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

'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' for Oct. 11th

Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Buck Revell, Shelley Hearne, Antoinette Giancana, Ibrahim Hooper

TUCKER CARLSON, HOST:  Well, thank you, Monica Crowley.  And thanks to you at home for sticking with THE SITUATION.  We appreciate it.

Tonight‘s show, we‘ll talk to the daughter of former mob boss Sam Giancana who says her dad killed JFK.  We‘ll also tell you about a brewing controversy at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.  And we‘ll discuss mounting fears over a possibly devastating bird flu pandemic. 

We start tonight in New York City.  Sources there are telling NBC News that it is still early to call last week‘s terror threat, which claimed al Qaeda operatives were planning to attack the city‘s subways, to call that a hoax. 

Three federal officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that, after initially questioning their informant and giving him a lie detector test, U.S. military handlers released him.  Authorities haven‘t found the informant to question him further.

But two of the sources say the man may have made up the story for money.  Again, he‘s lost; no one knows where he is. 

New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly stands by his city‘s response, saying, quote, “We did precisely the right thing.” 

Well, to discuss how this informant could possibly have duped authorities and then slipped their grasp, we welcome former FBI counterintelligence chief, Buck Revell, joins us now live from Dallas.  

Mr. Revell, thanks for coming on.


CARLSON:  What do you—do you think this is a hoax?

REVELL:  Well, it‘s very hard to tell.  I don‘t understand why they would release him.  I mean, obviously, the person has that kind of critical information, you‘d want to keep them under your control.

CARLSON:  You‘d think so.

REVELL:  You‘d be able to vet the information—yes, I certainly wood.  I do know that he apparently named three people in Iraq that were supposed to be participants, and they have not proved out.  So his story looks to be somewhat in doubt.

He was a DIA source.  So apparently, he has given information in the past that has proved to be reliable.

So it‘s a quandary at this point.

CARLSON:  How reliable—this is a general question.  Maybe there‘s no answer.  But as far as you know, how reliable is the intelligence we‘re picking up in Iraq?

REVELL:  Well, it depends on how it‘s picked up.  Obviously, human intelligence has to be very carefully vetted because people have different motivations for giving information.  Sometimes they just do it for money. 

Sometimes to put themselves in an improved situation, sometimes out of

revenge.  They will give false information about their adversaries, their -

people that they are trying to place.

So there are many different factors in human intelligence.  What you try and do is match the human intelligence with technical intelligence, with all types of information collected from nonbiased sources that you can corroborate what you‘re getting from human sources. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Now, they gave this guy a polygraph exam, apparently, and he failed, apparently.  Given that, would you trust him?

REVELL:  Well, polygraph is not a lie detector.  It‘s simply a detector of stress, and a good operator can oftentimes tell whether or not an individual is essentially trying to evade the questions or to give false answers, but it‘s not scientifically 100 percent accurate.  It certainly would give you reason to question whether or not the information that you are receiving is valid. 

CARLSON:  Now you said a minute ago, you were surprised that he somehow got away from authorities, wondered off, is now lost.  Is that a violation of policy?  I mean, that does seem Revell odd.  But is that normal?

REVELL:  Well, if they were trying to operate him in a particular area, in other words, he was a member of one of the groups or an element associated with the groups and they were trying to keep him engaged in collecting intelligence.  Then that would be justifiable. 

But if it‘s sort of a one up, one off situation and they really needed, because of the importance of this information, they needed to keep track of him.  That‘s for certain.

CARLSON:  Yes.  He went out for a pack of cigarettes and never came back.  Given all we know or don‘t know about this source and the reliability of his source of information, do you think it was wise for New York City authorities and for the federal government, for that matter, to tell the public about this?

REVELL:   Well, Tucker, we live in a situation since 9/11 there is really no choice.  Can you imagine if they had this information and didn‘t pass it to the public, they would be crucified.  We haven‘t reached a level of sophistication at the national level to be able to take chances now. 

So you‘re going to see a lot more of this.  Information that is not fully vetted, that hasn‘t proven up is going to be made available to local authorities, and they are going to make it available to the public, because they can‘t afford not to. 

CARLSON:  It just seems to leave the rest of us is so open, so vulnerable to fear and hysteria. 

REVELL:  Well, also, you get into the cry wolf syndrome.  If you keep hearing that over and over again, and you know, do you react when there‘s really a threat?  That‘s a very significant dilemma. 

But all you have to do is look at the second guessing that goes on in Washington every time anything comes up, the blame game, and you know that no public official today is going to withhold anything if there‘s any chance that it‘s accurate.  And that‘s one of the dilemmas that that the intelligence agencies know it‘s going to go public.  And if they‘re trying to protect sources and methods in developing information, it‘s very difficult to do. 

CARLSON:  All right.  Dr. Buck Revell, a man who knows a lot about intelligence, thanks. 

REVELL:  You‘re very welcome.

CARLSON:  It looks like President Bush has officially added his wife to the Harriet Miers defense team.  The first lady today defended the embattled Supreme Court nominee, saying Miers is, quote, “a role model for young women around the country.” 

Mrs. Bush, while speaking alongside with her husband to “Today Show” co-host Matt Lauer, also seemed to make an outrageous claim about Miers‘ political opponents. 


MATT LAUER, CO-HOST, NBC‘s “THE TODAY SHOW”:  Some are suggesting there‘s a little possible sexism in the criticism of Judge Miers.  How do you feel about that?

LAURA BUSH, FIRST LADY:  I think that‘s possible.  I think she is so accomplished.  And I think people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance. 


CARLSON:  Well, to discuss further all things Harriet Miers, we welcome back from the Air America Radio, Rachel Maddow. 


CARLSON:  Rachel, it‘s possible sexism is behind the attacks on Harriet Miers.  This really steams me, as an opponent of Harriet Miers, or at least someone who‘s deeply skeptical about it. 

MADDOW:  As an opponent of sexism I would guess, right?

CARLSON:  I guess.  I don‘t know.  I mean, I love women.  I think I like women a lot more than most women like women.  I mean, I‘m a fan of women.  Period.  It‘s true; I do feel that way. 

However, it‘s such an unfair thing to say.  A, she wouldn‘t have been even considered if she weren‘t a woman.  So in fact, she‘s the opposite of a victim of sexism.  She‘s a beneficiary of the crudest kind of affirmative action.

But more to the point, it is completely ignoring a legitimate argument or question people have about Harriet Miers.  It‘s unfair.  It‘s name calling.

MADDOW:  I think—I mean, you and I are both opposed to Harriet Miers.  And I‘m not going to start defending her because the right is going after her.

I think that her being a woman is legitimately a point in her favor.  I mean, I‘ve talked about this with you before.  I think the diversity on the court benefits the United States, benefits the court and makes for bigger legal positions.  I have no problem with that. 

The problem here is that you have to start calling names when you talk about defending Harriet Miers, because there‘s no other way to really defend this nomination.  I mean, the fact that she has no experience in constitutional law and no qualifications for the job, basically, other than loving George Bush and being a lawyer, means that they‘ve got to come up to some way to characterize what it means... 

CARLSON:  But to use this argument, this argument which is so familiar, because we hear it from the left and it‘s one of the reasons I consider the left so repugnant, is they‘re always name calling: “You‘re a racist, classist, sexist, homophobe, whatever.”  They‘re always calling your names rather than engaging in your argument. 

And this is exactly what the Bush administration and its lackeys are doing now.  And I just wish conservatives would wake up and say, “Hold on, White House, stop doing this.” 

MADDOW:  Name calling, I don‘t think is a left-right thing.  I think there‘s name calling on both sides.  And that‘s what you do when you don‘t have an argument.

CARLSON:  But sexism, racism, homophobia, branding your enemies, your opponents, as people not worth listening to, which is essentially what name calling does, is a tactic of the left.  I mean, how many times have you heard right wingers accuse someone of sexism?  Not very often.

MADDOW:  Well, not many right wingers are going to accuse people of hating America or of being soft on crime or whatever the name calling—it‘s just a different name from either side.  The point is that you‘re not getting to the argument.

The thing that steams me about the debate about the debate over Miers, and again, you and I are both opposed to her nomination.  But what‘s making me nuts is to hear Republicans discover this whole new set of principles around judicial nominations now. 

All of a sudden Republicans are talking about cronyism.  They voted for Julie Myers, Richard Myers‘s niece, who has no experience in immigration or customs, to be the new head of immigrations and customs on Friday in a party line vote.  And then on Monday, they‘re talking about the cronyism. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not going to defend—I‘m not going to defend that appointment because I was opposed to that, too.  But I was appalled by that. 

MADDOW:  If you are against cronyism, you are against cronyism. 

CARLSON:  I think it‘s fine under certain circumstances.  I understand it‘s a natural impulse to want to appoint your friends, but your friends better be pretty darn impressive. 

MADDOW:  They‘d better be.

CARLSON:  If you‘re appointed them to the Supreme Court.

MADDOW:  As opposed to Michael Brown, Joe Allbaugh, David Safavian, Julie Myers, Harriet...

CARLSON:  Hold on.  I think Joe Allbaugh is an impressive guy.  I think Joe Allbaugh probably did a pretty good job at FEMA.  I think Joe Allbaugh is smart, capable.  I would have appointed him to FEMA.

MADDOW:  What was his qualifications before he got appointed, though? 

He had been an advance man. 

CARLSON:  Well, that‘s actually—having covered a lot of campaigns and written stories on advancement, I can tell you, you know, that‘s a great place to start.  Your average advance man knows more about logistics and how to get from A to B and get supplies to people who need them than almost anybody in the world. 

But look, it seems gratuitous at this point.  We can‘t help it.  We‘ve got to throw up on the screen.  These papers were released today.

MADDOW:  So embarrassing.

CARLSON:  Right.  Letters from Harriet Miers to then governor Bush of Texas.  “You are the best governor ever, deserving of great respect.  Keep up the great work.  Texas is blessed.”

MADDOW:  You know what?  There was actually an exclamation point after respect.

CARLSON:  I think there was “S.W.A.K.” on the back.

MADDOW:  Hearts.

CARLSON:  “Hopefully, Jenna and Barbara recognize that their parents are, quote, ‘cool‘”—dash—“as do the rest of us.”  And I‘m not even sure that‘s grammatically correct.  We argued about it all day long.

But look, the point is, that this is part of, I believe, a pattern of behavior on the part of the president, single women, older, totally devoted to him.  I‘m not implying anything amorous at all, at all, anything improper, but I do think there is this kind of Condoleezza Rice syndrome that‘s going on here.  And I‘m not sure it‘s an appropriate way to pick someone for a job like this. 

MADDOW:  I don‘t know that—maybe he—maybe he‘s more susceptible to flattery from women than he is from men.  But he does...

CARLSON:  Aren‘t we all?

MADDOW:  Yes.  Actually, on the set right now we all are.  But I mean, either way, being susceptible to flattery and appointing in appropriate people, people who are not appropriately trained for the job, it doesn‘t really matter if she‘s a woman or a man.  I mean, I think the real damaging problem thing is going to be when the mix tapes she made him start to come up. 

CARLSON:  I think it does matter whether she‘s a woman or a man. And again, she wouldn‘t have had this job if she were a man.  And this is—you know, I argue against affirmative action all the time.  This is the peril of affirmative action right here. 

But look, this—you think that‘s offensive?  How about the response from Pakistan to America‘s aid package we‘re putting forward, sending to Pakistan in the wake of this horrible earthquake? 

You‘re seeing politicians, mostly from the Islamic parties in Pakistan, attack the United States as ungenerous, as mean.  You‘re seeing the same kind of criticism in Europe.  U.S. in the end is giving a lot more money than virtually anyone else, apart from Kuwait, to Pakistan.  I have the list right here, a lot more than Great Britain.  Plus, we‘re giving helicopters.  Plus, we prop up that country and its government full time.  That‘s what we do.


CARLSON:  And we do this for people who hate us. 

MADDOW:  We do it for people who hate us because we need Musharraf because we didn‘t have any other rallies in the region and we wanted to invade Afghanistan. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  Also because—no, come on, that‘s silly.  They have nuclear weapons.  The place...

MADDOW:  They had nuclear weapons before we started courting Musharraf in the war on terror. 

CARLSON:  The alternative to Musharraf, for all his many faults, is a collection of lunatics so extreme, I mean so extreme it boggles the mind.  I‘ve interviewed a lot of them.  It‘s hard to imagine these people running anything, a local mosque, much less a country armed with nuclear weapons.  We need that guy. 

MADDOW:  We do need that guy, but the war on terror has created this situation where we have all sorts of very inappropriate allies around the globe, people who we, you know, in a generation will be watching an invasion of their country to depose them because they‘re such a bad guy.  We have these inconvenient alliances.  Musharraf is one of them.

But in responding to the quake, our initial over was a half million dollars.  It‘s now gone up to $50 million.  And that‘s a good amount of money.  I actually hope it‘s more.  I mean, right now, we‘re still offering half of what Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are offering. 

And the fact is, you know, we spend $220 million a day on the war in Iraq.  And most of the Muslim world thinks we‘re doing that because we hate Muslims.  So the opportunity to help a Muslim country in a humanitarian way, is morally the right thing to do.  It‘s also politically the right thing to do. 

CARLSON:  I‘m not sure it‘s morally the right thing to do.  I don‘t think we have a moral obligation to help anybody outside of our own borders.  We do it because we‘re nice. 

MADDOW:  We do it because we‘re nice.  I think we do have a moral obligation to help when there are 30,000 people dead and people unable to be rescued because they don‘t have enough... 

CARLSON:  I don‘t know.  Where‘s Canada in this?  Canada, for all its moral questioning.  Why don‘t they kick in $100 million?

MADDOW:  Let the—let the Canadians fight that out, and let them send $100 million.  We as Americans should support our government. 

CARLSON:  Yes.  OK.  Well, I don‘t think you should criticize this country unless you personally, your whatever, dippy country, has sent $100 million.  And a lot of these people don‘t meet that criteria.

Rachel Maddow.  Thank you.

MADDOW:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Still to come—still to come, rather, we saw what the government did when two hurricanes hit the coast.  Now health officials trying to jump start the country‘s defenses in the event of a bird flu epidemic.  We talk to one concerned doctor next.

Plus, the Mafia princess says her father, mob boss Sam Giancana, ordered the assassination of JFK.  Her story when THE SITUATION returns.



GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:  We are working to identify the possible outbreak of avian flu and contain it to where the outbreak takes place.  I said there may be a catastrophic event such that the federal government has got the—only the federal government has got the capacity to move in quickly with a lot of resources. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  That was President Bush speaking with Matt Lauer on “The Today Show” this morning.  My next guest says if the bird flu were to hit the U.S., it would be like having a Category 5 viral hurricane smash into every single state at the same time. 

Dr. Shelley Hearne is the executive director of Trust for America‘s Health, and a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins University.  The organization will be briefing the Senate on how to prepare for a flu pandemic tomorrow.  She joins us now from Washington, D.C.

Thanks a lot, Dr. Hearne.


Thanks, Tucker.

CARLSON:  Why isn‘t there a huge stockpile of medicine, of antidote to this flu, because we know it‘s coming?  We think it is.

HEARNE:  Well, we are very worried about it possibly hitting the shores here and it‘s why it has to be one of the top priorities.  Get our vaccines fixed.  Let‘s start stockpiling key drugs.  And let‘s start making sure we have the plans in place so that we can do a job, do it right if it should hit. 

CARLSON:  So if it does hit, if all of a sudden there‘s an outbreak of this stuff at, you know, I don‘t know, Dallas-Fort Worth Airport and then you can imagine the scenario.  What should individual Americans do?  Should we stay home, not go to work.  I mean, what can you do to protect yourself from something like this?

HEARNE:  Well, hopefully, it‘s not going to be an unexpected hit here.  But we‘re watching right now this avian flu develop in Asia.  That‘s probably the most important thing, is that we really have a good global surveillance to make sure that we can stop it in its tracks before it even gets here. 

If it does arrive, well, that‘s why we have to have the plans in place.  It‘s why we have to have the stockpiles.  It‘s a good thing we‘re all talking about it, because this country needs to be better prepared. 

CARLSON:  The president mentioned the other day the possibility of quarantining cities.  I‘m not exactly sure what that means.  Blocking them with tanks?  What does that mean, and is it a good idea?

HEARNE:  Well, that‘s one of your absolute worst case scenarios, that if we had a massive infection take place, the idea would be to try to contain that virus from spreading. 

The reality is that quarantines, isolation is going to be pretty tough to do with a bug as smart and infectious as this one.  So what we really need to do again is to have—while we need to talk about quarantines, it‘s really better that we put our time and energy in really getting the vaccine capacity of these other key preparedness measures.  Start doing that now. 

CARLSON:  So I mean, I assume people in your business have been worried about a pandemic of this kind for awhile.  This is nothing new, I guess, for you.  So why are the rest of us hearing about it now?

HEARNE:  Well, we‘ve been ringing that bell for quite awhile.  It‘s kind of like with Hurricane Katrina.  That you saw it on the radar screen.  And people for years and years before that, had been warning about these levees. 

And the same thing is happening here with health officials.  We‘ve been watching, concerned about a pandemic.  We know it‘s a question not only of if but when.  And so the key issue is, just like these levees.  And the same thing‘s happening here with health officials.  We‘ve been watching or concerned about a pandemic.  We know it‘s a question, really, only of not if but when.

And so the key issue is, just like those levees, if you don‘t strengthen them, we‘re going to have a terrible disaster, and we could be doing better. 

CARLSON:  If this virus begins to spread directly from animals to people, to a lot of people, what‘s the worst case scenario for the United States?

HEARNE:  Well, there are a number of estimates out there.  My organization, Trust for America‘s Health, has estimated a little over 500,000 people, half a million could die.  But we have seen numbers ranging all the way up to 1.8 million.  The reality is, if it hits, it‘s going to be a very severe hit and it‘s something we need to take seriously. 

CARLSON:  That‘s terrifying.  Dr. Shelley Hearne, thanks.

HEARNE:  Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON:  When we come back, 73 was not too old for Ronald Reagan to be president of the United States but apparently, it‘s too old for anyone who wants to be a tour guide at his library.  An outrage.  We‘ll explore it next. 


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Welcome a man who embodies the old line, “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  Maybe not to the death, you know, but defend it.

Professional devil‘s advocate and our “Outsider,” from ESPN Radio and HBO Boxing, Max Kellerman.

MAX KELLERMAN, ESPN RADIO:  I will defend it until I‘m slightly uncomfortable.  Then I will concede.

CARLSON:  Then you‘re out of here.


CARLSON:  Good for you, Max.  They don‘t call you a fair weather friend.

Well, age certainly has its privileges.  Being a tour guide not among them.  At least not at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.  Elderly volunteer tour guides there claim they got the boot recently because they‘re too old.

Ironic, since Ronald Reagan, the nation‘s oldest president, was 77 when he left office in 1989.  This is ironic and it‘s also wrong.   And as Republicans, I assume they‘re not going to sue anybody for ageism.  I hope not.  I‘ll attack them if they do.  But the people who canned them, you know, if in fact that‘s what happened, ought to be embarrassed. 

KELLERMAN:  Well, I mean, unless age contributed to them being unable to perform their responsibilities. 

CARLSON:  Wait a minute.  They‘re not a lot of heavy lifting if you‘re a tour guide.  Come on.

KELLERMAN:  A tour guide, you‘ve got to walk all over the place, Tucker. 

CARLSON:  You‘re not operating a crane.  I mean, come on.

KELLERMAN:  I saw a quote where one of these elderly people mentioned that they think Reagan would not have liked it.  But you know, by the time Reagan left office his second term, he may not have been aware of what was going on. 

CARLSON:  I think he would be totally aware and annoyed. 

KELLERMAN:  Let‘s be honest.  Look, ageism is wrong.  I don‘t care if people do get litigious over it.  It‘s wrong.  Unless age prevents someone from doing the job.  If they‘re too old or too young to be able to do something...

CARLSON:  OK.  Tell me—tell me one function a tour guide performs that age would impair.

KELLERMAN:  I don‘t know.  Walking from one side of the enormous library to another at a pace that people can... 

CARLSON:  That‘s why you have those battery operated carts.  If it‘s a matter of, you know, moving your bar bells to the attic, I understand.  But in this case no.  OK.

Ohio‘s Supreme Court ruled yesterday that father does not know best in a case that pitted the grandparents of an 8-year-old girl against her own dad. 

The court ruled the grandparents must be allowed to visit Brittany Colyer, despite her dad‘s objections.  The girl lived with her grandparents for the first five years of her life.  When her father got custody three years ago, he sought to keep them away from his girl. 

The court upheld a state law granting non-parent visitation rights to children.

That‘s a little broad for me, I think, Max.  But the idea of allowing grandparents visitation rights if, in fact, the grandparents are raising the child, or have, very common scenario, particularly in poor parts of this country.  I think, you know, whoever steps up, whatever blood relative steps up and acts as the parent should get the rights. 

KELLERMAN:  I was very close to my grandparents, and I would hate to think that I wouldn‘t been able to see them, had my parents been divorced and one parent now. 

However, this isn‘t really about parents‘ rights, Tucker.  This is about father‘s rights.  Because this guy is appealing on the case in Washington state.  This is Ohio.  In Washington state, a father, I believe it was—same thing happened with the mother. 

The court decided that the mother—her rights to raise her child as she saw fit were infringed upon by some law that allowed grandparents visitation rights. 

And now people are saying the Supreme Court wouldn‘t hear this case.  The Supreme Court was there but the law was—got overturned.  The people are saying the Supreme Court wouldn‘t revisit it because the law in Ohio is different.  It‘s more specific than the law in Washington.  That‘s not really the reason. 

The reason is there‘s a father involved.  And when it comes to father‘s rights with their children, the law in all the courts, up and down in every state, favor the mother. 

CARLSON:  I totally—I completely agree with you.  I completely agree with you, and it‘s wrong.  And if we‘re going to get up and—if the White House is going to get up and accuse people of sexism, if the very White House the Republicans voted for is going to be this, you know, temple of feminism, then we ought to play by the same rules, then.  Fathers and mothers get the same rights.  I completely agree with you.

KELLERMAN:  But that‘s not the case.  That‘s not the case.

CARLSON:  It‘s about the child.  So let this little girl in.  If the grandparents are the ones who are actually dealing with her and making her lunch for school every day, then they have the right. 

KELLERMAN:  OK.  Again, in Washington state, same thing happened with the mother.  They said, no, no, no, the mother and the child.  The mother gets to decide for the child.  But when it‘s the father, not so much. 

CARLSON:  I agree.  I agree halfway.  All right.  I‘ll give you 50 percent. 

KELLERMAN:  See I knew that I could play on that father rights‘ argument. 

CARLSON:  Very, very, very unfair and annoying. 

All right then.  And James Bond fans are shaken, not stirred, if you‘ll pardon the appalling but frankly irresistible pun. 

They‘re up in arms that English actor Daniel Craig, a relative unknown, will be the 007.  Only five actors have played Bond since “Dr. No” more than 40 years ago.  Craig would be the first blond Bond. 

And that‘s not my problem with this character.  Here‘s my problem with it.  A quote to the “Evening Standard,” Britain‘s famous “Evening Standard” newspaper.

Daniel Craig said he does not like the fact that the films, not movies, films Max, are more about gadgets than feelings. 

This is a new age James Bond.  This is Alan Alda James Bond.  This is sensitive guy James Bond.

No, James Bond has two tasks.  One is to hit on every woman in sight, whether or not she‘s evil.  Doesn‘t matter.  Hit on her.  And two, drive an amazing car that does incredible things like fly or have machine guns come out of the headlights, whatever.  It‘s to play with all the toys you get.  That‘s all he does.

KELLERMAN:  James Bond is really about, I think, “Die Hard,” the “Die Hard” franchise.  John McClain, Bruce Willis and John McClain replaced this.

But what was interesting about James Bond films was it was about the protagonist cleverly using his environment to get out of such predicaments that you couldn‘t imagine...


KELLERMAN:  ... how he was going to get out of.

But the truth is, we‘re American.  Anyone with a British accent, whoever the most famous guy is with a British accent—Mr. Bean, as far as I‘m concerned, could play James Bond.  I don‘t know.  Can you name someone famous with a British accent                who acts?  That guy is good enough.  Ewan McGregor.  I don‘t know.  I don‘t care. 

CARLSON:  Yes, but this is the kind of, like, fruity Englishman who wants to talk about feelings.  I can‘t stand that.  Be quiet about your feelings.  You‘re James Bond; you kill people without remorse.  You know what I mean?

KELLERMAN:  Actually...

CARLSON:  You flirt with the hot Soviet spy.  You fly your glider off a cliff and then kill all the bad guys down below.  Come on. 

KELLERMAN:  You bring up a good point, actually.  It actually is about James Bond‘s feelings.  His feelings are he wants to kill the bad guy and bed the hot girl.  I mean, that‘s his feelings.

CARLSON:  As long as there‘s a lot of unapologetic violence, I‘ll support it. 

KELLERMAN:  You got it.

CARLSON:  Max Kellerman, thank you.

KELLERMAN:  Tucker, thank you.

CARLSON:  Still ahead, why this advertisement from Boeing caused such a stir among some Muslim groups.  An Islamic leader expresses his total outrage when we come back.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  A print advertisement for the Osprey helicopters placed by Boeing and its partner Bell Helicopters in the “Armed Services Journal” making some Muslims in America angry.  It shows a helicopters dropping soldiers over a mosque.  It descends from the heavens.  Ironically it unleashes hell.  Boeing has pulled the ad and apologized for publishing it.  But that is not enough for our next guest.  He is Ibrahim Hooper.  He is spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations.  He joins us now from Washington.  Ibrahim, thanks for coming on.  What else do you want them to do?  They pulled the ad.  What can they do now?

IBRAHIM HOOPER, COUNCIL ON AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS:  We are working with Boeing.  We‘re working with Bell Helicopter to see how the ad was placed, the process that was faulty to have it placed in several national journals.

CARLSON:  What does that mean, you‘re working with them?

HOOPER:  We‘re meeting with them.  We are discussing how this incident happened.  Obviously, any time you have American troops attacking a house of worship, particularly a mosque, as we are trying to boost our image in the Muslim world.  It‘s problematic.

CARLSON:  A house of worship, mosques are used to store weapons as meeting places for insurgent, not to mention the fact that mosques are often sort of the locus of extremism because the imams there preach hatred, as you know.  And you probably also know the Geneva Convention says if a religious site is used for military operations, it loses its status.  And the people who operate out of a mosque are officially war criminals.

HOOPER:  I don‘t think we want to take the position that any mosque anywhere in the world is fair game for American military forces.

CARLSON:  Nobody is taking that position.

HOOPER:  This mosque was not labeled as an Iraqi mosque, it was labeled as Mohammed‘s Mosque.  It said in Arabic Jamiya Mohammed (ph) on it, which means Mohammed Mosque.  And there was no indication it was in Iraq and no indication it was being used for any other purpose than a house of worship.

CARLSON:  Doesn‘t need to be in Iraq.  In Palestine, it was common for hey tread to be preached out of a mosque as it is common in Great Britain and throughout Europe.  But also .

HOOPER:  So your position is that any mosque anywhere in the world is fair game.

CARLSON:  No.  That is not all my position.  My position is clearly and simply, when a mosque is used for military purposes, it becomes a fair military target.

HOOPER:  There was no indication in this ad that was the case.  Boeing, Bell, all agreed it was inappropriate and offensive and did the right thing and pulled it.

CARLSON:  Wait a second.  Inappropriate and offensive?  Which do you think is more inappropriate, this ad running about a mosque that doesn‘t exist, by the way, they‘re not suggesting bombing a certain mosque.  That ad or the practice, widespread and you have not contested that of using mosques in Iraq as military bases.  Which is more offensive?

HOOPER:  Well, I would contest that we have seen several instances where there have been attacks on mosques in Iraq.  And the claim is always that they‘re storehouses for weapons.  And I haven‘t seen a tremendous amount of evidence for that.

CARLSON:  January 2, U.S. soldiers raided the Sunni al Tabul Mosque (ph) in southwestern Baghdad and found three packages of TNT, a 60 mm mortar tube, eight improvised grenades and bomb making equipment, two bags of gunpowder.  Are they making that up?

HOOPER:  Again, if that is your premise, then what your are saying is any mosque anywhere in the world is open for attack.

CALRSON:  You‘re playing semantic games there, Ibrahim.  That is not my premise at all.  I am merely reporting what the U.S. Army has reported and challenging you to tell me whether you think it is a lie or not.  Because if it‘s true that this mosque or any other mosque is being used as a repository for weapons, isn‘t fair to consider them as military installations because that‘s what they are?

HOOPER:  No, I don‘t think it‘s fair to consider all mosques military installations if one or two mosques in a combat zone .

CALRSON:  Nobody is suggesting—you are redefining what I‘m saying.

HOOPER:  Again, there was no indication in this ad this was Iraq.  There is no indications are weapons there or no indications other than it was a mosque and American troops were attacking it.  And the people who put the ad in agree that it was offensive and pulled it.

CARLSON:  I‘m merely asking you if you think it‘s more offensive, and mosques - and clearly most mosques have nothing to do were war.  Most Muslims find terrorism abhorrent, of course.  But the small percentage of mosques that are used by terrorists, isn‘t that more offensive than anything Boeing or Bell could have done.

HOOPER:  Obviously we believe any house of worship, mosque included, should not be used as a base to store weapons, should not be used as a base to attack anyone.  And we would encourage anyone who is doing that to stop doing that and that doesn‘t mean you should show American troops attacking mosques in an ad for an airplane.

CALRSON:  I hope the next time that U.S. military announces it found weapons in a mosque you will issue an outraged press release calling .  Because it would be the right thing to do, don‘t you think?

HOOPER:  Well, I think we have a lot more problems in Iraq than that.  The entire premise of the war has to be questioned along with the practices of all sides.

CALRSON:  I can say as an opponent of this war I think it‘s important to treat both sides equally.  When the terrorists do something bad, I think it‘s your position to say so and not be shy about saying so.

HOOPER:  We say it quite often.

CARLSON:  All right.  Ibrahim Hooper joining us.  Thanks.


CARLSON:  Still ahead, on THE SITUATION, there are endless conspiracies about the JFK assassination.  We will be joined next by a woman who said her father did it.  The daughter of legendary mob boss Sam Giancana is here.  Stay with us.


CALRSON:  1963, assassination of John F. Kennedy is the mow most widely debated subject in American history.  After an exhaustive investigation, the Warren Commission found that Lee Harvey Oswald, solely responsible, acted alone in Kennedy‘s death.

Our next guest has a different theory.  She says her father ordered the killing of the president.  Antoinette Giancana is the daughter of celebrated Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana.  She is also the author of the new book, “JFK and Sam: The Connection Between Giancana and the Kennedy Assassination.”

Antoinette Giancana joins us live from Chicago, Ms. Giancana for coming on.

ANTOINETTE GIANCANA, SAM GIANCANA‘S DAUGHTER:  Thank you very much for having me.

CARLSON:  Why would your father want to set up the murder of the president?

GIANCANA:  There was a special vendetta between my father and Kennedy.  As you know, Kennedy rather much disappointed my father in many ways.  When and as you know in history, my father helped the Kennedy family regarding the election.

CALRSON:  Oh yeah.  In Chicago.

GIANCANA:  Yes, in Chicago and I believe in Virginia.  He also helped out in that state helping .

CARLSON:  West Virginia.  Yes, that‘s right.

GIANCANA:  And you know, in the Italian heritage, one hand washes the other hand.  And I think that‘s what Sam expected.  Instead, he got nothing from the Kennedys at all, other than a slap in the face and probably that led to his own demise.

CARLSON:  Did your father, Sam Giancana ever say anything about the assassination to you?

GIANCANA:  No, he didn‘t.  I had to find out all of this information through the gentleman that I had interviewed in Statesville Prison, which was James Giles and I got it through a tape called “Confessions of an Assassin.”  Now I had listened to the tape over and over again and believed him.

CARLSON:  Just to clarify, this is a confession from a man who claims he killed John F. Kennedy?

GIANCANA:  Right.  He claimed he and Nicoletti were in the grassy area in Dallas at that time and he was the one that had taken the shot that killed Kennedy.

CARLSON:  Did he work for your dad, this man?

GIANCANA:  No, he did not work directly for my father.

CARLSON:  Did you know what your father did, by the way, when you were growing up and around the time of the Kennedy assassination, did you know your father was in the Mafia?

GIANCANA:  I knew there was something going on with my father.  Naturally, I did.  But I only knew of his gambling enterprises and other things he had been doing.

CARLSON:  Do you pass judgment on the idea that your father may have been involved in the Kennedy assassination.  That is kind of a lot to claim about your own father.  How do you feel about it?

GIANCANA:  I have to believe that my father had something to do with that assassination.

CARLSON:  And you say you believe the CIA, Central Intelligence Agency killed your father in 1975 in his basement?

GIANCANA:  I believe that 100 percent.  The reason I could say that without any doubt is when my father was shot in his home, the government had cars around our house for many, many years, surveillance cars.  All of a sudden on that date, June 19, the cars had disappeared for a long time.  They had gone on lunch break, etc.

So, therefore, at that time, somebody entered the house or had been in the house at the time, and my feelings are that there had been a person in that house all that time waiting for these men to leave and also for my father‘s household guests to leave.  And that‘s when they came out of hiding.

CARLSON:  And that must have been CIA sponsored.  All right.  Antoinette Giancana joining us from Chicago.  The book “JFK and Sam” out this November.  Thanks a lot, Ms. Giancana, for joining us.

GIANCANA:  My pleasure.  Thank you very much.  Read the book.

CARLSON:  We will.  How can we stop cops from doing appalling things like this?  One caller thinks he has got the answer.  We will see if he‘s right when we dial up THE SITUATION voicemail.  Next.


CARLSON:  Welcome back.  Give us a call sometime.  Every night we ask you to do that and every day you do.  Let‘s listen to the voice mail that results.

CALLER:  Tucker, this is Jeff Thompson in Longview, Texas and regarding the police situation in New Orleans, a couple of points to look at would be the pay and also hiring standards.  Raise the pay, have higher standards, you can be a lot more selective and help with the situation there.

CARLSON:  That right.  A lot more selective.  It‘s one thing to skimp on your DMV employees but to give people semiautomatic weapons, firearms and send them out to make arrests, you‘ve got to make sure they‘re decent people.  I think it‘s worth paying over 30 grand a year for your cops.  I agree.

CALLER:  Hi, Tucker, it‘s Jane Wolf in St. Louis.  I was on your show Monday talking about the possibility of disastrous flooding in the California Delta and we discussed the cost of the fix, which is about $4 billion.  What we didn‘t get to is the cost of no fix, which could be the loss of 40 percent of the water supply for 20 million people in and around Los Angeles.  Big ouch.

Thanks again for having me on.  Bye bye.

CARLSON:  Big ouch.  Good point.  I liked having Jane Wolf on.  If you‘ve been a guest on this show and didn‘t get it all in during the interview, give us a call.  Jane Wolf makes a good point though.  That‘s expensive.  Not as expensive as flood.

CALLER:  Hi Tucker.  This is Dr. Sylvia Hill from Dubois, PA.  I could not agree with you more.  Sorry, Max, but a word without books is unimaginable.  Books are warm and cuddly.  Portable.  They get dog eared from use as we lovingly underline, write in the margins.  Computers lack the intimacy that we have with books.  Books are dependable.  They will be with us always.

CARLSON:  I of course vehemently agree with you.  I hope they‘re going to be with us always.  They‘re being thrown away at an amazingly rapid rate by librarians who hate them but I‘ll just make this one last point about books.  In libraries, simply because we have new technologies that may be great doesn‘t mean we need to trash the old technology.  Just because you go to a digital card catalog doesn‘t mean we have to throw away the 150-year-old physical card catalog in the garbage as they have done in so many libraries.  So in with the new, not necessarily out with the old.

CALLER:  Hi, Tucker, this is Linda from North Carolina.  I usually turn off when Max comes on.  Last night I couldn‘t.  Please tell me Max isn‘t going to have kids?  I can‘t imagine this world with a bunch of little Max Kellermans running around.  Oh, my, thank you, Tucker.  Bye-bye.

CARLSON:  Linda, you sound distressed for real.  I don‘t think you‘re making that up.  I don‘t think you‘re doing any kind of dramatic reenactment for me.  You‘re horrified by the idea of spawn of Max.  I can only tell you I have no control over his mating habits.

All right.  Let me know what you‘re thinking.  Call 1-877-822-7576.  You can also send me your questions via our Web site.  Email me at and I‘ll respond everyday to anything you come up with.  Politics, pop culture, gardening and fishing tips.  No joke.  Whatever you want to talk about.  I‘m here for you.  I really will write back.

Still ahead on THE SITUATION, if you thought the fight over Harriet Miers‘ confirmation was vicious you haven‘t spent enough time in the Taiwanese legislature.  Fists fly on the cutting room floor next.


CARLSON:  You‘ve waited all day and four minutes before midnight Eastern it‘s arrived.  Willie Geist here on the cutting room floor.

WILLIE GEIST, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT:  Did you hear the horror, the genuine horror in that woman‘s voice thinking about the prospects of Max Kellerman reproducing.  She was crying into the telephone.  No offense, Max.  I would say this is a pretty productive show.  Any time you solve the mystery of the JFK assassination you have to call it a good show.

CARLSON:  We did it in under five minutes.  We‘re fast.  We have as a society grown numb to the predictable stories about giant pumpkins that crop up every holiday season.  This one is for real.  Scott Palmer set a record at the Southern New England Giant Pumpkin grower‘s competition in Rhode Island.  His gourd weighs 1,443 pounds.  Despite falling short the world record by three pounds, Palmer called Monday, quote, “the best day of his life.”

GEIST:  That‘s kind of sad.

CARLSON:  I disagree.  That would be .

GEIST:  What about the birth of your children?  The pumpkin is bigger than the children?

CARLSON:  They weighed 7 ½ pounds.

GEIST:  I am disappointed, three pounds short of the world record.  If you come that close, I don‘t care what you do, cheat, pay off the judge, do something to get the world record because you may not pass that way again.  That‘s a once a in a lifetime pumpkin.

CARLSON:  Britney, Beyonce, J. Lo, all have their own perfumes so why shouldn‘t the freakishly androgynous rock star Marilyn Manson have one too.  Manson is known mostly for his confusing appearance and controversial lyrics.  He‘s in the final stages of developing a line of perfumes and beauty projects for a major cosmetic company.

GEIST:  Not exactly the fellow I want to smell like, Tucker.  One other thing, if I may just point out, Mr. Darkness, Mr. Complexity, Mr.  Counterculture.

Granting an interview to “Women‘s Wear Daily.”  You‘re so dark.  Come on.

CARLSON:  He granted an interview to me once.

GEIST:  Did you talk to him?

CARLSON:  Yes, I did a profile once for a now departed Frog (ph) magazine.  He told me he spends most of his days not shooting heroin or worshipping Satan but watching cable news.

GEIST:  He‘s a little bit dull.

CARLSON:  Pretty nice guy actually.

Any political operative worth his salt tells you the first successful rule is the candidate should not get arrested for drunk driving twice in one night.  Brian Karst (ph) running for public office in upstate New York and was arrested Friday night for driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.14.  Karst was apparently was unfazed by the first arrest because less than three hours later cops pulled him over driving the same car.  This time he blew a 0.11 and promptly returned to jail.

GEIST:  I think he‘s already getting better.  He cut 0.03 off his previous arrest.  I think he learned his he is son.  The real reason to elect this guy is to get him a motorcade and get him of the street although I‘m not sure the Oneida city council gets a motorcade.

CARLSON:  We need protection from this point.

There is a lot of synthetically created love going around in the Museum of Contemporary Art in L.A. right now.  That‘s because of a new exhibit called Ecstasy, In and About Altered States.  The museum says the art explores you alternative modes of perception and gives visitors a heightened visible experience.  Among the works, a collage of pills made from Play-Do, a mushroom, an LSD fountain which trickles with diluted acid.

GEIST:  There‘s a lot of sweaty hugging.  People telling strangers how much they mean, glow sticks in the mouth.  An affectionate bunch.  It‘s a rave with an audio tour.

CARLSON:  I really care about you.  I never told you that before.

GEIST:  Come here—Not a chance.

CARLSON:  There aren‘t many things more entertaining in this world than a good old fashion foreign parliamentary brawl.  This one happened in Taiwan‘s legislature today as politicians debated an apparently divisive bill.  I say apparently because you can see, sign-wielding observers got even in on the melee to offer a few cheap shots of their own.  One politician left the room in a bloody face.  Another one accused his opponents of attacking him with a cell phone.

GEIST:  Some people call us gratuitous for putting this on but we want to show parliamentary brawls because we want to show young people how government works.

CARLSON:  That‘s exactly right.

GEIST:  It‘s not always pretty, the legislative process.

CARLSON:  Democracy at work but sometimes it‘s ugly.

GEIST:  That‘s the sausage being made.

CARLSON:  Willie Geist.  The sausage vendor.  Appreciate it.

That‘s THE SITUATION for tonight.  Thanks for watching.  Up next, COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN.  See you back here tomorrow night.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2005 NBC.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant, Inc.  ALL RIGHTS  RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon NBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.