause to deny
paying for AIDS treatment.

CARNEY: That is an absurd --

FLUKE: What`s really important here is --

HAYES: That is not absurd.

FLUKE: It doesn`t have to be a belief that is recognized by organized
religion. It can be as absurd as we want, because the court is not going
to decide whose religious beliefs are legitimate and whose aren`t.


CARNEY: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is been in place for 30
years. A Democratic Congress passed it into law, it was signed in 1992.
We haven`t had any of these outrageous examples. Right now we have an
example where a Catholic teaching that is been around for millennia, that
sex, family, marriage, love, belong together. That is the idea behind the
Catholic opposition to contraception. Or in the Hobby Lobby case. The
Christian idea that the morning after pill which can end a human life
before implantation or even after implantation that these are wrong, that
this is not an absurd examples, these are --


HAYES: The specific circumstances of that theology, that does not
matter, you cannot adhere, right, to private theological justifications of
essentially what is either a public policy or a constitutional matter.
That`s precisely the issue, right?

CARNEY: If the government thinks that is a compelling interest to get
more people contraception, I don`t agree with that, but if the government
finds that way -- there are less intrusive ways to get women contraception.
This is obviously not the least intrusive possible way. And this is what
the case law points to. This is an idea to --

FLUKE: And one of the things that`s really important that they are
going to come to in this case, is what would be a less intrusive way of
offering contraception comprehensively to women. And it`s really
interesting that some have actually argued that the government some should
just provide the contraception. While we hear this type of argument from
Tim, but at the same time we`re seeing conservative lawmakers cutting back
on funding for programs like Title 10 that do make sure that there`s
affordable -- so there attack on allowing employers to be required to
provide these insurance coverage on insurance that employees pay for at the
same time that there`s an attack on public availability through clinics.
This is absolutely an attack on women`s health care.

HAYES: There`s a very important, really central concept here. And it
goes back to the civil rights act and the public accommodation title in the
civil rights act. Right? I mean, there were people in the civil rights
act who were saying, essentially, look, you cannot tell me government who I
have to serve at my diner or at my motel. Like you don`t get to tell me
that because I have my beliefs and this is a privately run business. And
there is a recognition both in the statute of that law and the
constitutional case law that affirmed it is that when you enter into the
marketplace in these transactions, you were not allowed to bring forth all
of your beliefs, right? There`s a certain kind of way we meet each other
in the marketplace. It`s going to be very interesting to see how that
plays out in this case. Social Justice Attorney Sandra Fluke, Tim Carney
from the Washington Examiner. Thank you both.

CARNEY: Thank you.

FLUKE: Thank you.

HAYES: Coming up, last night we discussed how the historic diplomatic
breakthrough between the United States and Iran may just have dealt a death
blow to the neoconservative agenda which is banging the drum for war with
that country for years. Tonight, we`re going to talk about this with the
former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, yes, him. Don`t go


HAYES: Coming up some big news on this story to report.


LARA LOGAN, CBS CORRESPONDENT: We take the vetting of stories very
seriously at "60 Minutes" and we took it seriously in this case but we were
misled and wrong. And that`s the important thing, that`s what we have to
say and we have to set the record straight and take responsibility.


HAYES: The fallout at "60 Minutes" or their discredited Benghazi
story continues, we`re going to talk about that, next. Stay with us.


HAYES: Tonight, there is more fallout from the latest discredited
Benghazi bombshell, the October 27th "60 Minutes" report on the attack.
Remember, this was a story that featured a security officer who claimed he
was able to enter the compound himself and fight the bad guys and was an
eyewitness to the ongoing attack.


LOGAN: Morgan Jones scaled the 12-foot high wall of the compound that
was still overrun with al-Qaeda fighters.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: One guy saw me. He just shouted, I couldn`t
believe that he had seen me. Because it was so dark. He started walking
towards me.

LOGAN: And as he was coming closer?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: As I got closer, I just hit him with the butt of
the rifle in the face.


HAYES: It later turned out the security officer told his employer he
had not in fact not been present during the attack as reported by "The
Washington Post." And according to the "New York Times," he told the FBI
the same thing, that he had not gone to the compound during the attack. In
other words he told American law enforcement and his employer he did not
witness the attack and then he went on TV and described witnessing the
attack. CBS News finally retracted the story and apologized and many
advocates called for more. CBS News announced an internal investigation.
Today the findings of that internal investigation are out. CBS News has
announced that Lara Logan and her producer from the Benghazi report Max
McClellan have been asked to take a leave of absence.

Then internal report cited numerous problems with the "60 Minutes"
Benghazi story supporting the criticism we`ve featured on this show. For
instance, the security officers differing accounts were knowable before the
piece aired, but why the reporting -- of CBS News were not employed, the
security officer`s admission he had not told his employer the truth about
his own action should have been a red flag in the editorial vetting
process. The security officer`s book published by CBS Corporation Simon
and Schuster through its conservative non-fiction imprint threshold
editions should have been disclosed in connection with the segment and
Logan`s speech one month before starting work on the Benghazi story
presented a conflict.


LOGAN: I hope to God that you`re sending in your best clandestine
warriors who are going to exact revenge and let the world know that the
United States will not be attacked on its own soil, that it`s ambassadors
will not be murdered and the United States will not stand by and do nothing
about it.


HAYES: CBS News chairman and "60 Minutes" executive producer Jeff
Fager, stated in a memo to his employees that he asked Logan and McClellan
to take a leave of absence. The memo also recent part, as executive
producer, "I am responsible for what gets on the air. I prided myself in
catching almost everything but this deception got through and it shouldn`t

Joining me now is Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at Media Matters for
America who have been on the case from the beginning. What do you think of
today`s news?

know, let`s give them credit, you know, Media Matters from the beginning
said, this story needs to be retracted, it was, there needs to be a review,
they did one and the findings that need to be made public and they did.
The problem is all away along, every civil on the way, they were too slow,
they were too defensive and we still don`t know why. This was a very
cursory review, something that someone could have been put together in a
couple of days, just from reading Media Matters and the other press. So,
we don`t know why. And we can talk about how this review really does not
compare to the review they did when the National Guard controversy with
rather nine years ago, the last time "60 Minutes" was really caught.

HAYES: Well, and you also have to figure defending the story a few
days after, that is the thing that I just don`t understand how that
happened because clearly whatever the internal channels of editorial
control that had vetted it, did not communicate effectively that there were
possible flaws in this guy`s story.

BOEHLERT: Right. I did figure today, he talks about how he likes to
catch things and this deception got through. They`re sort of falling back
to, we got duped, we got tricked by the eyewitness who turned out to be --
but simple reporting, googling almost, they would have realized this guy
shouldn`t have been on the air, et cetera, et cetera.

HAYES: One of the things David Brock said to me on the night, of the
day after that reporting, David Brock on the next day, and he said this is
a guy who FOX News turned down his source because he wanted to be paid.

BOEHLERT: He wanted to be paid. And CBS didn`t explain to viewers on
the night that he has -- we`re publishing his book. So, the publicity from
the "60 Minutes," is going to sell him more books. It was a train wreck
from beginning to end. The question is, did they learn anything and that`s
what Media Matters is going to continue to watch.

HAYES: I want to sort of make a reference to Allan Ginsberg -- you
know, I saw the best minds of my generation, like I saw the reporters of my
generation sucked into the Benghazi vortex. People`s work I respect, some
peoples work I don`t respect.


HAYES: But across the board, it seems like, anyone can start -- it
gets pulled into this kind of quick sand of right wing spin and lies.


HAYES: There`s an actual thing that happened, there`s an actual a
dark, there`s an actual Americans that were dead. There`s an actual
concerns about the security there. There`s a whole set of actual concerns
and they`re ones that I think a lot of people care about. And yet, any
time you start to creep towards it, you get sucked into the world of the
kind of crazy right wing obsession and conspiracy theory.

BOEHLERT: Right. Because they get sucked in because they want to
tell a certain story on the other side. Figure in the past, it`s talked
about in the National Guard controversy. The reason CBS got in trouble was
that CBS team went in with an agenda. This is the story they wanted to
tell, left out mitigating factors. Well, this is exactly what happened
here. So, Media Matters was one of the absolute firsts, as you mentioned,
the day after this report aired, we were calling it a hoax.

You know, we have been following this misinformation campaign for a
year. You know, we know this siren song pretty well, you know, the
lingering questions about the rescue and things like that. So, more and
more reporters as you say sort of sucked into this vortex, because it`s
alluring, they have a right wing media machine. FOX News, Rush Limbaugh,
they are pushing it and they feel like if they can tell that story, it
would be great. But the facts don`t support it.

HAYES: Every time that I just as a reporter journalist and as a
consumer of used information have come across the Benghazi story, and have
said, oh, that doesn`t look so good. You know, you take a deep breath and
wait a day or two. And you scratch and this has been the case time and
time again. Susan Rice saying, you know, what she said on a Sunday shows.


HAYES: And then we found out about actually the sort of intelligence
talking points created for. Time and time again, Paul Krugman had this
column the other day, this very sort of provocative point that ObamaCare
was going to become another Benghazi, which is they say, things that you
got closer to them that were hyped the right where less than they appear.
What do you think of that?

BOEHLERT: Well, we`ve already seen that, some of the reporting,
right? The ObamaCare horror stories, you know, all these people losing
their health care and you know the premiums doubling and tripling. And
then you have reporters, often people online coming through and re-
reporting saying, this isn`t a horror story at all, their premium is going
to go down. So, I think Paul Krugman is right. You could go back to two
decades of white water. I mean, this is very similar. People keep just
want to tell that scandal story again and again. And look at all the
reporters got burned by white water trying to tell that right when you tell
about the Clintons, none of it held up. And the ObamaCare stuff we`re
seeing again and again.

HAYES: Two people chase that because they think that`s where the
energy or the audience is?

BOEHLERT: Yes, they think, well, they think it`s a good story and
they think there are unanswered questions --

HAYES: Yes, there are. And there`s stuff to report about ObamaCare

BOEHLERT: Look, I mean, 16 hearings at least in Congress, we have had
independent reviews, at some point you just have to accept the fact. And
yes, let`s get some more information but let`s not make stuff up and let`s
not get sucked into this smear campaign, this misinformation campaign.

HAYES: Eric Boehlert from Media Matters. Thank you so much.

Coming up, Congressman Trey Radel is in rehab after pleading guilty to
buying cocaine from an undercover D.C. police officer.


REP. TREY RADEL (R), FLORIDA: I know there will be positive that
comes out of this. I hope that I can be a role model for millions of
others that are struggling with this disease.


HAYES: Now, his fellow party members in Florida are calling for his
resignation, I`m going to tell you why they should back off, next.


HAYES: So Florida Republicans are now piling on Trey Radel. You`ll
of course remember Trey Radel, the hip hop conservative congressman in
Florida who has busted in Washington last month for buying $250 worth of
cocaine. Radel pled guilty last week and was sentenced to one year of
supervised probation. He announced he will take a leave of absence from
Congress and is now in treatment for addiction. But it didn`t take long
for Radel`s fellow Republicans to call for his head.

Lenny Curry, chair of the Republican Party in Florida said, Radel
should step down and focus his attention on rehabilitation and his family.
Two GOP county executive committees in Radel`s district added in identical
statements that, it is in the best interest of all involved that he resign
immediately. And then there`s Florida Governor Rick Scott.


GOV. RICK SCOTT (R), FLORIDA: As you know, the party chairman of the
Republican Party of Florida came out and announced Trey Radel for his
resignation, I agree with the party chairman. Look, Trey is going through
a tough time. My prayers and my wife`s prayers are with his family but
have to hold all of our elected officials to the highest standards.


HAYES: The highest standard. In case you might have forgotten, Rick
Scott got massively rich overseeing a private hospital network. That
private hospital network just happens to have admitted to 14 felonies and
then had to pay what were by far the largest Medicare fraud settlements in
American history, $1.7 billion worth of them. And so, I think Rick Scott
has zero standing to criticize Trey Radel for not following the highest
standard. We were discussing Radel`s situation on this show last week when
I said, I actually feel some compassion for the guy and Joy Reid agreed.


HAYES: Here is my reaction. I am torn between rage of democracy and
passion for someone who seems like he is going through some serious
substance issues.

JOY REID, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: No. I actually have great
compassion for anybody who has substance abuse issues.


HAYES: Bill Maher, well like a lot of it who guest on the show seemed
to be referencing that discussion when he said this on his show.


two very esteemed liberal commentators, who I have like both of them very
much started talking about it yesterday and they said -- and they have
right to -- well, I have compassion for an addict. OK, Nancy Reagan, can I
get something straight here, just because somebody does a drug does not
mean they are an addict.


HAYES: OK. So, I actually agree with Bill Maher. I think this is
really an important teachable moment. So, let us be clear. The use of
illegal drugs does not equal drug addiction, whether that is heroin or
cocaine or marijuana. And, a lot of the confusion and mistakes of our drug
policy that is putting millions of people in jail come from binding those
two together. In fact, my jaw hit the floor, we had neuroscientists Carl
Hart on the program one month ago and he said this.


of people who use crack cocaine do so without a problem. They are not
addicted. The same is true for methamphetamine, where now the myths are
being transferred to methamphetamine.


HAYES: But, in the case of Trey Radel, we have someone who really
does seem to legitimately be in the throws of addiction. He said himself
his behavior was written by alcoholism. There is reason to take him out of
his word, his father in a wrenching interview told the Cincinnati Inquirer
that Radel`s mother who died at her son`s wedding reception was alcoholic
as well. There are millions of people in this country who are not
congressmen who cannot go to private fancy rehab centers and who are also
grappling with addiction.

And, what I want to see come out of the Trey Radel mess is the
insanity that embraces those people with compassion and adequate treatment
and does not criminalize or demonize them. And, I hope that Trey Radel
ignores Rick Scotts ridiculous advice goes back to congress and immediately
starts on day 1 working to make that happen. We will be back with Click 3.


HAYES: Coming up, what it is like to still have a world view that has
been wholesale rejected by the American public. I will ask Paul Wolfowitz,
the former deputy secretary of defense under George W. Bush. Yes, that
Paul Wolfowitz, he will be here ahead.


HAYES (voice-over): But, first, I want to share the three awesomest
things on the internet today. We begin with the one truly honest review of
the new "Hunger Games" movie. It is a worldwide phenomenon and as far as
being reviewed, it is virtually critic proofed. The review that best sums
up the reason the movie`s existence comes from Peter Rosenthal, film critic
for "The Onion" who says that all the fans are really thinking.


PETER ROSENTHAL, FILM CRITIC: "Catching Fire," the second installment
in the popular "Hunger Games" trilogy about a teenage girl challenging a
corrupt dystopian government with the help of a boy who all things
considered is not even that hot. I mean he is not ugly. He just could
have been way cuter.



HAYES (voice-over): Rosenthal`s main complaint seems to be the
relative hotness of male lead Josh Hutcherson compared to the secondary
lead Liam Hemsworth. Despite of the big thumbs up for the quote, superhot
Hemsworth, Rosenthal brings up the nod for pretty much the entire male


ROSENTHAL: Well, compared to other movies with hot boys, like
"Twilight," the "Hunger Games" pales in comparison. The "Twilight" boys
are so hot and have gorgeous eyes too, and I like when they are shirtless -
- especially Taylor because he is really buff, which is good because he has
kind of that weird chipmunk face, sometimes.


HAYES (voice-over): As we all know "The Onion" is a satire website.
Sometimes, you will find the critics are true revealed through comment.
The second awesomest thing on the internet today. Something to think about
the next thing you hit a pothole.

You could have been driving on this road in Western Russia. It is not
a bad ride, small amount of traffic, well placed road signs and stoplights.
The problem is sometimes the road just explodes. Yes, that is what it
looks like.

Yes. And, while there are many things that could have caused the
damage. We found out it was not a sink hole. It was not one of those
underground worms from movie tremors, stating myself. No, just a burst
pipe under the street. And, this season of thanks, we can be thankful for
two things. This video 1, be thankful, no one was hurt. And, two, as
always, be thankful for Russian dashboard cants.

And, the third awesomest thing on the internet today. Sometimes, snow
men are creepy especially this one on YouTube named freaky, the snow man,
who apparently is in his fourth season of scaring the crap out of people on
the street. Scaring people is what he does and he does it over and over
and over again.








HAYES (voice-over): The video is three solid minutes of people in
mortal fear of a snowman, but this is by far the best reaction old freakie
was able to scare up.




HAYES: Who says Halloween is over? You can find all the links for
tonight`s Click 3 on our website, We will be right


HAYES: Neoconservatives appear to have reached the final sad face of
their trajectory in American life, now mostly appearing to engaged in self
parody rather than directs the nation`s affairs. As evidence, witness this
op-ed in today`s Wall Street Journal. It just might be the worst thing
written yet in neocon cannon. That is saying something.

According to columnist, Brett Stephens, The Iran Interim Diplomacy
deal is, quote, "Worse than Munich." When Stephens invokes Munich, he is
talking about when in 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain
signed the Munich pact, which was a de facto piece agreement with Hitler.

And, there is something called Godwin`s law, you may have encounter on
the interne, which essentially said that when you get into a debate on the
internet about, well, anything. If you mention Hitler or the Nazis at
anytime, you have automatically lost whatever debate you were having.

And, what does it mean is that if you have a tendency to say stuff
like this is just like Hitler, when you are having an argument, it means
you are not really arguing the case very effectively. Hitler is what you
say when you are losing an argument whether it is Brett Stephens who wrote
the interim nuclear agreement signed by Geneva on Sunday by Iran.

The six big powers has many of the flaws of Munich or Daniel Pipes
over the national online calling the interim deal with Iran, quote, "One of
those rare occasions when comparison with Munich in 1938 is valid. But, of
course, neoconservatism has always rested on a foundation exclusively of
some version of Godwin`s law.


CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS PANELIST: This is a sham from beginning
to end. It is the worst deal since Munich.

Laden and his terrorists` allies have made their intentions as clear as
Leonard and Hitler before them. The question is, will we listen?

Venezuela with a lot of oil money. He is a person who was elected legally,
just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally.

that precise analogy of Hitler and Munich as a reason why we should take
threat in rhetoric seriously particularly in the case of terrorism and
Saddam Hussein.


HAYES: If every enemy in the U.S. base is Hitler, if every bit of
diplomacy is appeasement, then we must be as a people in perpetual war.
Luckily, Americans have largely rejected that world view. But I am curious
to hear from someone who still holds to it.

Paul Wolfowitz was the deputy secretary of defense under George W.
Bush. The administration that brought us to wars. He is currently a
visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; a conservative Think
Tank, and he joins me now.

Mr. Wolfowitz, my first question to you is given the fact that there
was a kind of reformist regime in Iran ten years ago during the Bush
administration, why were you, guys, in the Bush administration able to get
this deal done a decade ago.

DEFENSE: Let me just ask, I take it you think it is a mistake to take Bin
Laden`s rhetoric seriously or Saddam Hussein`s rhetoric seriously? That is
the implication of your introduction here.

HAYES: No. I just do not think they are Hitler.

WOLFOWITZ: No. I said they were, but when they threaten against the
United States, it should be taken seriously.

HAYES: Sure. Take it seriously, but we should not got to war -- we
should not go to war with Saddam Hussein.

WOLFOWITZ: That is a different question. But you are mocking the
idea of taking someone`s rhetoric seriously.

HAYES: No. Well, I am not mocking the idea of taking people`s
rhetoric seriously. You can take people`s rhetoric seriously but there is
a few things to add into that, right? Strategic calculations about what
someone`s going to do, right? People can have bad rhetoric, but actually
use that rhetoric for domestic purposes or political purposes that do not
indicate what they are actually going to do on strategic world stage, A.
And, B. The rhetoric being taken seriously when invoked in the context --

WOLFOWITZ: Yes, because I am asking you -- are saying that --

HAYES: -- when invoked -- let me just say this.

WOLFOWITZ: -- that the law is rhetoric was not to be taken seriously.

HAYES: I do not necessarily think that all the rhetoric coming out of
Iran is an indication of what their desire is in terms of their nuclear
program or their designs on Israel. You think --

WOLFOWITZ: No one says it is a complete design or --

HAYES: Yes, they do. Benjamin Netanyahu says that all the time.

WOLFOWITZ: Well, I am not here to argue Benjamin Netanyahu. I am
here to say, since you started this on that foot, to mock the idea of
taking threatening rhetoric seriously is a liberal mistake if you like. Of
course --

HAYES: What does -- here is the question --

WOLFOWITZ: -- Hitler is close to unique. Fair enough.

HAYES: Close to unique. But, here is the question, right? What does
taking rhetoric seriously mean? I think you and I can agree in the
abstract, sure, taking rhetoric seriously. But when saying taking rhetoric
seriously, and you see this invoked in the Iranian case all the time
because we had the -- you know, one of the leaders of regime say something
about Israel being a barking dog, right?

Taking the rhetoric seriously is then matches an indication they are
not serious about diplomacy, which is then used as an argument that there
is a military solution as opposed to a diplomatic one -- Right?


WOLFOWITZ: No. It just says it is part of the equation. And, you
know, to be honest, one of the things that is a little shocking, is to hear
how often people have welcomed the mushy, fuzzy, vague rhetoric of Rowhani
as indicating some kind of fundamental change in radiant altitude.

I think the real point is forget the rhetoric. One of the problems is
we made too much of vague promises which we know are easily reversed. Just
on Sunday, Secretary of State Kerry was asked on a different network, I
will not advertise their name here --

HAYES: That is OK.

WOLFOWITZ: -- what about the comparison between this deal and the
deals of North Korea. He said, "Oh, they are completely different." North
Korea was a member of the NPT, the nonproliferation treaty. The North
Korea renounced -- I mean -- excuse me Iran is the member of the NPT. Iran
has renounced nuclear weapons. Iran is negotiating.

Well, excuse me, North Korea was a member of the NPT until after ten
years they decided to leave it. Iran can leave it. Every one of those
three things that Kerry mentioned are rhetoric, which is reversible --

HAYES: This is precisely --

WOLFOWITZ: -- Would you let me finish this time. Thanks. What is
needed is concrete dismantling of their program, not promises, not words.
But, verified dismantling and there is nothing in this agreement that does

HAYES: So, then how do you achieve that. First of all there is
something concrete which is they are going to dissolve the 20% enriched
uranium. They are going to --

WOLFOWITZ: It is reversible.

HAYES: Sure. Everything is reversible, right?

WOLFOWITZ: Not everything. No --

HAYES: OK. So, then the question is for you, short of war, short of
a disastrous, absolutely horrific abomination that would lead to the death
of thousands of people in the region, a repeat of the worst thing I have
seen in my lifetime, which is the Iraq war, short of that, what is the
solution then?

WOLFOWITZ: You know, there is an alternative, which is to maintain
the sanctions, to maintain the pressure, insist on agreement that really
reverses this nuclear program. There is not suddenly believe promises when
we have evidence over the last ten years that they have every intentions of

HAYES: So, then what is next? Then what do you do?

WOLFOWITZ: You keep the pressure on. You do not let it up and say,
"We got this great diplomatic achievement, which is also by the way going
to come back and haunt you in six months if the atmosphere is so good, if
the progress is so great. Then why do not you just keep continuing down
this road. That is what happened with North Korea. That is the comparison
Kerry does not want to accept, but that is how we got into that situation
with North Korea.

HAYES: North Korea and Iran, this is exactly the kind of thinking
that I am fascinated, right? Because North Korea and Iran are vastly
different states. I mean North Korea really is truly generous.

WOLFOWITZ: Yes. They are a great deal more clever actually. The
Iranians will negotiate their way out of this much more cleverly than the
North Koreans did.

HAYES: But, you do not think -- you will not think there is a
different set of incentives for the nation. Islamic republic of Iran that
there is for the hermit kingdom of North Korea.

WOLFOWITZ: Of course, they are different. The question -- you keep
changing the subject. The point is you can`t --

HAYES: No. That is the subject because you keep invoking North

WOLFOWITZ: You cannot rely on the promises of either one and as far
as --

HAYES: This agreement has verification built into it, does not it?

WOLFOWITZ: Chris, if Iran is not after the nuclear weapons, then why
are they developing long range ballistic missiles? They make no sense
unless you put a nuclear weapon on them. Frankly, if you believe they are
not after nuclear weapons then I guess you cannot negotiate anything --

HAYES: No. I do not know. I think the point of the question s if
you concede their after nuclear weapons, something that I simply do not
know; I have not looked at the intelligence, right? If you concede they
are after nuclear weapons, and the goal is to make sure they do not acquire
nuclear weapons, A. And, B. To not go to war, right?

And, those two goals are equally important in my mind, then what do
you do that does not look like this agreement? This agreement to me looks
like a pretty good path between those two terrible outcomes.

WOLFOWITZ: Let you do -- make sure you maintain the sanctions. The
sanctions are obviously biting and obviously hurting and hurting them much
more than they are hurting us at all. This regime is shaky. This regime
is having trouble at home.

And, frankly, another thing I would do, which is important here, I
would not abandon the people of Iran, the way we have, not only under this
president, but to a sorry extent I would say over the last 20 years --

HAYES: I am glad you --

WOLFOWITZ: -- The people of Iran are the greatest hope for change.

HAYES: I agree and I would like to respond finally here because you
have said that before and I have been awed by some of the courage if
Iranian dissidents -- who wrote these ground breaking chronicles of murders
by the regime of dissidents; incredibly brave noble person. He and many
other dissidents have reported by Eli Lake of the "Daily Beast" say, they
welcome. They welcome this deal. There are dissidents in Iran. People
who oppose the regime who think this deal can give daylight.

WOLFOWITZ: And, there are plenty of dissidents who are afraid that
this deal is going to legitimize is regime. Look, I feel more comfortable
in that position. If I thought this government was taking seriously. The
situation of this in Iran instead of - basically -- or in Syria for that
matter, we have abandoned the Syrian people to Iran`s ally and Damascus.
It is shameful and it is going to come back and haunt us. You do not want
a war. I do not want a war. But, a bad negotiation outcome can lead to a
war just as much as too much belligerence.

HAYES: Former Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz.
Appreciate you come on. Thank you. We will be right back.


HAYES: Joining me now is Joe Cirincione, President of Ploughshares
Fund, global security foundation, author of "Nuclear Nightmares: Securing
The World Before It is Too Late." And, David Sirota, Syndicated newspaper
columnist, contributor All right, Joe, this argument that we
need to ratchet up the sanctions and more and more pressure, what do you
think of that?

wonderful job of calmly and softly presenting a completely crazy position.
It is filled with value laden words and hypotheticals and what ifs and
secondary considerations.

This is the same guy who led us into a disastrous war with Iraq and
there is a group that is trying to do it again with Iran. And the question
is, are we stupid enough to fall for it twice. But, they are not
interested in using sanctions to pressure Iran to make a deal. They do not
want to make a deal with this regime. They want to overthrow it. It is a
crazy position that will lead us once again to war.

HAYES: David, in terms of the American people rejecting it or people
not buying it, I think we have seen a real sea change in public opinion. I
just think that the ability to kind of use all that rhetoric that was so
potent in 2003 has really drained out now.

DAVID SIROTA, SALON.COM CONTRIBUTOR: I think yes. I think you are
absolutely right. I think that we have learned the lesson from Iraq that
perhaps what we had forgotten before that since Vietnam. And, I think that
we are moving into a stage in American life where, which I cannot remember
in my own lifetime where a lot of the belligerence, a lot of the hyper
patriotism, a lot of the saberattling that has marked so much of our war
politics is just not working.

And, I think this is a good thing. I think the American public is
more interested in the idea of what engagement can actually get us, in what
making deals with can get us and what multilateralism can get us. So, I
think this is a real sea change.

HAYES: Is there a away Joe if thinking about these frame works that
does not rely on this idea that you are trusting the Iranian regime?

CIRONCIONE: Oh, absolutely. Do not fall for that. This deal has
nothing to do with trust. You do not trust a bank when you take out a
mortgage. Labor doe not trust management when they make a deal. You sign
a contract. You have deals. You have actions in that contract and that is
what you got with this agreement between the U.N. Security Council, by the
way. This is not a deal between the United States and Iran.

HAYES: Right.

CIRONCIONE: The U.N. Security Council, including France who is a hero
to these guys just 10 days ago, they made the deal with Iran and if they do
not fulfill their terms we have actions that we can take to pull the plug
on any sanctions relief we have given them.

HAYES: David, do you think there is going to be space opening up
increasingly to push for something that looks more like a full peace
agenda? That is a phrase that is so far from our actual politics now, but
is actually what I think you want politics to embody, right?

SIROTA: Absolutely. I mean you are right. Unfortunately, the word
peace comes laden with all sorts of value judgments, negative value
judgments in our politics.

HAYES: Right.

SIROTA: But, I think that what this shows is that you can actually
move towards actual piece, you do not have to call it peace. You can call
it engagement. You can call it with all sorts of things like verification.
You can use those terms. But, I do think we are moving into a situation
where the American public does not want us to be on a perpetual war footing
and while we need to proceed carefully with Iran, we also need to
understand that we can actually potentially make ourselves a lot safer for
the long haul if we start engaging countries like Iran and other countries
so that -- to dial down the anti-Americanism across the world.

HAYES: Joe, quickly. Are you optimistic about this deal in the next
six months?

CIRONCIONE: I am. I think we saw a historic deal made over the
weekend. I think we are seeing a geopolitical shift in the Middle East.
Certainly, it makes people uneasy, but it is definitely worth pursuing.

HAYES: Joe Cironcione from Ploughshares Fund, David Sirota,
investigative journalist for Pando Daily. Thank you. That is "All In" for
this evening. "The Rachel Maddow" show starts right now. Good evening,

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: I am already watching you and Paul
Wolfowitz on a loop in my mind, and it is not stopping, Chris. That was

HAYES: And, something.


Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>