Guest: Lizz Brown, Heather Mac Donald, Bob Kohn, Jack Burkman, Cheri Jacobus, Mike Rectenwald
PAT BUCHANAN, GUEST HOST: Donald Rumsfeld is in Mosul visiting the troops. We‘ll have a live report in a minute.
Americans understand that our troops are in danger on the battlefield, but they thought they were safe eating lunch in their mess hall on base. Is there something our leaders should be doing to better protect our men and woman in uniform? Or should we, as the founder of the largest daily newspaper in America said today, bring our troops home?
Then, our enemy doesn‘t abide by any Geneva Convention, yet we‘re handcuffed when it comes to battle tactics and interrogation techniques. Should we be? And just exactly what constitutes torture anyway? We‘ll talk to an expert.
And sometimes the mainstream media just don‘t get it, like when they said “The Passion” would bomb and the swift boat vets need not be taken seriously. Tonight, we‘ll take you through the biggest stories the elite media got all wrong in 2004.
ANNOUNCER: From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all. Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
BUCHANAN: Embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is in Mosul tonight visiting the troops at or near that military base where the mess hall disaster occurred this week.
NBC‘s Jim Miklaszewski joins us live with the latest.
What do you have, Jim?
JIM MIKLASZEWSKI, NBC PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pat, as you know, it‘s already Christmas Eve there in Iraq. And Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, as you say, has arrived there for what would normally be considered a surprise holiday visit for American troops.
But the fact that he is there only days after that devastating suicide bomb attack in the dining hall at the military base there in Mosul killed 13 service members, the troops become—or the visit, anyway, to the troops becomes much more than that.
Secretary Rumsfeld, I would guess this is probably his—at least his fourth, if not fifth trip there, many of them moral-boosting trips for the troops themselves. But this time, he goes on the heels of that attack, probably to take a close look at the kind of security being provided there in Mosul in the wake of these attacks, Pat.
BUCHANAN: Jim, a quick final question from me. Was there any alert to the president in the press in the Pentagon that he might be gone and were you asked to hold this information for security reasons before he got to Mosul? Anything like that? I guess he has probably got a small pool with him, does he not?
MIKLASZEWSKI: He does. There is a very small contingent of reporters that are traveling with him. The trip was arranged and conducted in almost total secrecy.
I, in fact myself, Pat, myself was out doing Christmas shopping late today when I got first word of the trip and then came here to do some reporting on it. But, for obvious security reasons, they didn‘t want anyone to know in advance and particularly those on the ground. You know, one of the major problems there in that base at Mosul, as you well know, Pat, is that the Americans have to rely so much on Iraqi nationals to do so much of the work there and in fact, to get involved in training the military police, National Guard and the like, that the fear is that, in this bombing case, at least, it is the work of infiltrators, an inside job.
And if there was any advance word that Secretary Rumsfeld was headed that way, the fear was, of course, that it could put the secretary in danger.
BUCHANAN: OK. Jim, I‘m sure you will be following this tonight and we appreciate you very much, your giving us the time.
MIKLASZEWSKI: You bet.
BUCHANAN: Now, as Americans prepares to celebrate Christmas, our troops in Iraq find themselves the target of an increasingly deadly and elusive enemy. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has just landed in Mosul on a surprise visit to the troops. We just talked about that.
This may be the time to ask if our civilian leaders are adapting swiftly to this new war to protect our troops and accomplish our mission. Or are they trying to fight this war on the cheap?
Here to talk about this as we approach the January 30 date for elections are Mike Rectenwald from Citizens For Legitimate Government and Republican strategist Cheri Jacobus.
Cheri, let me start with you and ask you, what is the sense in this town talking to Republicans and conservatives and others about how the administration is handling the war? I‘m sure you have seen that poll, the first, showed 56 percent, first time a majority, 56 percent of Americans do not believe the war is going well, and some 70 percent, I think, think in the last couple of months, it has been going badly.
CHERI JACOBUS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think the way the poll question is asked, first of all, they asked, folks, do you think it was worth it in term of the loss of life?
I personally think that‘s an unfair poll question, to put that on the backs of the American people, because where you see a discrepancy, then, is when you ask folks do they think our troops should stay there until the civil unrest is solved, they say yes overwhelmingly. Another majority of those polled say that they think that we will have elections in Iraq, they should go forward, obviously, we should stay there through that.
So, I think a lot of it is the poll question. And I also don‘t think that we should necessarily be running this war by the polls. So I guess the short answer is, polls are interesting. They tell you a little bit, but unlike other issues in this town, this is something that—this is not what should guide a war and I think that‘s probably the general feeling when people are really honest about it.
BUCHANAN: Mike Rectenwald, what is your feeling about how liberals and Democrats are looking at this? How long will they stay behind the war effort, which the American people I guess endorsed, clearly endorsed, in the election, but they seem to be turning sour on right now.
MIKE RECTENWALD, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY: Well, that endorsement is questionable, Pat, but let‘s say that 56 percent said that the war is not worth it. Another 51 percent say that we should get out of there. I don‘t think the Democrats can consciously stand behind this effort without severe criticism of this administration.
It has to be time very soon to start getting out of Iraq, issuing a public apology to the Iraqi people that we completely miscalculated the situation, that we have caused far more trouble than we have resolved. And...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: All right, Mike, let me ask you. You‘re not a serious in thinking that George W. Bush is going to apologize...
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: No. No.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: ... to the American people or the Iraqi people.
RECTENWALD: I don‘t think George W. Bush will apologize for anything that he has ever done, and that‘s his biggest problem.
George W. Bush owes the world, the United States of America and the Iraqi people an amazing apology. There is a real reason why he didn‘t join the International Criminal Court, because he knew we were going to be making international criminals out of our own people, including himself.
(LAUGHTER)
BUCHANAN: All right, Cheri, I know it‘s Christmas Eve.
JACOBUS: That‘s an amazing statement.
BUCHANAN: But, well, how to you take that? Are we listening to the far left of the Democratic Party here or not?
JACOBUS: Yes. Well, I don‘t even think that‘s even the Democratic Party. I think that‘s just far left. And I think that‘s a pretty amazing statement.
We‘re headed into these elections into Iraq. This is an important time. And I think the we should have expected the accelerated degree of violence. We‘ve seen it. Rumsfeld, Bush, they have all told us all along that it was going to be like this. And for us to now have sort of cold feet on this would be a big mistake, show—it would be the wrong message, not only to our troops, but to the terrorists, because, then, obviously, they win.
And that sounds trite, because we say that a lot.
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: ... about the criminal aspect, Pat, is that the ACLU has just uncovered papers that show that the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay was authorized at the highest levels of government and that these policies are in clear breach of the Geneva Conventions. And that‘s a crime.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Mike, we‘re going to take up that issue with Heather Mac Donald, who has written on it herself, in the next segment, when we come back and talk about that.
RECTENWALD: Sure.
BUCHANAN: But, Cheri, let me ask you, because it does seem—now, look, I was a young man. I was writing editorials back in ‘62. And I was in the teach-ins in Vietnam. And it was a long, long time. It was tends of thousands of Americans dead before they soured on that war. Richard Nixon took four years to get us out.
And in 1972, he crushed an anti-war candidate. This president is already below 50 percent after reelection. A majority again think the war was not worth it. How long do you think we can have events like Mosul happen without some indication that there is going to be an exit or a victory in the—I mean, in the near future, at least?
JACOBUS: I don‘t think the answer is necessarily an exit without victory and I don‘t think the American would stand for that.
What I do think they need is explanations and they need know that this administration and the Defense Department and Rumsfeld are accountable. That doesn‘t mean they are to blame. And I think that‘s the big difference. And that‘s where we‘re getting a little mixed up in the discussion in the last few weeks, when we confuse blame with accountability.
What Rumsfeld has shown is that he is accountable, even if he is not directly to blame. And we need to facilitate an atmosphere where he can do his job and face these challenges and talk with Congress.
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: When has this administration ever accepted blame or accountability?
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBUS: We need to let him be accountable and solve the problems, rather than make him just defend his job to try and keep his job.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: That raises this question.
Let me bring in Jack Burkman here.
Jack, you have heard the news, I guess. Secretary Rumsfeld has flown right to Mosul. It is a Christmas Eve visit there. He is going to be at that base where Iraqis apparently who are in our employ or Iraqi military working with us were very probably the suicide bomber in that mess hall that killed all those Americans.
What is your take on how the secretary of defense is handling what is a very rough situation for him when two potential nominees of the Republican Party, McCain and Hagel, have expressed zero confidence in him?
JACK BURKMAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: First of all, Senator McCain and Senator Hagel should be ashamed of themselves. So should Senator Warren and Senator Levin, all of whom have been involved in funding the Pentagon.
If there‘s an armor shortage—and I will say to Chuck Hagel and to John McCain and to John Warner. You guys have been involved in funding the United States Pentagon for years and years and years. If there is an armor shortage, you guys better look in the mirror, instead of blaming the president of the United States.
And at the risk of violating Ronald Reagan‘s 11th commandment, which is attacking a fellow Republican, and I realize I‘m doing that, you guys should be ashamed, because this president and this secretary of defense have done a brilliant job.
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: A brilliant job of what?
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: Authorizing naked bodies to be piled in pyramids at Abu Ghraib? Is that brilliant?
BURKMAN: Let me tell you something. You look at one negative thing.
This war is a brilliant success.
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: Brilliant success. You must be kidding.
BURKMAN: Let me finish. This war—let me lay this out.
The United States, in 18 months, has invaded the heart of the Arab world. We subdued what might have been the worst...
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: Under false pretenses.
BURKMAN: Let me finish.
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: False pretenses. ...
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: ... lied about it.
BURKMAN: Let me finish.
BUCHANAN: Mike, let him finish.
RECTENWALD: Fine.
BURKMAN: Listen to me.
We subdued the world‘s worst dictator. We have brought prison camps to an end. We have set up a new government. We‘re to the point where we‘re almost holding free elections, all of this in 18 months. Now, every death is tragic. We have lost only 1,000 men.
BUCHANAN: All right, you hold it, Jack. Let me ask you this question.
How can you attack McCain and Hagel and Warner, who do have oversight responsibility on the Pentagon, without going after Rumsfeld himself, who is running the building?
BURKMAN: Very easily, Pat. I go after those senators and I go after Bill Clinton, who cut our military to the bone for eight years.
Look, John Warner has been involved in the funding of the U.S. military for 25 years. For him to go...
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: ... be blaming Clinton in the next decade.
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: After 12 years of this mess, you will be blaming Clinton.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: All right, go ahead, Jack. I mean, go ahead, Mike.
BURKMAN: For John Warner to go on “Meet on Press” and Carl Levin and
Joe Biden, who have been funding the Pentagon for years, Don Rumsfeld has
been there exactly four years, for them to point fingers at him on an armor
shortage, after Rumsfeld has ramped up production, done everything he can -
· John Warner wants to give all the special contracts to the defense contractors.
BUCHANAN: OK. Let‘s get Mike.
Mike, go ahead.
RECTENWALD: My heart really bleeds for Rumsfeld. I really feel bad for the guy. He is such a decent human being, rubber-stamping certificates of death to the families of dead soldiers. What a deeply felt, sympathetic person, this is.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Cheri?
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: It‘s just incredible. And how about the myriad lies that we have been told? And we are supposed to shame the other Republicans?
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: We‘re talking about outright liars.
BUCHANAN: All right, Mike, hold it.
Cheri.
JACOBUS: The fact is—the fact is, these families that received these rubber-stamped letters with the auto pen signing of Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld is accountable for that. He has apologized.
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: He takes personal responsibility, a Republican value.
It‘s about time.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBUS: There is a difference between blame. You know darn well that that was the work of some underling who was up there saving time.
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: OK. Pass it on to the underling.
(CROSSTALK)
RECTENWALD: We have a few bad apples. They‘re called Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: We‘re going to take a quick break.
But, when we return, we‘re going to talk torture. The enemy is using beheadings, public executions and suicide bombers. So, why are so many upset at the interrogation techniques used on prisoners in Iraq, especially if they could protect our troops?
A debate on torture when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. My name is Staff Sergeant Darian Hopkins (ph). And I‘m assigned to 215th Forward Support Battalion here in Baghdad, Iraq.
I would like to wish a happy holidays to all of my family in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: What persuasive techniques should our troops be permitted to use and forbidden to use in interrogating terrorist suspects?
We‘ll debate torture in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Welcome back. We‘ll get back to our panel in a moment, but first, a question.
Is the war on terror and the war on Iraq a win-at-any-cost proposition for America? And if the enemy is using beheadings, the murder of aid workers, and the execution of election officials in broad daylight in Baghdad, as well as suicide bombs, like the one being made in this video, is it permissible for U.S. forces to use rough tactics on Iraqi prisoners?
Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute joins us now.
Heather, let me read a question you yourself have asked—quote—
“What is more important, protecting America from attack or making sure that detainees in the war on terror get their 12-hour beauty sleep each night?”
What do you mean by that? And can we do what we want to suspected terrorists?
HEATHER MAC DONALD, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: We should be bound by humanitarian concerns, Pat, absolutely.
We should not engage in torture. But what we‘re seeing now is an overreaction on the Pentagon‘s part that are banning—it‘s banning, I think, reasonable techniques, such as keeping a terrorist up past his bedtime to interrogate him.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Well, that is called sleep deprivation. And if you keep someone up for...
MAC DONALD: Sleep deprivation, this is something that has come under attack. The Pentagon has withdrawn it. This is not a technique that is now available for use.
Some of the other techniques that were developed—and let‘s discuss why the Pentagon started looking at stress, Pat. It found in theater after theater that terrorists were not talking. The traditional techniques that were developed during the Cold War for use on lawful enemy prisoners of war that played on ordinary emotions that soldiers have, such as love of family, were not getting these guys to talk. They had been already well trained in resistance.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: All right. Are you saying, Heather, that there has been a tremendous overreaction because of Abu Ghraib, which was intolerable and unacceptable, to the point where now we‘re not using techniques and tactics that may be rough, sleep deprivation, music in the cells 24 hours a day, isolation, lights on or lights off at different times, that are not torture? We‘re not even using them to get information to stop terrorist attacks?
MAC DONALD: That‘s right, Pat.
And I would sometimes question whether some of these techniques are rough. But let‘s characterize them as rough. There is no question Abu Ghraib was an atrocity. It was an outrage. What that represented, though, was not interrogation techniques. It was a breakdown of command in that prison. The prison was out of control. The military totally abdicated its responsibility of making sure that those soldiers were following the rules.
What we saw in those photos had knowing to do with the interrogation policies that the Pentagon had approved for use in Iraq or elsewhere.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Heather, let me follow that up with a final question for you, before we bring back the panel.
Who is responsible for rolling back useful techniques that have been used in guerrilla war situations, in Cold War situations, that are no longer being used? Does that go all the way up to the secretary of defense, who, as you know—I guess they have had an ACLU lawsuit Mike was telling us about, and he has been under severe criticism as to how high up the decisions went to permit things like Abu Ghraib.
Are they overreacting to that? And is the secretary of defense overreacting?
MAC DONALD: He is overreacting, but it‘s quite understandable, because the media is buying the ACLU lines hook and sinker that are claiming that stress interrogation, such as keeping somebody up 20 hours, constitutes torture.
And the Abu Ghraib scandal was very bad. The press that came out of that was very bad. It‘s understandable. It would have been nice if Rumsfeld showed more spin and actually explained to the public what the actual interrogation rules were that had been developed. Right now, the advocates are totally controlling the discourse and we‘re not getting information.
BUCHANAN: All right, Heather, Heather...
MAC DONALD: The Marines are saying the Iraqis are not talking. They know the rules. They know how restrained we are. They know our constraints. They are playing us.
BUCHANAN: All right, hold on, Heather, because I want to go to Mike.
We‘re going to bring back our panel now, Jack Burkman, Mike Rectenwald, and Cheri Jacobus.
Now, Mike, I want to ask you, you mentioned the ACLU allegations. What particular allegations are there in that ACLU charge that—for which the Pentagon is allegedly responsible which constitute torture, for which the Pentagon again is not only allegedly responsible; they say the Pentagon ordered it?
RECTENWALD: Well, first of all, the ACLU, Pat, is not making up these documents and the documents aren‘t strictly based on ACLU investigations.
This is FBI interrogators, FBI witnesses who showed—who wrote numerous memos showing a tremendous amount of concern about the techniques employed. And there are a tremendous amount of interviews showing that people that were employing these techniques believed these were—these orders were coming from the very top.
Let me just say, the kind of things that have been discussed already in this report, we have prisoners being chained to the floor for 24 hours, wrapped in an Israeli flag and defecating on themselves. Now, if that isn‘t torture, I don‘t know what is.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: All right, hold on, Mike. I want to ask Heather this.
Heather, are you aware of this, these charges? And what Mike describes is exactly what I read about. Would you say that that constitutes legitimate or illegitimate conduct on the part of interrogators?
MAC DONALD: Well, I would want to know the circumstances for why somebody was chained for 24 hours. I think this probably happens in maximum lockup prisons all the time in the United States.
If there was—if this some sort of retaliation, if it was a deliberate attempt at cruel behavior, that is not acceptable. Without more, we can‘t say. Wrapping somebody in the Israeli flag, if we‘re talking about possibly here a terrorist that is planning to fly another plane into a building, that to me—we‘re not talking about legitimate soldiers here who play by the rules, Pat.
We‘re talking about terrorists who violent every civilized norm of warfare.
BUCHANAN: All right.
MAC DONALD: I do not consider wrapping somebody in an Israeli flag torture. It is psychologically...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: OK. Hold it.
We‘re going to move to a new subject now. And I want to bring it up because Al Neuharth, who is the founder of the largest newspaper in America, “USA Today,” has said today that he believes the United States should go to an immediate withdraw from Iraq.
Here is the quote: “Support our troops is a wonderful, patriotic slogan, but the best way to support our troops thrust there where they are by unwise commanders in ill-advised adventures like Vietnam and Iraq is to bring them home sooner rather than later. That should be our New Year‘s resolution.”
Mike—excuse me—Jack Burkman, what is your thought on what Neuharth is saying and do you think that‘s the beginning of a trend on the left and among liberals?
BURKMAN: I hope not, Pat. I shouldn‘t even dignify such idiocy with commentary.
But I will tell you, first of all, American prestige all over the world hinges on this. You could never solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. You could never solve the Arab-Palestinian conflict. The whole chance for peace and hope in the Mideast and in Afghanistan hinges on what we do in Iraq. We have bet the ranch. And it is something we must do, we have to do.
But the comparisons, all of these foolish comparisons to Vietnam. There were 58,000 dead in Vietnam. While every life is—loss of any life is tragic, we have had only about 1,100 dead. That‘s 58-1. There‘s no legitimate comparison to Vietnam.
The other thing is, Vietnam was a situation where we, for international constraints, could not go north. We don‘t have those constraints now. We can move freely about the country. And, as you saw in Fallujah, we‘re doing that.
BUCHANAN: Right.
BURKMAN: We‘re winning. It‘s all a question of perspective.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Hold it.
BURKMAN: Yes.
BUCHANAN: All right, let me bring Cheri in.
Cheri, go ahead.
JACOBUS: Yes. I think Jack is absolutely right.
And any time people try and bring up the Vietnam War and try and pull at the heartstrings and pull the sentimentality and the negative emotions from that war into one to make comparisons, I think we should look at that with a jaundiced eye. I think I‘m being played when they start talking like that.
It‘s my understanding, too, Pat, that after this appeared in “USA Today,” they got a deluge of e-mails overwhelmingly opposing what he said. So even their own readers seem to have a problem with that point of view, although he‘s entitled to his point of view.
BUCHANAN: All right, Mike Rectenwald, why, in your judgment, has no really prominent Democratic demanded—I mean, a leader, even Howard Dean has not said, bring the boys home now. Why have they not done that, if that is the sentiment of the party and of the left and of liberals?
RECTENWALD: Well, Pat, I have got to tell you, I think it‘s political professionalism and protecting their own political hide. And I think it‘s a grave mistake.
I think it‘s purely based on their own professional concerns about their electability, etcetera, etcetera. But the clear moral and ethical and intelligent choice is exactly what the editor of “USA”—or the publisher “USA Today” advocated.
BUCHANAN: Let Jack Burkman respond to that.
BURKMAN: I agree with Mike in part.
I‘ll tell you, the reason, Pat, is, the Democratic Party has no soul. As John Kerry was, they are afraid to stand up and say what they believe in. John Kerry was as anti-war as they come. My personal opinion, given that the election came down to 120,000 votes, if he had said I‘m anti-war and now I‘m moving on to domestic issues, he probably would have been president. But because he didn‘t have the guts to stand up and say what he believed in, the Democratic Party has lost its soul. It‘s lost its way. And it‘s afraid to stand up.
BUCHANAN: I don‘t think, Cheri, that he would have won. If Neuharth is getting a spate of e-mails, denunciations, I think, if Kerry had gone left, if he had gone left behind beyond Dean and say, get out now, I think he would have lost by 20 points.
(CROSSTALK)
JACOBUS: I think he would have. I also think that he would have done better, though, if he had been more authentic in his responses, instead of appearing to put his finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing, and, again, to save their own careers, which was the point that Mike was making, although I do wonder if Mike would be making that same point if these politicians agreed with him.
So, yes, you can‘t really have it both ways. But they all are watching out for their own careers. Ultimately, it is going to be the decision, obviously, of the president and the Congress and Rumsfeld and others and whether the polls are with them or not. And I think that‘s what the American people respect and that‘s why they support them.
BUCHANAN: All right, Mike, quick last word.
RECTENWALD: Electability is an issue. And I do think the Democratic Party is straddling a bridge between the Democratic Leadership Council and the rest of the party. And I think it‘s a mistake. The party clearly is anti-war.
BUCHANAN: OK, Jack, Mike, Cheri, thanks for joining us tonight.
Up next, a violent movie about Christ‘s death scripted in Aramaic?
Critics thought Mel Gibson‘s “The Passion of the Christ” would bomb.
Instead, it became the ninth highest grossing film of all time.
How the big media got it all wrong in 2004 right after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: The top stories the mainstream media got wrong or missed altogether in 2004, that‘s when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
But, first, the latest headlines from the MSNBC News Desk.
(NEWS BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
The elite media missed some of the top stories of 2004. First, it was Mel Gibson‘s “Passion of the Christ.” Though many reviews were scathing and hateful and there were predictions of a box office disaster, “The Passion” smashed records and brought in some $370 million in the U.S. alone.
Then came the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, first ignored, then attacked. In the end, they, not billionaire George Soros, were the most decisive outsiders in the election of 2004.
And what about the economy? The Dow Jones has just hit its 3.5-year highs, yet we still hear about how lousy the Bush economy is.
Joining me now, Lawrence Kudlow of CNBC‘s “Kudlow & Cramer,” media critic Bob Kohn, whose news blog can found at BobKohn.com, and radio talk show host Lizz Brown.
Lizz, let me start off with you.
“The Passion of the Christ” was one of the—for me, one of the most inexplicable stories of entire year, for this reason. I heard all these savage attacks on it and I saw the reviews and Frank Rich and the others and the ADL trying to get it censored, in a way, and the attacks on it as anti-Semitic and all the rest. And it was going to bomb.
I went to see it and came out with a totally different impression. It was moving. It was profound. It was dramatic and it was sobering. And it grossed $370 million. How can one part of the country, the media there, the media elite and Hollywood be so far out of touch with the rest of America?
LIZZ BROWN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I don‘t think it‘s unusual for any
· Hollywood criticizes movies all the time. It‘s not unusual for certain people to like a movie and other people not to like it.
I think that it‘s just a movie. And I think it‘s a legitimate question to raise about the violence in a movie. That‘s something that you talk about.
BUCHANAN: Right.
BROWN: That‘s something that conservatives talk about all the time, and particularly violence attached to a topic like this. That is a legitimate story. It‘s a legitimate observation. And it‘s a legitimate criticism.
BUCHANAN: All right.
BROWN: And so I don‘t think that anything that they did was any different than what is done with other movies.
BUCHANAN: All right. All right. Let me say this. I think the argument about the extensive scourging of Christ and how long it went on and whether it should have and whether that was essential to the film is legitimate for discussion. It certainly is.
BROWN: Absolutely.
BUCHANAN: But, Larry Kudlow, that doesn‘t explain the hatred that this film excited among so many and some of them not necessarily on the left. You had neoconservative columnists attacking it as awful, as anti-Semitic. What is your reasoning on what happened here?
LAWRENCE KUDLOW, CO-HOST, “KUDLOW & CRAMER”: Well, I think it‘s a complicated story, but at the bottom of this story, as we have discussed, Pat, I think the country really thirsts for religious and more values and that kind of leadership.
The big media, the mainstream media treated “The Passion” and Mel Gibson as another religious nut, an extremist, just the way they treat evangelicals and other religious believers and traditional Catholics before and during this election. They completely missed the boat. They do not understand what is going on in the country.
Jesus Christ is a great leader, as well as a religionist. He was a true hero with a phenomenal message. And I think people really yearn for that. And I think the big media completely, utterly missed it.
BUCHANAN: Well, Bob Kohn, the media and Hollywood did, they argued that it was not Christ‘s message so much, the Sermon on the Mount, but the message of how he died and the horrible way in which he was crucified. And they say, you didn‘t get the message of love out of that. You got just the message of the horrible abuse of him by the Romans and the Jewish establishment 2,000 years ago.
What is your take on why people reacted so totally differently?
BOB KOHN, AUTHOR, “JOURNALISTIC FRAUD”: Let‘s step back to your original question about what explains the mainstream media‘s ignoring the story, because I think, looking back at 2004, the mainstream media is in shell shock.
They have had a monopoly over the past 30 years over the marketplace of ideas. And then, finally now, with talk radio and then cable news and now the Internet with bloggers, they are getting some real competition. So they can‘t bury stories like they used to, like burying the story about this movie or burying the swift boat ad story.
And when they try to manufacture a story, they end up with Rather-gate. So I think the mainstream media has got to do some real serious thinking in 2005 as to what their future is going to be.
BUCHANAN: We‘re going to talk about Rather-gate in a minute, because that is inexplicable to me as well.
But “The New York Times” asked Newmarket Films president Bob Berney about “The Passion of the Christ.” And here‘s what Berney said. He said:
“With ‘The Passion,‘ people were doubtful. The concern was that the movie might turn out to have a limited appeal and no one would go. The most successful screen for ‘Passion‘ was at the Empire in Manhattan,” capital of blue state America. “It did better at the Empire than anywhere else in the country, though it was widely believed that urban audiences, especially in New York City, wouldn‘t respond to the film.”
Lizz Brown, even in blue state America, right this the capital, the citadel of blue state America, it was a sensation.
BROWN: Well, Michael Moore‘s movie was a sensation in red state America as well. Any time that the media creates a...
BUCHANAN: Touche.
(LAUGHTER)
BROWN: This is a moviemaker‘s dream, when you have the media creating a buzz about your movie. That happens with all movies where there is this much attention by the media.
If you go to Google and you do a search on “The Passion of the Christ,” there are two million places to find out information about this, whereas, when you go to the swift boat vets, you have about 200,000. And when you go to Michael Moore‘s move, you have about 300,000. So, of course, this is something that people are going to see because the media pushed people into going to see this. That‘s what happens with all movies with this kind of attention.
BUCHANAN: OK, we‘re going to talk about the swift boat vets and Rather-gate when we come back.
More with our panel when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Major Tim Hanson (ph), here with the 4th Civil Affairs Group at Al Asad, Iraq.
I want to wish a safe and happy holiday season to Robin (ph), Gage (ph) and Alexi (ph) back home in Miller, Nebraska. I love you and I‘ll be home soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Welcome back. I‘m here with my panel, Lawrence Kudlow, Bob Kohn and Lizz Brown.
Lawrence, I want you to listen to this from Alison Mitchell, who is a deputy national editor of “The New York Times.” She was asked about the swift boat vet charges. And she said this—quote—“I‘m not sure that, in an era of no cable television, we would even have looked into it.”
What‘s going on?
(LAUGHTER)
BUCHANAN: I mean, I read that book. It is the most dramatic and devastating assault on the centerpiece of Kerry‘s campaign, his Vietnam record, I have ever seen. It is credible, powerful, backed up by dozens of affidavits sworn to by POWs and admirals and heroes of Vietnam. What is going on?
KUDLOW: You know, I think there is no question that the major media misunderstood this book and downplayed it.
Look, they hung on every word of Mr. Kerry‘s during the Democratic Convention. They bought into his story. What the swift boat veterans did was blow a huge hole in that very story. And, as you say, it was backed up by fact after fact and footnote after footnote. Now, did cable talk shows help? Yes, of course they did. So did the Internet. This is an important part, but I think...
BUCHANAN: I think we have just lost Larry Kudlow there.
Do we have Bob Kohn?
KOHN: Yes, I‘m here, Pat.
BUCHANAN: All right, Bob, can you follow up on that, on the swift boat ads?
KOHN: Sure.
I think “The New York Times” had a clear agenda. It wasn‘t just on their editorial page, but they were trying to elect John Kerry on their news pages. And they did it by burying stores such as the swift boat story and also putting in these ridiculous stories, the headline earlier this year that there were no—that the 9/11 Commission declared that there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda? I mean, that was clearly false. What they said was, there was no ties between 9/11 and Iraq. So...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Let me go to Lizz Brown on—Lizz, I want to ask you this.
Now, we have been—the Nixonites, as I‘m one of them in the Nixon White House. We have been sort of antagonists and adversaries of Dan Rather and CBS News for years. But I, for the life of me, do not understand how Dan Rather, with 40 years in the news business, could have stuck by the story of—quote—“an unimpeachable source,” who was this erratic Bush stalker who was passing out on a couch while he was giving interviews. And they bet the reputation of CBS News on that, of Rather‘s historic reputation, and stuck by the story for two weeks, when, within 24 hours, everybody knew the memos were forgeries.
How to you explain that?
BROWN: Well, I think that the bigger and the better story that we should be questioning about Dan Rather is the fact that, when we went into Iraq, when we invaded Iraq, Dan Rather said that: I support my country. I support my president. And if my president says it, I‘m going to believe my president.
Now, that‘s the discussion we should be having about a reporter saying something like that, when he is supposed to be reporting, as opposed to being biased. So, I don‘t understand how anybody should question where Dan Rather lies. It already came out of his mouth. He was on the side of George Bush.
(CROSSTALK)
KUDLOW: Pat, let me finish.
BUCHANAN: Yes, Larry, go ahead.
KUDLOW: I‘m sorry. We had sort of a disconnect before.
I just want to complete the thought on this issue about the swift boat veterans. Again, these major city newsrooms are populated with people who are from the elite schools. And they bought into Kerry‘s argument that he suddenly was going to emerge as this pro-war guy to defend America, when, in fact, all his formative years and his voting record was anti-war. People saw that with great clarity around the country.
With respect to Dan Rather, you have this producer, this senior producer, working for him who was stalking George Bush for five years, like Captain Ahab going after the great, white whale.
BUCHANAN: Going after that poor whale.
(LAUGHTER)
KUDLOW: And, for some reason—this is what I have never understood.
BUCHANAN: Right.
KUDLOW: Rather is a veteran journalist, OK? He‘s a veteran.
BUCHANAN: Yes.
KUDLOW: I‘m not going to accuse him of not liking his country or not being a patriot.
What I have never understood is how he bought this Mapes story lock, stock and barrel, without any investigation.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Larry, let me follow up. I can see how—first, I would never question Rather‘s patriotism. I think he‘s a tremendous—he is an emotional patriot. I have seen him on a number of times after 9/11, somebody who breaks out in tears on one of those late-night shows about what happened to those people. He has got a real sentiment for his country. He is a hard-nosed journalist.
But, for the life of me, Larry, I cannot understand why you stick by it for two weeks when you have been had, you know?
KUDLOW: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: You‘ve been completely had.
KUDLOW: See, that‘s exactly right.
Anybody who has ever worked in a newsroom, anybody who has ever anchored a television show knows, when you get copy from the producers, you have got to give it a look and a scrub and make sure it passes the smell test.
Look, the Power Line Web site, John Hinderaker and so forth, they blew this story open in, what, 24 or 48 hours?
KOHN: Yes.
KUDLOW: And this woman was a senior producer for all these years and supposedly a credible one. This is a matter of enormously bad judgment by Mr. Rather.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: All right, Bob Kohn.
KOHN: Yes, Pat, you can‘t blame Dan Rather for the original exposure of the forged documents.
BUCHANAN: Right.
KOHN: But it‘s the cover-up. It was so Clintonesque. It‘s almost like he said, I did not have sex with that woman. He went on the air...
BUCHANAN: Mistakes were made.
(LAUGHTER)
KOHN: Yes. He said—he went on the air and actually said that night that there was no internal investigation going on.
BUCHANAN: Right.
KOHN: And then he blamed partisan political operatives for exposing him. I mean...
BUCHANAN: When that one guy—say these guys sitting around in their computers at midnight in their pajamas?
(LAUGHTER)
KUDLOW: Yes. They are just killing him. They are just killing the story. All these Web site bloggers were just blowing this story to holes. And here is Rather sitting on top of a news kingdom unable to respond to it.
BUCHANAN: Hanging in there.
KUDLOW: It was absolutely incredible to me.
KOHN: The mainstream media can‘t get away with their tricks anymore.
They just can‘t get away with it.
BUCHANAN: Well, that was just inexplicable. As I say, I can see Rather—I can see making a mistake and waking up. You say, uh-oh, we have been had. Get out from under this thing.
KUDLOW: Right. Right. Right.
BUCHANAN: Dump that guy over the side, whoever did this to us. Let‘s get over with. But, no, they hung right in there for two weeks.
Anyhow, we haven‘t got the report yet on Rather-gate, but we will.
Listen, thanks, all of you. But hold it. Wait a minute.
We‘re going to get final thoughts from the panel in just a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Watch out, drug companies. After bashing General Motors, gun manufacturers and George W. Bush, Michael Moore has set his sites on big PhRMA.
We‘ll talk about Michael Moore‘s newest target Monday on SCARBOROUGH
COUNTRY.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BUCHANAN: Final thoughts.
Lizz Brown, you go first.
BROWN: I guess I would start with the fact that I find it amusing to hear you all talk about how the media beat up on or didn‘t beat up on Dan Rather, the media is left-wing.
The fact of the matter is, is that all you have to do is look at the media‘s obsession with Ronald Reagan‘s funeral, the media‘s obsession with reporting on....
BUCHANAN: He was a fairly important figure.
BROWN: Well, it was an obsession. This is—there were too many days dedicated to this individual.
(LAUGHTER)
BUCHANAN: All right, Bob Kohn, he was an important...
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Wait a minute. If this was—if this was a left-wing media, we wouldn‘t have had that kind of obsession.
KOHN: Look, the mainstream media...
BUCHANAN: All right, Bob Kohn, go ahead.
KOHN: Yes.
The mainstream media is completely confused right now and befuddled. And Bill Moyers is a perfect example, who said—this is taxpayer-funded Bill Moyers, who said last week that there‘s been a right-wing takeover of the media. He just doesn‘t understand that there‘s now competition in the marketplace for ideas. And I think that is going to bode very, very well for journalism. Now that we have some competition, the truth is going to be fleshed out in this new media world.
BUCHANAN: You know, Larry, Bob makes a very much good point.
I had Marvin Kalb on and we had a good discussion here of the campaign and things like that. And he said that, well—we talked about Rather. But he said—he mentioned that the Rather-gate thing, when the story exploded, Rather resigned, it was a huge headline in “The Washington Times.” I said, well, “The Washington Times”‘ readers are very interested in that stuff. And he said, that‘s a conservative newspaper. I said, I will agree with that, and “The Post” is a liberal newspaper.
He said, no. He wouldn‘t agree with it. I think the liberals believe that they are neutral, objective and centrist.
KUDLOW: I think you are right.
I happen to think Marv Kalb is a good man. But, look, too many people in the mainstream media have a predilection to distrust George Bush, to hate the American economy, to dislike religious people, and so forth and so on.
BUCHANAN: OK.
KUDLOW: Thank goodness for the competition of the Internet and cable.
That‘s the key.
BUCHANAN: OK.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Larry, Bob, Lizz, thank you all for being here tonight.
And to all of you out there in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, merry Christmas.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
END
Copy: Content and programming copyright 2004 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2004 FDCH e-Media, Inc. (f/k/a/ Federal Document Clearing House Inc., eMediaMillWorks, 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 FDCH e-Media, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.