Guest: Peter Schweizer, Rebecca Voelkel, Frank Malloy, Dave Holloway,
James Cobb, Mort Zuckerman, Timothy Lickness
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Tonight's top headline: Media censors good news from Iraq, but one fallen hero's family fights back tonight. Why is “The New York Times” printing soldiers' letters home, but editing out the good parts? The dark side of media bias straight ahead.
And FEMA's fumbles brought into the light, as government e-mails released days after Katrina takes America inside an agency writing e-mails that talk about wardrobes, dogs, and lunch breaks, all while New Orleans and Mississippi are both in a full meltdown mode.
Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, no passport required, only common sense allowed.
ANNOUNCER: From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all. Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, thanks so much for being with us tonight. We greatly appreciate it. We are going to be talking about all those stories in minutes. We are going to be talking about New Orleans, and obviously a lot of other things going on, whether we are talking about Iraq.
Also, I don't know if you caught this. I can't believe the guy said it on national TV, but Dr. Phil went on late-night TV, and he claimed that Natalee Holloway could still be alive and trapped in a sex ring. Well, Natalee's dad is in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY tonight. I am going to ask him about his reaction to what Dr. Phil said, and his reaction about news that Dr. Phil was breaking on a late-night entertainment show.
Plus, they are the must toys for the young girls across America, American Girl dolls. They have sold millions and millions of these things, but now one Catholic school says they are not right for their little girls. We are going to get to the bottom of that controversy later on in the show, too.
But, first, we start with a story that is all too common these days. Corporal Jeffrey Starr, a 22-year-old Marine, was killed in Iraq in April during his third tour of duty there. Last week, “The New York Times” ran a story about soldiers that were killed while they were serving multiple tours of duty. This was to commemorate—I guess you would call it commemorate—the 2,000th death over in Iraq.
But “The Times” presented an excerpt Starr wrote. It's a letter he intended his girlfriend to read in the event of his death.
And he wrote this—quote—“I kind of predicted this. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.”
But, yesterday, the deceased soldier's family slammed “The New York Times” for censoring that letter, for cutting out a long passage where Starr really, really talked about what was on his heart. He praised America's mission over there, what he was doing and the soldiers that he was fighting alongside.
This is the part they censored out—quote—“I don't regret going.
Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq. It's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live, not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators, to do what they want with their lives. To me, that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom. Now this is my mark.”
With me now to talk about this incredible letter and the remarkable young man who wrote it is Jeffrey Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness.
You know, thank you so much for being with us, Timothy. I greatly appreciate it.
First of all, I have just got to say, what a remarkable young man that this young American hero is. How are you and the family reacting to what “The New York Times” did a few days ago, where it seems to me like they exploited this young man's final letter home to his loved ones to try to make a political statement?
TIMOTHY LICKNESS, UNCLE OF KILLED U.S. SOLDIER: Well, I think our reaction was not so much anger as it was disappointment.
We—we really are not a bitter family. We are not a family that holds grudges. We want to honor Jeffrey, and so we wanted the rest of his story to be told. I did write to “The Times,” and I asked them, I thought very politely, if they would run the rest of the story. I did not get a reply.
But the story did get out, and that's what we are happy about. We are actually pleased that the rest of Jeffrey's story is getting out.
SCARBOROUGH: So, after “The New York Times” censored Jeffrey's letter, and especially the part that really is at the heart of what he was feeling over there about this mission, you contacted “The Times.” And you are telling me they—did they not respond to your letter?
LICKNESS: Well, I got a—it was—I did it by Internet, and I got a reply back saying that they had received it and they would get it to the right department to respond or do something with, but, since then, I have not heard anything.
And, quite frankly, I never really did expect that they would do anything. I was just hoping they would, but I didn't expect them to. By the way...
SCARBOROUGH: Go ahead.
LICKNESS: If I just may correct something, Jeffrey was killed on Memorial Day, on May 30, not in April.
SCARBOROUGH: Not in April. OK. I'm sorry about that.
What is the family—how's Jeffrey's parents and other loved ones responding to this?
LICKNESS: Well, if you are speaking of this being the story in “The Times,” I don't think anybody is all that surprised.
We are disappointed. I think that's the part of it. Although what is ironic, by them leaving out the most important part of Jeffrey's letter, it's gotten more publicity, so in one sense, the whole episode really does honor Jeffrey, because this story has gotten a lot more publicity than it would have had “The Times” actually run the whole letter.
SCARBOROUGH: And had they actually printed the truth of the matter there.
Let me bring in Mort Zuckerman right now.
Mort, you are obviously—you know the media. You are a publisher of your own newspaper. What if somebody for your newspaper in New York, what if a reporter had done this type of shoddy work and really exploited the death of this young man and a letter that he sent home, really, his—his last testament, to make a political statement? How would you respond to that? How would you treat that reporter and the editor that allowed it to run?
MORT ZUCKERMAN, EDITOR IN CHIEF, “U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT”: Well, I think this does, as you say, really distort the essential message of his letter, which, as you also said, was really quite wonderful.
And I must say, from all of the exposure that I have had, at least to the American military who are serving in Iraq, they have a much clearer sense and a much more valued sense of their mission than is often perceived back here at home.
In this particular case, obviously, it was a distortion of what he was really talking about. And I think—I am not sure exactly how it happened within “The Times”' procedures. No editor may well have known about what portion of the letter he had excerpted. Whoever did know about it frankly deserves to really be reprimanded for the failure to really convey the context and the real meaning of what that letter was, and it seems to me that it felt like a politicization of the letter in a way that was not intended by the really thoughtful and really almost moving letter.
So, I think there would be some serious hell to pay. It doesn't mean we would fire everybody, but we would certainly want to make sure that the paper did respond by correcting this, and also that these people were—the people who were responsible for it would really know that this was a serious offense, in terms of what we would like to think of as journalistic integrity.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Mort, it seems to me that everybody always focuses on bias and what people put in newspapers when they are biased.
But certainly omissions are just as damning as acts in cases like this. And I think about...
SCARBOROUGH: ... over in Europe earlier this month, right before the referendum. And every newspaper across Western Europe was trashing the administration, was trashing this war, was trashing the referendum. It was all on page one about how—what a colossal failure it was.
And then I woke up the next morning after the referendum, the smashing success. And “The Independent” in Great Britain puts that story on page A-24. It just seems, especially in this instance, in this war, good news gets buried and bad news ends up on the front page.
ZUCKERMAN: Well, you know, as you know, the general instinct of the press is to publish the bad news, you know. Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is news, something that is unusual, and bad is what is considered to be new, and, therefore, news.
But that's not the issue here. The issue here is that the story really misrepresented the entire thrust of this wonderfully gallant and eloquent soldier's letter. I mean, that, it seems to me, is the issue. You can write about negative stories about what's happening in the war, if that is a fair reporting. But to use this in a sense to imply something that it wasn't is where the problem comes in, that you cannot take this out of context in the way that it was taken, without frankly violating what “The Times” at least represents are their journalistic standards.
SCARBOROUGH: Let's bring in right now retired General Barry McCaffrey.
General, let's expand this out a little bit. And I just want to talk about my frustrations, not just the way the media covers this war, but the way the media has covered war since Vietnam. It seems, again, that the negative always gets played out on the front page. All the bad things the troops do gets played out on the front page. All of the dark side—the dark side of these efforts of U.S. foreign policy get played out on the front page, but the positive things just seem to get buried. Why is that?
RET. GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY, NBC MILITARY ANALYST: Well, first of all, I think I would join Mr. Zuckerman's comments.
This letter is such a beautiful piece of writing. It's so emblematic in many ways of the 18,000 soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors who have been killed or wounded defending us against—in this campaign against terrorism.
So, look, I think I would probably take less out of this than perhaps you have, Joe. I think “The New York Times” is a terrific newspaper, great reporting, normally very objective. I think what they did here was, they missed a chance to tell a more important story. You know, they just took a comment out and said, here's this brave young Marine, third combat tour. He expected death, and he still went, so that's what they printed.
They just missed the chance to put it in context.
SCARBOROUGH: General, talking about context, and I am glad you used that word, it seems to me—again, I represented when I was in Congress a military district, five bases down here, was on the Armed Services Committee.
All the guys that I talk to over there, that I e-mail over there, I will tell you what, the overwhelming majority of them still believe in this mission, still believe that what they are doing, just like Jeffrey, is a noble thing.
SCARBOROUGH: That does not get played out in the mainstream media, and some of them are very angry. I had one guy write me a few months back, saying, how in the world can some guy that is sipping a soy latte on the Upper West Side of Manhattan in a Starbucks know what's going on in Baghdad better than I do, when my boots are on the ground there? Don't you sense a tremendous frustration from some of our troops over there?
MCCAFFREY: Well, probably one story that's underreported is, it's my personal view, having made multiple trips now Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere, these the best troops we ever put in uniform into combat, their courage, their creativity, their leadership. The sergeants, lieutenants, and captains are unbelievable.
And this is a real war they are fighting. So, I think that—and their reenlistment rates are astronomical; 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad right now is well over 100 percent of its requirement. So, that's a good story to remind the American people of thank God for the young men and women of the armed forces.
Having said that, Joe, Iraq is a huge problem. For God's sakes, this thing has taken some bad bounces on us. It was badly executed at the start. It didn't need to come out this way. I supported that war from the start and still do. But we have had some problems, and the media has been appropriately very critical of some aspects of the way the war has been run.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, General, we have had some problems, but I agree with Tom Friedman, that I am going to continue supporting the war until the grunts on the ground don't support the war. And, right now, all I am saying is that the guys that I am talking over there still believe in what they are doing.
MCCAFFREY: Yes. Oh, yes. Sure.
SCARBOROUGH: Of course they believe. I think probably...
SCARBOROUGH: I think, General, like every guy that has fought over there, from time to time, they lose faith in their political leaders back in Washington. And, in this case, they certainly have a reason to do that.
ZUCKERMAN: Part of the reason why I think they lose faith is when they feel that they are losing the support of their home country, and in part because they feel that the right context for their efforts—as General McCaffrey points out, they are really a remarkable group of people doing remarkable work, under really unusual circumstances.
We have never had to fight this kind of urban terrorist war of people who are willing to blow themselves up in order to kill as many innocent people and Americans as possible. And they are really performing fabulously well under those circumstances. And I can't help but imagine that they feel dismay at what they are reading and seeing back at home.
But, you know, pictures are really very important, and action pictures, you know. You know what it all means, Joe. So they have got a real issue here in terms of the way the media covers it.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, you are exactly right, Mort. Explosions sell a lot better than building schools.
Thanks a lot for being with us, Timothy Lickness and Barry McCaffrey.
Mort Zuckerman, greatly appreciate it.
I just want to underline what Mort said at the very end. Again, the troops that I am talking to over there, again, so many of them are dismayed because of the way this story is being reported at home and in Europe. And they say that that really is one of their biggest challenges day in and day out. And something has got to be done about it.
We will be right back in a second with more SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.
SCARBOROUGH: Coming up, former FEMA Director Brown may be out, but the hits keep on coming. We are going to have the former FEMA director's e-mails from hell when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, welcome back to the show.
You know, it's been more than two months now since Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast. And, friends, as I told you back then, that was just the first crisis. The second crisis was the fact that our federal governments, our state governments, our local governments let us down.
Well, more evidence of that today. The government released a string of e-mails written by FEMA officials during the darkest hours of that storm and after that storm, and the trivial nature of those e-mails, written while Americans were dying across the Gulf Coast and on the streets of New Orleans, further tarnish this agency.
Now, for more on the story, let's go live to New Orleans and talk to NBC's Ron Mott.
Ron, take us inside of all of these e-mails.
RON MOTT, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Hi, there, Joe. Good evening to you.
Well, a lot of people here are still simmering about FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina up and down the Gulf Coast, from New Orleans over into Mississippi. They are very upset about these—what they call the slow response from FEMA, and now they are getting details about the conversations being traded back and forth through e-mails from FEMA officials while their lives, as many of them say, were going to hell.
Case in point, the day Katrina struck back on August 29, Michael Brown, then director of FEMA, appeared on NBC's “Today Show.” And shortly after his appearance there, he gets an e-mail from a public relations official inside FEMA commenting on the shirt he was wearing on that program.
Let's take you to this e-mail and what it says. This Cindy Taylor, FEMA deputy director of public affairs, wrote—quote—“My eyes certainly must be deceiving me. You look fabulous. And I'm not talking about the makeup.”
Half-an-hour later, Mike Brown gets off the program. In response to that e-mail, he wrote—quote—“I got it at Nordstrom's. Are you proud of me? Can I quit now? Can I go home?” Joe, this is while Hurricane Katrina was slamming into the Gulf Coast. The pictures were beginning to be shown across America, and they were talking about fashion.
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Ron, it really—the trivial nature of it, the lack of understanding about all the lives and all the suffering really is surprising. Do you have any e-mails there where—because it seems to me that the critical days where FEMA really let America down and where the feds let America down. In those first 48, 72 hours, are there any e-mails in there when somebody gets on the ground and tries to contact Director Brown to tell him just how desperate the situation is in New Orleans?
MOTT: Yes, absolutely, two days later.
Now, mind you, this is after these levees have breached around New Orleans, some dozen levees or so flooding the eastern parts of this city, houses filled to the roofline with water. Here's an e-mail coming from a FEMA official directly to Mike Brown on August 31.
Let me read this to you, Joe. This will shock some people. He writes
· quote—“Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical.
Here, some things you might not know. Hotels are kicking people out. Thousands gathering in the streets with no food or water. Hundreds still being rescued from homes. The dying patients at the DMAT tent are being medevaced. Estimates are, many will die within hours. Evacuation in process. Plans developing for Dome evacuation—that's the Superdome—
“but hotel situation adding to problem. We are out of food and running out of water at the dome. Phone activity impossible.”
Mike Brown writes back, Joe. He says this, -- quote—“Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or tweak?”
This is their director of FEMA, responding to what is a catastrophic disaster here on the Gulf Coast of the United States, and he is asking a colleague if there is anything he should do specifically or tweak.
SCARBOROUGH: Ron, that is absolutely unbelievable. I know that you are a reporter. Your job is to report the news and not editorialize on it, but I am going to do that. I am going to do that right now.
It's just unbelievable that you would—and, again, I'm uncomfortable doing this with a split-screen with you there. Maybe I should rant after I get you off, so you are not in the middle of this.
Ron, thank you for being with us. I greatly appreciate that report and getting us up to date with it. God bless you for all your hard work.
MOTT: Thank you, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: Now I am going to rant. And I'm going to rant.
You know, there really does—and we believe it in newspapers, as well as on TV. I think there needs to be a wall between the reporters and the editorial side of things. I am going to editorialize right now.
How the Bush administration could ever allow somebody to be in that position when people were dying on the streets, when the FEMA director is getting an e-mail reporting on people being kicked out of hotels, people dying on the streets, people dying, having to be sent out of that region to try to save them. I mean, the situation was as dire as any disaster in any American city in recent times, and the response to that e-mail? Is there anything I need to tweak? Anything I can help out on?
I mean, tweak? How do you tweak a natural disaster like this? How do you tweak or play around the edges for an Armageddon? I just—I cannot believe it. I can't believe the people that were put in charge during this epic crisis.
You know, the thing is, friends, again, too often, people get political appointments because of who they know, WHO they were friends with in college, unfortunately, Who contributes to political campaigns. Listen, I was inside Washington. I know, unfortunately, that, all too often, that's the way it works, and that's the way it works for Republican administrations. That's the way it works for Democratic administrations.
But I don't think I have ever seen, in any situation, certainly in no domestic disaster, any time when all the stars were lined up in such a way where you have failures on the federal, the state, and the local level, and people that just didn't grasp the immediate need of these desperate people dying, not only in New Orleans, but suffering across the Gulf Coast.
Now, let's turn to another scandal relating to Katrina and answer the question of who was responsible for evacuating the frail and elderly who ultimately perished in nursing homes and hospitals during that time. As you know, the attorney general of Louisiana is investigating, but SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY has obtained exclusive documents, signed by that attorney general, that show that there was a plan in place. It was simply ignored.
With me now from New Orleans is James Cobb. He's a Tulane professor and the attorney who is actually representing the owners of St. Rita's Nursing Home. The owners are the only people that are charged with murder during this storm. They are the only ones charged so far with negligent homicide in the attorney general's investigation also.
And so, thank you so much for being with us.
Talk about these documents that we are in possession of now, that you are in possession of now, that actually suggests that there was an evacuation plan in place at the time that would have rescued these people in the nursing home. It was just simply ignored by local and state Louisiana officials.
JAMES COBB, ATTORNEY FOR ST. RITA'S NURSING HOME: Well, thank you, Joe.
Of course, there was a plan in place. It's called the emergency operation plan. And it stages the response of both the parish and the state at various stages of proposed evacuations. It calls upon the state of Louisiana to direct the evacuation and shelter of persons having mobility problems, including folks in nursing homes. They didn't direct anything, as we now know.
SCARBOROUGH: Where was the governor? I mean, why do they have a game plan to save these people, and they see a catastrophic storm coming—the president comes on the TV 48 hours earlier saying the storm is coming. You are in big trouble. If you are in New Orleans, get out.
If they know all of this, why doesn't the governor start evacuating immediately?
COBB: Well, they—because, first of all, they didn't go to a state of emergency until late Friday night. We were never informed, on behalf of my facility at St. Rita's, of a mandatory evacuation order in St. Bernard Parish.
And the state of Louisiana and the local parish folks have to help.
You can't simply tell folks 24 hours before a storm, get out on your own. It's impossible. We have 60 folks who are 70, 80, 90 years old. You don't move those folks quickly. You don't move them efficiently. There's tremendous risk in moving those kinds of patients without a plan.
The state had a plan. They didn't follow it. And what is astonishing to me is that Attorney General Foti has charged by clients with negligent homicide. The negligence apparently is on the state of Louisiana for their failure. And Michael Brown—if my folks are charged with negligent homicide, Michael Brown needs a lawyer real quick.
SCARBOROUGH: Needs a lawyer very, very quickly.
Well, thank you so much for being with us, James. Greatly appreciate it.
And I will tell you what. All you had to do was look what happened in Rita, Hurricane Rita, after—after this storm crashed on shore, and what happened out in Texas, when they tried to evacuate some elderly. There were some tragedies. You are exactly right. You cannot evacuate these people within 12 to 24 hours.
When you see a storm coming in the Gulf, it's time to move 48, 72 hours, because their needs are so different from the rest of us.
Anyway, coming up next, you may have missed it last night, but Dr. Phil actually went on “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno,” made some pretty amazing claims about Natalee Holloway. When we come back, we will hear what he had to say and ask Natalee's father what he thinks about Dr. Phil's speculation.
Plus, American Girl Dolls are so popular, there's even a movie coming out about them. But a boycott is in full swing, and some are asking whether American Girl is becoming a new front in the culture war.
We are going to get to that one when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
SCARBOROUGH: American Girl is a popular phenomenon that's been sweeping the country for years—for years now. It's a must-get present this Christmas. But if it's the case, why is it a new front in America's culture wars? We will tell you about that and much more when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
But, first, here's the latest news you and your family need to know.
SCARBOROUGH: Tara Grinstead, a beauty queen and dedicated high school teacher, she has been missing now for 11 days. We are going to get an update on the investigation from her family.
Then, we are going to be talking to an author of the new book about liberal hypocrisy. And wait until you hear what he says about Barbra Streisand.
Welcome back to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY—those stories in just minutes.
But, first, for more than five months, Natalee Holloway's family has been desperately searching for the truth about what happened to her the night she vanished in Aruba on a senior high school trip. We are going to be talking to her father, Dave, in just a minute.
But first, a pretty remarkable suggestion last night from Dr. Phil on “The Tonight Show.” Watch what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, “THE TODAY SHOW”)
DR. PHIL MCGRAW, HOST, “DR. PHIL”: We have reasonable belief and some credible evidence that Natalee Holloway is alive.
JAY LENO, HOST: Is alive?
MCGRAW: Is alive. We can't—we cannot prove that at this point. And we don't know where she is, but, you know, there is a huge sex slave underground in some of those countries down there. Young women have disappeared from that part of the world before. And we have—we have reasonable cause to believe that she may well be alive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Let me bring in Natalee's father, Dave Holloway. He joins us on the phone right now from Aruba.
Dave, thank you for being with us.
DAVE HOLLOWAY, FATHER OF NATALEE HOLLOWAY: Thank you.
SCARBOROUGH: You got Dr. Phil going on TV, saying he has reason to believe—or he says, we have reason to believe Natalee is still alive. Did that announcement on an entertainment show last night come as a shock to you and Beth?
HOLLOWAY: Well, no, not really.
I had a lengthy conversation, in fact, just yesterday morning with the FBI, and based on material they read from Aruba, the lady—or an individual is a homicide investigator, and she point-blank told us, this has been going on five months, since June the 10th. We have not changed our position. We are 99.9 percent sure that we are looking at a homicide, but, you know, you still have a 1 percent chance or one-tenth of 1 percent.
And, you know, I have heard those theories before, and I hope Dr. Phil is right.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, have you talked to Dr. Phil? Do you have any insight for us tonight? When he goes on national TV, and he keeps talking about we—we have reason to believe that Natalee Holloway may still be alive. Does Dr. Phil—what, does the guy have a gang of investigators following him around? What is he talking about?
HOLLOWAY: Well, he does.
There's a group of people that are investigating that aspect of it as well. So, without going into any further details, I have talked with an individual who has that same theory, and has had that for a long period of time. But, you know, we have checked some places and have come up empty-handed.
SCARBOROUGH: So, Dave, there's no new information out there right now that you know of that would suggest, as Dr. Phil suggested last night, that Natalee is in the middle of some sex trade in Central and South America?
HOLLOWAY: Well, based on the information that I know, at this point in time, it's a theory. But, you know, they have pulled rabbits out of the hats before, so, you know, maybe they know something that I don't know.
SCARBOROUGH: Can you give us a quick update on the investigation down there? Obviously, a lot of frustration. You have the chief of police down there, who sounded like he was going to be helpful before you all got there, but, since you have been there, it doesn't sound like he is willing to go the extra mile to uncover the truth of this case. What is the status tonight?
HOLLOWAY: Well, I am not sure what the exact status tonight is, but we delivered a letter there asking for the removal of all the investigators all the way up through the prosecuting attorney.
And we—Dompig knows. We had one last hope to resolve the case, that one last witness to possibly interview, and I really didn't want him to mess up on it. And I asked Mr. Dompig to handle it himself. You know, and that didn't happen. And I don't know whether they have lost the case now or not. So...
SCARBOROUGH: All right.
All right, Dave, well, thanks a lot for being with us, as always. And we are certainly thinking about you and your family tonight. Good luck with everything down there.
Right now, we are going to talk about a Catholic school in St. Louis. They have canceled a planned American Girl fund-raiser when they learned that the company that owns the successful doll line gives money to Girls Inc. Now, Girls Inc. is an organization that runs 1,500 Girls Clubs nationwide. And because Girls Inc. offers information on contraceptives and accepts homosexuality, they have problems with that.
I am joined on the—right now by the school's pastor, Frank Malloy, and also, Rebecca Voelkel, a United Life minister. I want to thank both of you for being with us.
SCARBOROUGH: And, Frank, let me begin with you.
What is your problem with American Girl? What is your problem with this organization? Do you really think they promote abortion and contraceptives, and I understand also, alternative lifestyles?
FRANK MALLOY, PASTOR, ST. LUKE SCHOOL: Yes, sir. It's good to be with you tonight.
The problem we have is simply that we came to American Girl as a fund raiser. And in the time since we first came to them, we found out that some of the things that Girls Inc. stands for just simply aren't compatible with the Catholic Church. And we just felt that we didn't need to use that funding source.
SCARBOROUGH: What do they stand for? Do you believe they stand for abortion?
MALLOY: Well, some of their advocacy positions seem to stand that way.
SCARBOROUGH: When you say their advocacy positions, what, their—are you saying that money they give out are to groups that support abortion?
MALLOY: We are speaking about Girls Inc. now, correct?
SCARBOROUGH: Right, Girls Inc.
MALLOY: Girls Inc., even on a Web site, talks about some of the advocacy positions that they take, in terms of offering contraceptives and talking about pregnancy alternatives—I assume that means abortion—and alternative lifestyles.
And you know, those are just simply noncompatible with the Catholic Church teaching, and we just didn't feel that that was something that we wanted to use as a means for raising funds for our institution.
SCARBOROUGH: Let me bring in Rebecca Voelkel right now.
Rebecca, I know that there are quite a few parents out there that say, you know what, I just want to buy this baby doll for my girl. I don't want to give money to this organization that is going to turn around and give it to other organizations that are going to be promoting lifestyles that I don't support.
What would you say to those parents?
REBECCA VOELKEL, UNITED LIFE MINISTER: Well, first of all, Joe, thank you for having me on. I really appreciate that.
You know, I think the—the issue that I want to lift up is the incredibly good work that the American Girl doll enables in terms of lifting—lifting up history, helping young girls feel good about themselves, helping them connect with—with history in creative ways. And they are lifting up some of the core American values of equality and of justice and some of the stories in American history.
And those are values that we all share. And I get concerned when especially a fellow person of faith is lifting up issues of what I think is exclusion and inhospitality and—and diverting the attention from the importance of focusing on values that we all share.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Rebecca, let me—and I certainly—let me just say, as far as empowerment and trying to empower young girls, I certainly would support that, as the father of a 2-year-old daughter.
SCARBOROUGH: I expect her to have the same opportunities as my sons moving forward.
But let's just talk about—let's just pick an issue here. Let's pick out an issue, whether—whether this group that they are funding supports contraceptives or abortion or alternative lifestyles. That may offend certainly conservative Catholics out there. Do you think there should be a separation between people going out and buying these dolls and possibly promoting these political agendas that, as you know, certainly are divisive in America, regardless of what side of the fence you are on, on either one—on all three of them?
VOELKEL: Well, let me say, Joe, that I think it's—there are a number of steps in between the American Girl doll and supporting Girls Inc., which is a tremendous, wonderful organization.
But let's—I think the focus is this school, which does incredibly good work. And the history of Roman Catholic schools is—is replete with stories of the good education they provide. And the opportunity that this would have provided to raise money for—for a playground is—is a wonderful opportunity.
And to make this—to divert the energy and the attention from the goodness that the American Girl doll does and the opportunity that this playground would provide, and divert the attention towards what I think is really promoting intolerance and ultimately leads us to fomenting hatred in our society, which is not where I think our attention and our focus needs to be.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, thank you so much, Rebecca. We appreciate it.
Thank you, Frank, also.
Appreciate both of you being in here.
Right now, I am joined by Tucker Carlson. He's the host of “THE
SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON.” Tucker, what's the situation tonight?
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON”: Well, you remember a couple of years ago, Joe, when Bob Novak wrote that column outing Valerie Plame and liberals cried treason?
CARLSON: Well, “The Washington Post” yesterday ran a piece outing an entire CIA program, top secret, those prisons in Eastern Europe and other places. This is a big deal. It hurts the country. I am not saying it shouldn't have been printed, but where are the cries of treason? We are going to talk to a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and ask him, aren't you going to investigate this leak? It's a big deal.
SCARBOROUGH: I'll tell you what. What a double standard.
SCARBOROUGH: I can't wait to be watching it tonight, Tucker. Thanks so much. Appreciate it.
CARLSON: Thanks, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: Appreciate it.
And make sure you tune into “THE SITUATION.” I mean, this is a story you are not going to want to miss. Make sure you tune in at 11:00.
Now, coming up, Michael Moore, he makes headlines by bashing rich businessmen. We are going to tell you the demands he makes at public appearances—that and much more when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
SCARBOROUGH: My next guest calls Barbra Streisand a war profiteer, Hillary Clinton a corporate shill, and Ted Kennedy an environmental rapist. And that's when he is just warming up.
I'm joined now by Peter Schweizer. He's author of: “Do As I Say, Not As I Do: Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.”
Peter, that's some tough stuff coming from you. Why did you write this book?
PETER SCHWEIZER, AUTHOR, “DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO: PROFILES IN
LIBERAL HYPOCRISY”: Well, because I think there's a huge imbalance when you look at the issue of hypocrisy.
They are always—the media is always looking at hypocrisy that occurs by conservatives. And it does. But they give liberals a free pass. And let me just say, by the way, Joe, that the title of those chapters that you just read, those are names that those individuals have thrown at other people who are doing the exact same thing that they are doing.
So, when Ted Kennedy is called an environmental rapist, that is because of the environmental practices and businesses that he is involved in.
SCARBOROUGH: And you are saying that Ted Kennedy has called others environmental rapists also, right?
SCHWEIZER: Yes, he has.
For example, he goes after the oil destroy, and talks about how it contributes to global warming. He has called oil companies environmental rapists. A lot of people don't know that the Kennedys own an oil company. I don't mean shares in an oil company. They own an oil company that drills for oil in five American states.
SCARBOROUGH: That's nice.
Talk about Michael Moore. I mean, here is a guy that has been screaming anti-corporate slogans forever, talking about big rich businessmen. Of course, he flies around in a corporate jet when he goes on his book tours. Talk about what you found out about this guy.
SCHWEIZER: Well, Michael Moore has said at least half-a-dozen times, I don't own a single share of stock, because he considers investing in the stock market to be dirty money.
Well, I guess he is technically correct. He doesn't own a single share of stock. He owns tens of thousands of shares of stock. And what is interesting is, is looking at the portfolio.
Michael Moore, yes, the same Michael Moore, owns shares in defense contractors like Boeing. He owns...
SCARBOROUGH: No. Well, hold—hold on. No way. You are telling me...
SCARBOROUGH: ... that Mr. “Fahrenheit 9/11” profits off of the war, because Boeing profits off the war, that he despises?
SCHWEIZER: Yes, that's exactly right. He owns shares in Honeywell.
And, believe it or not, Joe—it's on the back cover of the book—he, in recent years, has owned shares in Halliburton, the Darth Vader of corporate America.
SCARBOROUGH: OK. Hold on. I got to stop you, Peter...
SCARBOROUGH: ... because this guy said that he doesn't invest on Wall Street. Are you telling me that he just is just lying to us?
SCHWEIZER: It's a flat, bald-faced lie. When he says that he doesn't own shares, I pulled IRS forms from a tax shelter of his. And he has hundreds of thousands of dollars on the stock market.
Right now, for example, he is preparing a film on pharmaceutical companies, attacking the health care industry. In recent years, he has owned shares in Tenet Healthcare, which runs HMOs, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. He is a complete hypocrite on this front.
SCARBOROUGH: And we have got to go to a break, and I want to talk to you on the other side.
But, just before we go to the break, are you telling me again that Michael Moore has owned stock in Halliburton?
SCHWEIZER: Yes. That's what his IRS forms—and he signed his own IRS forms.
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, my goodness. Just too much.
Hey, stay with us. We will be right back with more of you, Peter.
And, also, back by popular demand, the SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY challenge trivia. Tonight's question: Which president named the most judges to the Supreme Court? Was it George Washington, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or Dwight Eisenhower?
We will have the answer when we return.
SCARBOROUGH: Now the answer to this week's SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY challenge. We asked which president appointed the most Supreme Court justices. The answer, George Washington. Oh, going with the obvious. Tried to be subtle and said Dwight Eisenhower. It didn't work out for me this time. But we will try it again next week.
I am talking right now to Peter Schweizer. He's the author—this is an incredible book—of “Do As I Say, Not As I Do.”
Peter, you got to tell the London Ritz story about Michael Moore.
You know, Michael more loves to talk about and show that he is just an ordinary guy. And according to people at the British Film Institute, what he does when he visits London is, he takes a suite, a very large room, at the Ritz, you know, a very expensive hotel. But he also gets a room at a sort of low-brow hotel. So, he lives at the Ritz, but when he meets with the media, he goes to the low-brow hotel.
You know, it's a great way to show that he has got those working-class roots, even though he is not really that way. And it's a typical example of what I call “Do as I say, not as I do” liberalism.
SCARBOROUGH: Peter, this guy lives like a rock star, doesn't he?
SCHWEIZER: He does. He lives like a rock star.
And he—it's amazing, the contradictions in his life. Michael Moore, for example, is going after conservatives for lack of diversity. They are opposed to affirmative action. That makes them racists.
I looked at who Michael Moore actually hires to work on his films, who
· puts in senior positions. And what I found, Joe, is that, since 1990, he has hired 134 people to work on his various projects. And, out of those 134 people, a grand total of three were black. So, Michael Moore is not in any position to lecture anybody about diversity.
SCARBOROUGH: Boy, I will tell you what. The Bush administration's percentages are a lot higher than that.
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Peter, thank you so much for being with us.
Please, if you will, come back next week. We have got a lot more ground to cover.
SCHWEIZER: I would love to do that, Joe. Thanks for having me.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. Thank you.
Hey, we will be right back, everybody.
SCARBOROUGH: Just another high school game in Nebraska. Oh, wait, except there's a plane crash on the sidelines. We will give you that story when SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY returns.
SCARBOROUGH: It's just another day playing football in Nebraska, until an ultralight plane crashed on the sidelines. A pilot and an onlooker were rushed to a local hospital, treated for minor injuries. That's the way to rev up the third quarter in a blowout.
That's all the time we have for tonight. “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON” starts right now.
Hey, Tucker, what's the situation tonight?
CARLSON: I am sort of—my head is spinning from watching that video, Joe. But I am going to pull it together.
SCARBOROUGH: I know.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Content and programming copyright 2005 MSNBC. 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 MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.'s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.