Skip to main content
Search
Services


 

Return to Transcripts main page

GLENN BECK

Should Israel Act Against Iran?; Schwarzenegger Proposes Free Healthcare for Children

Aired January 8, 2007 - 19:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


GLENN BECK, HOST: Coming up from Hollywood, 3,000 miles away from any glass leaks in New York City. The question is, are Iran and Israel heading for a nuclear showdown?
Plus, what does Arnold Schwarzenegger want to give illegal aliens? The answer, hopefully, will shock and amaze you, up next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by The Glenn Beck End O` the World Kit. Each one includes gas masks, duct tape and a week`s supply of delicious jelly doughnuts. The Glenn Beck End O` the World Kit. Hey, you never know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Well, we still don`t know much about the mysterious leak in New York City earlier today. But I do know this, I ain`t there. So I`m actually kind of happy to be in Hollywood, which I don`t think has ever come out of my mouth. Thick smog has never tasted so delicious.

The question is, you know, I was -- I was here in L.A. I left New York on Saturday, which begs the question, what did I know and when did I know it?

But the big news today is out of the Middle East. There`s a report from the "London Sunday Times" that says that Israeli pilots are training to strike at large nuclear facilities in Iran with small bunker buster nukes of their own.

Now, as you know, Iran has really made no secret that it wants to wipe Israel off of the map. So it`s understandable for Israel to, you know, not want that to happen.

However, Israel is denying the report saying, "Nukes? I don`t think we have any nukes. Do we have nukes?"

Here`s the point tonight. I`m not smart enough to tell you what`s actually going to happen between, you know, Iran and Israel. But I can tell you something I`ve been telling you for months: something is coming our way and it ain`t good.

Here`s how I got there. Israel did the same exact thing -- thing to Iraq in the summer of 1981, destroying the nuclear facilities before Saddam Hussein could get his hands on a shiny new nuclear bomb. In hindsight, that was a really good move. Israel not only saved itself but quite possibly it saved Kuwait and the rest of the Middle East from Saddam Hussein, as well.

If Israel strikes now, they would prevent another madman or madmen from getting weapons of mass destruction. But this time around, they might also set the Middle East on fire. Nobody in the region is going to hold Iran accountable for developing nuclear weapons.

Right now they are building statues of Saddam Hussein in Libya. Do you really think the evil SOB`s in Libya and in Iran are going to be held responsible for the rest of the world for being irresponsible? I don`t think so.

The clerics and the ayatollahs will be treated like heroes in Iran and all throughout the whole Middle East. Because that`s the way other evil people, like Gadhafi, in the Middle East will paint them, like heroes.

So now you have to decide right now whether Israel has a right to survive. Because it`s going to be too late for you to decide once the propaganda machine just starts kicking in the reprisals start.

So to put everything into perspective, I look at it this way. You have to ask yourself this question. Let`s say Canada pledged to destroy America, you know, to use Iran`s language, make us vanish. Then they held seminars about how evil we were. Then they started enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons.

Do you really think that America would wait indefinitely for the United Nations to ultimately fail? Do you really think that after diplomacy had been tried and failed, we`d sit on our hands as the clock ticked down to zero? Not a chance. We`d strike and we`d be right to strike.

Israel is no different. But we`ll sit here. We`ll sit here thousands of miles away on the other side of the globe while the global community will try to condemn Israel, as they always do in situations where they`re trying to defend themselves.

So tonight here`s what I know. People have been trying to wipe Jews off the face of the earth for thousands of years. And, given the history of the world, isn`t it time when somebody says, "Hey, let`s kill all the Jews," we take them at face value?

Here`s what I don`t know. I don`t know if a strike like this would contain Iran, as it did with Iraq, or if Iran would be silenced. It might just possibly set the entire Middle East on fire.

Ilan Berman, he`s from the American Foreign Policy Council.

Officials in Israel deny any plans are in motion, but they`ve got to be considering the possibility, don`t they, Ilan?

ILAN BERMAN, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY COUNCIL: Absolutely, Glenn. And I think what this is more than anything else is a warning to the international community, not to the Iranians themselves, but to us.

The Israelis don`t have the luxury of being separated from Iran by a large ocean, so they have to be a little bit nervous about this. In fact, quite a bit nervous about this.

What they`re telling us in no uncertain terms is, if the current measures at the U.N., if the sanctions, the diplomatic wrist slapping, doesn`t work, that`s not going to be the end of it. We will be forced to act. So what they`re essentially telling us is you guys better get serious and better get serious very fast.

BECK: Right. And you know, when I talked to Benjamin Netanyahu and we sat down for a conversation -- I don`t know what it was, a month ago, two months ago -- I took -- he looked me right in the eye and said, "If you guys won`t act, we will. We have a right to live."

And I believe him. That was not a puffing of the chest. That was dead serious.

BERMAN: No, I think that`s right. And if you look at the type of rhetoric that`s coming out of Israel, it`s very often that Israeli politicians bluster, and they talk about things as threats to national security but to Israeli national security.

So for example, the Palestinian issue is obviously framed as an Israeli national security issue. Iran is beginning to be framed as a Jewish issue, as an issue that concerns the whole Jewish people. And that`s a very different thing, with all sorts of connotations about World War II and of the Holocaust.

BECK: So let me -- let me try to find a little ray of sunshine here. The other nut jobs, like you know, in my opinion, the dirt bags that are running countries like Saudi Arabia, they want this solved, too. They don`t want a nuclear armed Iran. So this might push them into trying to restrain them a little bit.

BERMAN: No, I think that`s right.

BECK: Right or wrong?

BERMAN: No, that`s right. I think what makes all the difference in the world is, if this is done, how it`s done. It`s quite clear that countries like the Gulf Cooperation Council states like Yemen and others are very concerned about the Iranian bomb. And they might condemn Israel publicly, but they might be applauding privately.

The real question is, when Israel does it, what do they hope to achieve? And if you look at sort of the war plans as depicted in the news, the Israelis have made pretty clear that their goal is not denuclearization. Their goal is just to slow down the Iranian bombs. And so we really have to ask ourselves whether that`s what we want or whether we want something different.

BECK: All right. So now let me be conspiratorial. On the other side, don`t you think that -- OK, Israel wants to slow things down. That`s their plan. Wouldn`t this unite the Arab streets? I mean, it`s almost like with President Tom, Ahmadinejad having such a bad showing in the last election, this would be something that would unite the -- at least the Iranian streets behind him and the regime, wouldn`t it?

BERMAN: Absolutely. And that`s why military action has to be, when we think about it, when Israeli officials think about it, has to be a last resort. Because the regime is enormously unpopular, but they happen to agree with the people on one important thing, which is that their country deserves to have nuclear power. So if someone on the outside tries to take it away, it`s likely to have the Iranians rally around the flag, and that`s the opposite of what we want.

BERMAN: Here`s the problem, Ilan. I -- I mean, I`ve spent months thinking about this and talking about this. And I can`t -- I can`t come up with a good ending for this, because I have no faith in the United Nations or, you know, China and Russia stepping up on the plate and doing the right thing.

It`s almost -- am I being too fatalist to say that at some point, this is going to happen? Somebody is going to strike Iran?

BERMAN: That`s certainly the way it`s looking.

I mean, let`s be clear. What we`re doing at the U.N. right now is far too little, far too late.

BECK: Right.

BERMAN: If there are sanctions that have passed -- have run the gauntlet of the Russians and the Chinese, they`re not likely to offend Moscow or Beijing, and as a result, they`re not likely to offend Tehran either.

And that means that when the Israelis look at this land to land. And right now they`re OK with subcontracting and allowing us take the lead. But when -- when the Iranians cross the red line, an important red line, like for example, in March when they say at the end of the Iranian calendar year, which is in March, that they will be ready to begin industrial uranium enrichment.

When the Iranians cross the red line -- they`re about to -- and the Israelis look at us. If we`re not doing anything serious, then they`re going to conclude, and rightly so, that they need to do this.

BECK: All right. I`ve only got 10 seconds. Just a thumbnail for me. Does this send us back to 1981 when the regime becomes stable and defanged a little bit? Or does it set the entire Middle East on fire if they do strike?

BERMAN: I think everything depends on how it`s done and whether or not we decide that once battle is joined we`re willing to help.

BECK: OK. Thanks a lot.

Coming up, Governor Schwarzenegger`s proposal: free coverage for medical care for all children. What a proposal that is, including illegals. Well, it`s actually not free for everyone. I`ll give you the details in a second.

Also, Angelina Jolie takes a shot over at Madonna and her African adoption. Angelina, didn`t you start all of this?

Plus, speaking of hypocrisy, Congress takes a break from their grueling two days of work so they can catch up on some football. Tonight`s "Real Story" of outrage. From gridiron to grid lock, why Congress is the same as it ever was.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I am more and more convinced, because I -- look, I`m paid to do this. I`m paid to pay attention to the news. And every time I go on vacation, I don`t pay attention to the news at all.

And I find myself -- by the end of vacation, I find myself all the time focusing on what`s really important, and that is my family. The No. 1 thing you can do is pay attention to your family and do the right thing for your family and not get lost in -- not get lost in the news of the day. It`s -- it`s bull crap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Well, I`m here to bring you some more of that bull crap.

Americans have access to the highest quality of medical attention in the entire world. But the sad reality is that millions still go uninsured. Far too many of those people are children.

Now, fresh from the inaugural ceremony that kicked off his second term, the Governator here in California announced his plan to terminate the problem, guaranteeing coverage to 800,000 uninsured children. Cha-ching. That includes over 100,000 that are illegal immigrant children.

Now how exactly does the governor plan to pay for this? Not surprisingly, the action star turned politician a little short on answers and answer, as politicians tend to be.

However, experts suggest that a plan of this nature would cost in the neighborhood of $400 million a year. Kind of a big ticket item when you consider that Schwarzenegger has assured Californians no taxes, not going to raise them, even though they`re currently facing a $5.3 billion spending gap.

Let`s forget about fiscal responsibilities, if that`s something we should pay attention to at a second. Let`s look at it this way. There are illegal immigrants pouring into the United States, most of them here in California, by the hundreds of thousands each and every year.

Do you really think that number is going to start getting smaller if the governor of California starts dolling out free health insurance to illegal children?

I mean, Governor, why don`t you just go right down to San Diego and start handing out pinatas full of cash and candy?

Joining me now is Ira Mehlman. He`s the media director for the Federation of American Immigration Reform.

Ira, to me, it seems like Schwarzenegger is -- let`s just be blunt -- encouraging illegal immigration with this plan. Am I wrong?

IRA MEHLMAN, MEDIA DIRECTOR, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: Of course he`s encouraging illegal immigration.

One of the reasons why, as you point out, California has the lion`s share of the illegal population of the United States is because California has been so generous with benefits to people who are in the country illegally.

You know, it seems sometimes like the folks up there in Sacramento stay up late at night bringing up new benefits and new services that they can provide to illegal aliens. And then they`re surprised to find that they have millions of illegal aliens here, that they have huge social costs and they have huge budget deficits to boot. This isn`t going to solve the problem; it`s going to exacerbate it.

BECK: All right. Let me -- let me play devil`s advocate here for a second. Because it`s my understanding here in California that you`ve got hospital emergency rooms closing because they can`t afford it.

So you`ve got the illegal immigrants coming in because that`s the only access they have to health care, playing devil`s advocate. Wouldn`t this, in a way, save the state -- go with me on this for a second -- save the state money by giving them insurance so they don`t have to use emergency hospital care?

MEHLMAN: You know, in the short run, it might. But as you point out, it`s going to attract a lot more people to the state illegally.

You know, the place you should be dealing with this is not at the emergency room door, not at the schoolhouse door. What California needs to do is send a clear message that illegal immigration is not going to be tolerated in this state.

You have local governments, for instance, Hazelton, Pennsylvania, that have started going after the employers. They have started going after the landlords, saying to those folks, "Look, it is your actions that are causing illegal aliens to settle here, imposing burdens on the community. We`re going to hold you responsible."

That`s what California needs to do. We in this state need to start holding the businesses, the landlords accountable, because they`re profiting, and then they`re sticking everybody else with the bill.

BECK: I`ve got to tell you, I think you could be 7 and figure this one out. This is only happening because of politics and big business. You are so on the money of go after the people who are hiring these people. You`ll choke off the demand, and the supply will go away.

MEHLMAN: Exactly. And, you know, this is not cheap labor. It`s cheap only to the direct employer. As it turns out, it`s very expensive to the taxpayers, it is destroying the middle class.

You know, in fact, here`s a ripple effect, because in addition to the illegal aliens who don`t have health insurance, a lot of the American citizens who worked the jobs that previously provided health insurance, the employers have decided they`re not going to provide that anymore.

And I guarantee you if this bill is passed you`re going to have a lot more employers who are going to say, "Why should I pay for health insurance for my employees? I`ll just let Arnold pay for it." We`re only going to create a bigger problem here.

BECK: So Ira, I mean, where are the smart people? I mean, because it doesn`t -- I`m not the -- I`m not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And here we have a story last week, that illegal aliens can work in the country for 18 months and get on Social Security, a program that is completely falling apart. It`s not going to last. And we`re making it worse.

Now we do this with health insurance. Where are the people on the other side?

MEHLMAN: Well, you know, you asked where the smart people are? And for sure, they`re not in Sacramento or Washington, D.C.

But I think if you look out across the broader nation, most Americans understand what is happening here. They understand that the phenomenon of illegal immigration is undermining the middle class in this country, destroying a lot of middle class jobs.

And then on top of that it`s imposing tremendous burdens on them as taxpayers. And you know, I think that we will see the same phenomenon as last year. When Congress tried to pass an amnesty the American people stood up and said, no way.

And just because we changed leadership in Congress doesn`t mean that the American public is any more ready to tolerate any sort of action that will result in a massive amnesty, in a new influx of illegal immigrants and millions of relatives coming here. It`s simply going to impose more burdens on them.

BECK: Ira, thank you very much. You know, I`ll tell you the No. 1 question that I get is, "OK, I get it, Glenn. So what am I supposed to do?" You`re supposed to stand up and say, enough.

Now how do you suppose California is going to actually pay for this thing? Well, I`ve got a suggestion for the governor. You know, start small, maybe by selling the naming rights to the Golden Gate Bridge. Really, seriously. The Hormel Beef Chili Bridge, not bad.

Then perhaps you try your hand at retail. In fact, as I see it, there`s one untapped demographic that just is waiting to be exploited.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Hola, amigos. Thinking about visiting America but don`t want to pay those exorbitant smuggling -- I mean, travel costs? Well, your worries are over at Golden State Ladders. We have ladders that fit all your travel needs.

Need to get over a 40-foot fence? It`s your lucky day. We have 41- foot ladders priced to move and built right here in California by family- forced prison laborers.

Golden State Ladders, welcoming immigrants to California one step at a time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Every day you can hear my radio program on stations right across the country, including right here in Los Angeles, 830 AM KLAA, and our newest affiliate, 103.9 FM in Columbus, Ohio.

Now if you can`t find an affiliate in your area, sign up and listen online at GlennBeck.com.

We got to Dave Glover now. He`s on our affiliate in St. Louis, KFTK 97.1 FM Talk.

David, I want to get into Angelina Jolie, here in a second, what she said about Madonna.

DAVE GLOVER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Waiting for that.

BECK: But first, this drives me out of my mind. Have the people in St. Louis taken down their Christmas decorations yet?

GLOVER: You know what? I`m the wrong guy to ask. I`m way out on the bell curve on this one. I love Christmas. I love Christmas lights. But Christmas night I`m ready to take them down. After new year`s, it drives me crazy. But no. To answer your question, no, no one has taken them down yet.

BECK: Look, you know what? As a public service, I`m going to warn America and I`m going to give you the outline and -- on the etiquette of Christmas decorations.

GLOVER: All right. All right.

BECK: First of all, the day after Thanksgiving you can put the lights up. Go ahead. That weekend you put the lights up. Then you can trim the tree anywhere from then to the week before Christmas. I`m sorry, but you`re a freak if you decorate Christmas Eve.

GLOVER: Great.

BECK: Next is you have to take the tree down on January 1.

GLOVER: I agree with you.

BECK: Right. And you have to go a step further. You cannot turn the lights on after New Year`s Eve outside. You don`t have to have them necessarily down. It`s better, it`s preferred, but you can`t turn the lights on.

I would say by the 8th everything`s got -- you`re done. And my point is, Dave, after the 8th, starting today, if you have a neighbor that is turning on the lights, hasn`t taken the decoration down, you send them a picture -- you send me a picture of their house, and we`re exposing them.

GLOVER: You`re going to be very busy.

BECK: I can`t take it. I had a neighbor last year I drove by. It was from Christmas to St. Patrick`s Day...

GLOVER: Yes.

BECK: ... that they were still lighting it every night. I thought it was an automatic switch. I thought they might be dead inside.

GLOVER: You know, I`d say if they`re up right now, you`re festive. If they`re up next week, you`re lazy. In February, you`re pure white trash. Have your white flashbacks (ph) now. Put down the Cheetos and hold the ladder. It`s time to take them down.

BECK: Send those pictures in to me at GlennBeck@CNN.com.

OK, Dave. Angelina Jolie and Madonna, what`s going on?

GLOVER: Well, first of all, they`re collecting African babies like Kate Spade purses. And that whole thing is lost on me. But evidently they`re having this cat fight.

A couple months ago Madonna called Angelina an idiot because of the work she`s doing. And then yesterday Angelina was interviewed. And she said, first of all, how horrified she was that people are being so tough on Madonna.

Then she kicked her right in the ribs, man, while she was down and trying to get up, talking about how silly she was for going to this country where they have no legal adoptions, so hers isn`t necessarily illegal and how she just basically bought the baby and gave, you know, the center a couple of million dollars. It`s really Trump/Rosie O`Donnell-ish. It`s just getting pretty ugly.

BECK: I was just going to say, you know, the nice thing about this is Trump and Rosie O`Donnell haven`t said anything to each other for the last couple of days. It gives us something good to chew on.

Dave, thanks a lot.

GLOVER: See you man.

BECK: Back in a minute with "The Real Story".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Tonight, from Los Angeles, California, I welcome you to "The Real Story."

Last month, the new House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, caused a lot of controversy on Capitol Hill when he announced that the new Congress would be working for five whole days every week. I know. I know. Insane. That`s what I thought.

He said to reporters, quote, "I have bad news for you. Those trips you had planned in January, forget about them. We`ll be working almost every day in January, starting with the 4th."

Well, wow. I guess "almost" was the key word there, because the real story is the House already has taken a day off. That`s right. After thousands of grueling seconds spent shaking hands last week, taking photos, and hardly voting on anything, the House reportedly is taking the day off - - I am not kidding you -- for the college football national championship game. Yes. Yes.

Now, please don`t burden yourself, you know, bringing up meaningless points like, "Gee, Glenn, no company in the world lets employees take the day off for a football game," or, you know, "Well, the game doesn`t even start until 8:15 tonight. What do they need the whole day off for?"

OK, they just do, all right? It`s not for us simpletons to be able to understand this stuff. But just to show you how out of touch our leaders really are with the public and us simpletons, let me ask you this question: Who takes the day of the game off? Don`t you take the day after off? I mean, everybody knows that.

But lest you think it`s all fun and games. They do get back to work bright and early tomorrow morning, crack of dawn, 10:30ish, on a resolution -- and I am not making this up -- a resolution on the mourning of the death of President Ford, yes, mourning spelled with a "u." I`m sure that will be a pretty heated debate.

Let me tell you something, Congress: That`s doing the work of the American people. I`ll just tell you, we`ve been dying for that resolution on that one.

And just in case this week`s agenda is too hard on them, just so you know, they will have plenty of time to catch up on their sleep this weekend, because they also have next Monday off for Martin Luther King Day. At this rate, I think the first 100 hours, you know, we keep hearing them talking about, that`s not going to be done until Labor Day.

Next, the president has booked time on national television Wednesday night -- set your watches now -- to announce the strategy for a new way forward in Iraq. This comes as the "Military Times" has a new poll in it suggesting that only about one-third of U.S. military members approve of the way President Bush is handling the war there.

Now, that might sound surprising. But the real story is the people who want to divide this country have succeeded in dividing all Americans. And that includes the military.

I want you to think about this for a second. Politicians on both sides, politicians want you to believe that the other party is made up of nothing but anti-American monsters. According to them, conservatives want to erect concentration camps and gas chambers to take care of all of our enemies and anyone in Hollywood that agrees with us.

Now, on the other side, evil monster conservatives want you to believe that liberals want to just restart the USSR in Washington, D.C. Well, you know what? Guess what, simpleton. The people who were watching this from their homemade Election `08 nerve center in their basement are going to be shocked to hear it, but you and me, we know none of it is true.

As Americans, we may disagree on policies, but we don`t disagree on principles, like the Congress should be working tonight. Our founding fathers understood that this would be a problem. That`s why George Bush railed against political parties from the very beginning. He said they`d be the death of us. And, gee, check your watches. He might just be -- might just be right.

That`s also why, contrary to popular belief, our nation was formed, not as a democracy, but as a republic. Do you remember in the good, old days when you were allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school? You might recall that little line that says, "And to the republic, for which it stands."

There`s a huge difference. A republic is a government that is ruled by a constitution, while a democracy is a government ruled directly by a majority of people. If we lived in a democracy, then any time 51 percent of us agreed on something, it would be done.

If you think that sounds like a good way to make the hard decisions, ask yourself a couple of questions. Would a majority of the people -- or, in this case, a majority of the soldiers -- chosen to fight that bloody battle for that small piece of rock called Iwo Jima? I don`t think so.

Would 51 percent of the nation allow the bombs to be dropped on Japan, an act that ended the war early and probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides? In case you`re still trying to decide, the answer is, no, not a chance.

Being commander-in-chief isn`t a popularity contest or, you know, just a job where you act on what the majority thinks. It`s about listening to the best advice from all sides and then making the decision you believe is in the best interest of the country. Sometimes you`re right; sometimes you`re wrong. Sometimes your decision is popular, like invading Afghanistan; sometimes not, like invading Iraq.

But one thing I do know is the character and honor of our troops. They understand that, whether it`s George Bush or Al Gore making the decisions, they will do the job. They are the military of the United States of America. And no matter what any poll says, they are more united and there is no more united force in the entire world than ours.

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis, he is a syndicated columnist and Pentagon consultant. Robert, where am I going wrong on this?

LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, I tend to agree with you, Glenn. Of course, the soldiers do want to know when this is going to be over. They are tired of back-to-back combat tours. It does take it out on your body, as well as your family. My concern is long term, and that is, how do we sustain a volunteer force...

BECK: Right.

MAGINNIS: ... if, in fact, the best and the brightest are going to say, "Look, too many combat tours. It`s time to go home. Mom, kids need me." And I work daily in that environment. I know these young people, and it is tough.

BECK: Well, Robert, don`t you also think that this is a reflection -- I mean, to me, it only makes sense. You`re over there busting your butt. You`re putting your life on the line.

The president, quite honestly, I think the military guidance that the president has shown has been weak, at best, in many ways. They don`t see a light at the end of the tunnel. They see these polls where the Americans say, "Well, I don`t know if it was worth it." That`s got to eat at your morale.

MAGINNIS: Well, it really does. You know, the opinion in the military, Glenn, follows the general population, and it shows up first generally in our National Guard and Reserves. So we`re beginning to see attrition rates that are somewhat unacceptable.

You know, I know Charlie Rangel talks about draft and so forth. That`s not the answer, I don`t believe. But clearly we need a volunteer force that we have to sustain.

And this is the third-longest war as -- soon, perhaps, if we`re not careful, to be the second-longest war we`ve ever fought. So the reality is that these young people need a very clear mission.

They need to know what they need to do, when they need to do it. And they need to see crystal clear how they`re going to get out of there. And the president has to make it perfectly clear why we`re there and why this is linked to our national security.

I expect he`ll try to do that on Wednesday night. I just hope he does.

BECK: You know, can you even imagine, Robert, if Charlie Rangel had his way and we had an all-volunteer force? Can you imagine what morale would be like? Can you imagine how many deaths there would be because people wouldn`t want to be there doing their job?

MAGINNIS: Absolutely, Glenn. Back during the Vietnam War -- and I was in there in the tail end and saw the draftees. Morale was tough. You know, training that cadre of people who don`t want to be there, by the way, is incredibly expensive. The retention is in the toilet.

So you have to think about the long-term interest of our country. We have to have a professional military that can go anywhere in the world, and do these tough missions, and do it selflessly. And yet, you know, we have to treat it very carefully.

And I know the senior leaders in the Pentagon are trying to do that, but I`m beginning to become concerned about our politicians.

BECK: Yes.

MAGINNIS: They have to recognize what a precious gift these people give us every day.

BECK: OK. So what does victory at this point look like, Robert?

MAGINNIS: Well, to me, victory is the Iraqi security forces can secure their borders, can contain most of the insurgency, the sectarian violence, that unity government gets off its butt and begins to provide critical services to people, and you provide jobs. Yes, we`re going to provide them more money, but a constant flow of U.S. money into Iraq is not the answer.

BECK: No.

MAGINNIS: They have to figure out the way ahead. I think that Maliki maybe is getting the message, but I`m still somewhat skeptical.

BECK: I will tell you, Robert, that my family and I at Christmastime, we had a conversation that -- you know, we always say that we support the troops, and I happen to be for the war in Iraq. But there are a lot that weren`t for this war, and they say they support the troops.

Can you think of a better way to support our troops than through things like the USO? This Christmas, my family and I, we went to a USO center, and we packed boxes and wrote letters to the troops.

Does that make an impression on the troops? Hearing the voice from average Americans, do you think that makes a difference?

MAGINNIS: Absolutely. You know, just getting a letter that says, "Thank you for what you`re doing," or some cookies -- you know, a friend of mine is part of the Army band. They went over there to seven locations in Iraq and Afghanistan and sang and entertained our troops, along with some Hollywood stars.

These kids really appreciate that. They are encouraged. It allows them to go another couple of days without another boost of energy from people, you know, that are showing support. You may not like what`s going on, on the ground, but the reality is there are people representing our best interests. And when our politicians say, "Come home," they`ll come home.

BECK: Yes. Robert, thank you very much. And, please, if you are at all interested in anything we`ve just said, please get involved with the USO. That is the "Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to read more about this or if you`ve found a story of your own you`d like to tell us about, please visit glennbeck.com and click on the "Real Story" button.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: "Deliver Us From Evil," it is an award-winning new documentary that is out now. It could easily be described as a horror film. It tells us a story of a guy named Father Oliver O`Grady. He is a pedophile priest that was here in California. He`s got a history of lies and deceit behind him a mile long. The Catholic Church knew all too well about his repeated offensive. It is sadly one of the goriest tales of sexual abuse by priests.

And they are increasingly common these days. I have never seen a story as shocking as this one. If you have the stomach, take a look at this clip, where O`Grady talks openly about the kinds of children that turn him on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLIVER O`GRADY, CHILD MOLESTING PRIEST: You know, I`d have to say, certainly, on the younger level, that that`s where a lot of that surfaced. And as I said (INAUDIBLE) do you feel aroused when you see women? I would say no. Do you feel aroused if you see men? No. If you say, do you feel aroused if you see children? I said, "Well, maybe." How about children who are swimsuits? I said, "Yes." How about children in underwear? I would say, "Yes," you know? How about if you saw children naked? I`d say, "Uh-huh, yes."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK, whether it was a 5-year-old girl, an 11-year-old boy, or a 9-month-old baby, Father O`Grady, equal opportunity monster, who even went so far to have an affair with a young boy`s mother so he could be free so sodomize her son. Father Ollie finally arrested and only served seven years out of his 14-year sentence before being defrocked and deported back to Ireland.

Amy Berg is the director of this new and powerful film. Pleased to welcome her now. Amy, out of all of the people that you could make a film about, why this guy?

AMY BERG, DIRECTOR, "DELIVER US FROM EVIL": Well, it was the first time that a priest had ever agreed to talk about their side of the story. And I was producing stories here for CNN and CBS News before that. And this was one of the stories I was covering. And this was just the first time that someone was going to talk about that side of the story, what kind of dialogues he...

BECK: Well, wait a minute. What is his side of the story, other than he`s a monster?

BERG: Well, his side of the story is that he was abusing children, and his authorities knew about it. And instead of taking him out of ministry, they moved him to other churches. And I think that`s kind of the sad part of this story, is that there was so much knowledge. There were police investigations. There were parents who went to the authorities in the church, and there were discussions. And he was knowingly left in charge of children.

BECK: Where`s the line between Catholic-bashing and standing up and saying, "Catholic Church, man, what are you doing? Why are you not standing up?"

You know what? I get hammered for what I`ve said to Muslims about, "You`ve got to control your faith, because it`s been hijacked and people are wrecking it for you." I feel the same way. Catholics, you`ve got to stand up, because you`ve got people who are turning a blind eye to this stuff. What`s the difference between that and Catholic-bashing?

BERG: Yes, you can`t really -- Catholic-bashing really has nothing to do with this story. I mean, you don`t call people who were upset with how Foley was acting "government-bashers." This is just children need to be protected. And if somebody is abusing children and he`s knowing left in ministry, then it`s just bad management. And the church is a business like anything else.

BECK: OK. But, you know, you want to say that, but then, it`s not just the Catholic Church that is turning a blind eye to this. The White House, you`ve got Washington saying the Catholic Church, the Pope shouldn`t be held to questioning or any kind of responsibility for this. What`s up with that?

BERG: Well, there`s a lot of power that goes along with the whole political aspect of the church. I mean, first of all, it`s a very, very lucrative business. And, second of all, these are huge corporations where people put all of their trust, and they believe in whatever the people that they are trusting tell them. So, obviously, there`s some kind of a problem there, if they`re being protected.

BECK: You did a poll on your Web site that said, "Do you agree with the White House stance that the Pope or anybody else that was involved in this kind of stuff should be held for questioning and prosecution?" What are people saying on your Web site?

BERG: People want accountability; that`s just the bottom line. If somebody knew something and they turned a blind eye and somebody got hurt, then they want that person to be accountable. I mean, how do you look at an institution the same way when you know that they`ve been knowingly harming children?

BECK: Is this a pedophile`s dream come true, the protection of the church? Is that why we see more? Or why is it? Why are there so many Catholic priests at least seemingly going down this road?

BERG: Well, I don`t think that you can say it`s a pedophile`s dream come true. I mean, I don`t think any of us can get into the mind of a pedophile. I think the film provides an interesting glimpse. But I just think that the story needs to get out so that people can know what happened and hold others accountable for this so that there can be some change.

BECK: Great. Amy, thank you very much.

Let`s check in now with Nancy Grace, see what she`s got coming up on the show tonight -- Nancy?

NANCY GRACE, CNN HOST: Tonight, Glenn, APB, "All-Points Bulletin." A 14-year-old girl gone from her parents` own upscale home, Escondido, California. Tonight, police are investigating a 34-year-old adult male they believe targeted the little girl on the Internet.

And tonight, infant twins kidnapped, hidden outside the U.S. Tonight, the kidnapped gives up the fight to remain abroad, heading back to the U.S., possibly facing life behind bars. P.S., Glenn, the kidnapper is the twins` own mother.

BECK: Don`t forget, check Nancy out tonight, 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. Eastern, right here, "Headline Prime."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Let`s get to the e-mail. First from Rob here in California. "CNN had advertised that Glenn Beck has issues with Oprah`s philanthropy in South Africa. Well, as a disillusioned Democrat and hater of the conservative media, I naturally assumed Glenn would be just one more voice in opposition to the incredible contributions of Oprah. To my pleasant surprise, not only was I wrong, but Glenn proceeded to present one of the most uplifting stories I`ve ever seen on the news. Rob, California."

Well, Rob, thanks for the mail. You know, I say from time to time, this show is not about left and right. It`s about right and wrong, despite whatever you read on the web sites that end in ".org." It`s easy to wreck somebody as rich as Oprah, you know, for not doing enough, but let`s just be honest about it: Most of us would be more worried about what vacation house we were buying than building schools in Africa. Good for Oprah.

Damon from Columbus writes in, "Glenn, I am so glad to have you back on the air in Columbus. Thank God for 103.9 FM. Damon, Columbus." Thank you, brother. I`m with you. We had a problem with our long-run affiliate in Columbus where we`ve been one, two or three in the market for years and years. But we`ve now moved over to the FM side of the dial, at 103.9 FM talk. Been hammered about e-mails about where the radio show is there in Ohio, and there is your answer. Columbus 103.9 FM, we`ll see you there.

Steven in New Hampshire writes in, "Glenn, you were trying to get that model to eat a sandwich so you didn`t feel like you had a problem." This was on Friday`s show. "The fact is, you are fat and continue to deny it, like 70 percent of the country does. Hopefully, you won`t stop people from recognizing that overeating is a mental disease. Steven, New Hampshire."

Well, first of all, we can`t really talk about weight without showing that classic cable news standard footage, can we? Let`s roll that in. Oh, this is beautiful. This is where fat people are shot from the neck down so they can`t be identified as literally the visual example of the word "fat." How classy of us, isn`t it?

Steven, I have to tell you, I wouldn`t really use the word "fat" to describe myself. I`d say I`m more soft and cuddly or muscle-tone deficient. And I`m begging you, don`t try to add another mental disorder to the pile of excuses for lack of self-control in this country. I don`t have the body of Brad Pitt not because of some mental disorder; it`s because I don`t hang out at the gym 24 hours a day. Well, that and the fact that I believe God has cursed me.

We`re back tomorrow from L.A., with the Hollywood sign hovering above us like a vampire waiting to suck the blood out of my neck. We`ll see you tomorrow.

END

Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines