Return to Transcripts main page
Former CIA Operative Weighs in on Afghan War; Kerik Weighs in on NYC Terror Threats; Expert: Photos Reveal Father of Anna Nicole`s Baby
Aired February 27, 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, Vice President Cheney was the target of a suicide attack. Who`s behind it and what does it mean?
Plus, Iran, are they scouting terror targets in Manhattan? We`ll talk to Bernard Kerik coming up. That and more next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by Anna Nicole chewable vitamins. If you`re in Anna Nicole withdrawal and jonesing for a fix, try Anna Nicole chewable vitamins, made with bits of real methadone!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Early this morning, a bomb exploded outside the Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan where Vice President Dick Cheney was paying an unannounced visit. The Taliban is taking credit for this incredibly bold move, and claiming that Cheney was a target but the vice president was half a mile away and unharmed. But more than 15 people died in the attack.
Wait a minute. Wasn`t it unannounced? Who knew that Dick Cheney was there?
Here`s the point tonight. We have -- we have gotten so fat and lazy, we haven`t been asked to sacrifice anything in this war since 9/11, and the fact that we have a volunteer army has allowed us to fight this war from our living rooms and to delude ourselves into believing that we can stop fighting this war any time we want. Wrong. We can`t. We`ve got to finish it. Kill them before they kill us, and here`s how I got there.
You know, it seems kind of weird to me that we have forgotten that this war is still going on in Afghanistan. Even more bizarre is our collective belief that we won that war, which is wholly untrue, and that we lost the war in Iraq and that we should leave, which is also wholly untrue.
There`s only one war going on, and that`s the war against Islamic extremism. And the final outcome is far from being decided. It was started by our enemies, not on 9/11, but in Beirut during the Reagan administration, and we`ve been making mistakes and denying it ever since. It`s been going on ever since, and it`s happening in Afghanistan. It`s happening in Iraq, and soon it will be happening in Iran or right here at home.
We have no choice. The only way to stop this war from spreading over the whole globe is to fight it to win, but we`re running out of time.
Unfortunately, there are weasels on both sides of the aisle in Washington that care more about their power than our country`s survival.
As Joe Lieberman asked yesterday in his op-ed piece in the "Wall Street Journal", what ultimately matters more to us, the real fight over there or the political fight over here?
You know, we can all go back to our living rooms. We can all call our congressmen. We can all say, "Oh, I agree with you. We should pull our troops out of Iraq and go home," but if we do that, nothing is going to change except where they kill us. Instead of at a checkpoint in Bagram Air Force Base, it could be at the checkout at the grocery store.
So here`s what I know tonight. The religious zealots who blew themselves up in Afghanistan might be a tad disappointed when this guy realizes there aren`t 72 virgins waiting for him in heaven. When it comes to fanatical suicide bombers, I say let`s make Allah`s virgin hut a very crowded place. We need to finish the job and kill them before they kill us.
Here`s what I don`t know. How do you convince somebody to blow themselves up and try to kill the vice president when you know he wasn`t at the checkout -- or the checkpoint? How powerful are those that persuade someone to do something as stupid as that?
Michael Scheuer, he is the former senior CIA operative. He served as the head of the CIA`s hunt for Osama bin Laden unit in the late 1990s.
Mike, were these guys actually targeting Cheney?
MIKE SCHEUER, FORMER SENIOR CIA OPERATIVE: Oh, I think they, sir. They don`t care much about the Afghan government. They figure their government will go when we go. I think they were very definitely after Mr. Cheney.
BECK: But this leads to a very scary question. How do they know? This was an unannounced visit.
SCHEUER: Well, we -- when we`re deployed on the ground, sir, both intelligence and military, we hire an awful lot of local people. It could have been picked up by that. And there`s a lot of penetrations by the Taliban of the Afghan security service and the Afghan army, so there`s lots of avenues through which this could have flowed to the enemy.
BECK: What does this say to you, Michael? Are they calling us out? Is this a new phase? Is this just the same old, same old?
SCHEUER: No, I don`t think it`s the same old at all. They are very convinced they are going to drive us out of Afghanistan, and this was clearly an intention to get at the United States.
What it says is that we don`t care about Mr. Karzai`s government. It will go when you go, and our focus is to get you out of here as quickly as possible.
BECK: Michael, you are a guy who knows. You hunted Osama bin Laden. I mean, you were the -- you were the chief guy, right, looking for Osama bin Laden?
SCHEUER: For a while I was, sir, yes.
BECK: So you would know, and this is a tough question to -- I guess for me to even phrase because I`m a guy who has believed in this war. But I am really losing my faith in my government, which is a horrible thing to say because I -- I don`t think we`ve fought this thing right from the very beginning.
SCHEUER: They don`t go to war to win, sir. That`s the problem, neither Republicans nor Democrats.
BECK: Why? How do we -- how do we the people change that? We want to win out here, but they -- they have no intention of winning.
SCHEUER: No, they don`t, sir, and I think what will wake up the country is the next time bin Laden attacks inside the United States. Then it will be apparent that we`ve wasted the better part of a decade trying to do it by half measures.
BECK: So what is it we have to do, and why won`t they fight it this way? You know, I`m faced with the same kind of feeling that I have on the border. Americans know what`s going on, you know. We know -- you don`t want to repeat Vietnam. That`s great. Nice promise, nice speech to give.
But you know what the mistake in Vietnam was? Not fighting to win. We`re not doing it again.
SCHEUER: Mr. Beck, they are very afraid of what the world thinks of them. They`re afraid to kill our enemies, and they`re involved in two wars, in two insurgencies which are the nastiest, bloodiest kind of wars there are.
And they`re fighting them by restricting the ability of American soldiers and Marines to defend themselves. It`s unconscionable, but that`s what they`re doing.
BECK: So I think I know the answer then, but let me hear you say it anyway. There`s a report now that the rural -- the rural Afghanis mainly in the south, I believe, are begging for NATO: "Please help us. The Taliban is coming in. They`re killing us again. We`re losing the battle. Can you drop some bombs? Even," I`m told -- correct me if I`m wrong -- "even if it means you`re destroying our whole city. Please help us." And we do nothing.
SCHEUER: No. It`s -- I think it`s probably a little more complicated than that because a great deal of the southern population supports the Taliban, but we -- Mr. Beck, we have 30,000 troops in a country the size of Texas. Most of them spend their time protecting Mr. Karzai`s government. You just cannot run a war with this kind of odds against you.
BECK: Chance of us winning, with what`s going on now in Congress. I mean, I think these spineless jellyfish in Washington are just that. I mean, you want to have real courage. You fight to win, or you cut the funding. They`re trying to play this middle ground.
Is there -- what do you put the odds of us winning this war? I mean, I think we`re facing the biggest battle our country has ever seen.
SCHEUER: I don`t think you should pay any attention to what they say unless they start talking about increasing the number of troops in both places by the hundreds of thousands, and they`re never going to do that.
That`s exactly right, sir. What the Congress is debating is how best for America to lose two wars, and it`s going to make a tremendous difference in the attitudes of the Muslim world. Now they`ve beaten both superpowers. They beat the Soviets in Afghanistan. They`re on the verge of beating us in two different places, in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
BECK: You know, but we don`t have to lose this war.
SCHEUER: No, sir.
BECK: We -- we have a real chance to win this war. It`s just that we have no stomach for it. This is not Vietnam. This is not what we were -- what the Russians were facing.
SCHEUER: No, sir.
BECK: Am I wrong?
SCHEUER: Well, it`s getting to be what the Russians were facing, but the major point you made is exactly right. Our future is in our own hands. We decide our foreign policy. We decide how we fight wars. It`s entirely up to us. It`s ours to lose.
BECK: Michael, thank you very much.
SCHEUER: Pleasure, sir.
BECK: Appreciate your time, and I appreciate your service and your honesty, too, on this program. Coming up -- I`ve heard you on the radio several times before, and you are fantastic.
Coming up the NYPD says Iranian operatives were scouting potential targets all across New York City as far back as 2003. The question I have is why is this coming out now? I`m joined by former police commissioner Bernard Kerik. We`ll get some answers.
And the latest developments in the battle for Anna Nicole`s remains. Plus, could a look into the future of Dannielynn tell us who her father is? We have some pictures you have to see.
And the plans for the NAFTA superhighway back in high gear. I`ll tell you why this puts your security in serious danger. That`s tonight`s "Real Story". Do not miss it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Here we are fighting one of the -- probably one of the biggest battles our nation will ever fight. Here`s an idea. Why don`t we let the generals fight this war, shut the politicians up? We`re in it, so we`re fighting it, so let`s win it. We`re in it, so we`re fighting it, so let`s win it. Let`s let the generals win the war.
And once in a while we`re going to check in, every so often, more often than we have been, check in and say, "Hey, how`s it going?" And if they say, "Not so well," great, what do we need. And then they give it to them. There is no end it. There`s only win it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Yesterday I told you "Newsweek" magazine reported that in November 2003 two high-level officials of the Iranian mission to the U.N. described as security personnel -- sounds like fancy code names for terrorists if you ask me -- were detained by transit cops when they were seen videotaping subway tracks from Queens to Manhattan at 1:10 in the morning. That`s when I like to videotape stuff.
The men later left New York City, but New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly put the fear of God in everybody by saying, "I think we should be concerned that Iranian agents were engaged in reconnaissance that might be used in an attack against New York City at some future date."
Now considering this happened four years ago, why are we just finding out about this now? What does it mean for the future security of New York City?
Bernard Kerik, he is the former New York City police commissioner.
Bernard, pleasure to meet you, sir.
BERNARD KERIK, FORMER NYPD COMMISSIONER: Thank you.
BECK: Nice to have you on.
BECK: Why are we hearing about this now? Timing seems interesting to me.
KERIK: Well, I think it may have come up recently. The New York City Police Department has a program called NYPD Shield, and that program is a communications network between the New York City Police Department, the intelligence and counterterrorism units, and the private sector security establishments throughout the city and around the city.
So basically on a quarterly basis or a need-to-know basis, the NYPD will brief these private sector security managers, managers in charge, you know, that look at the security for the economic development areas, for buildings like this. They`ll be briefed on recent things that may have happened in and around the area with regard to terroristic threat, security threats, so forth and so on.
BECK: So is it possible, because I know our security in this building are briefed by New York City police...
BECK: Is it possible that this is being regurgitated or brought back up again because now people are prepared to hear this or it`s more on the radar?
KERIK: I think if you have a circumstance right now where you have the president of Iran, you know, threatening this country, threatening the region, 40,000 suicide bombers he wants to put in the region of the Arab region. He wants to wipe Israel from the face of the earth, you know.
He`s basically a terrorist running a nation. You know, he`s extremely loud and vocal. He wants nuclear capability. It`s the front page of all the media in the papers today. You know, and people are concerned.
And I think, you know, looking back at these people that were probably in New York City in 2003, it`s something that came up at one of these meetings, went public, and somebody let it out to the "Newsweek".
BECK: This is something that, I mean, I`ve been called a kook now for almost a year talking about Iran. I`ve been talking about Iran for three years, that this is -- these are scary dudes.
And last summer on this program we talked about the No. 2 advisor, kind of the Karl Rove, if you will, over in Iran, when is on the record, who has been saying, "We have been scouting places in America. We know where we will hit them if the time or when the time comes."
KERIK: It is a -- it is definitely one of the predominant threats against this country, and the western civilization today.
Radical Islam, you know, you look at the movement against the west. Where does a lot of it come from? It comes from out of Iran. You look what they`re doing in Iraq today, the Iranian influence from Basra up into the north of Baghdad, coming out of Iran. You look at the arms found in Iraq, coming out of Iran.
These are government-sanctioned operations that`s having a major negative impact on our troops in Iraq. They do not want Iraq to be stabilized.
KERIK: They want to run the region.
BECK: Every time -- I travel around the country an awful lot, and I see cops from coast to coast, and every time I run into a cop, if they watch this show they`ll say to me the same thing, every time: "Please continue to get this message out. People don`t see what we see. It is coming."
Why can`t this message connect with the American people?
KERIK: You know why, Glenn? Because you can`t se the threat. This isn`t like World War I and World War II, where you had a defined enemy, where you had a government enemy, where you had uniforms, where you had foreign military.
The enemy of today, and I am in the region every month. I`m in Jordan or Kuwait or Dubai, at least once a month, sometimes twice. I know and understand the threat probably better than most.
You can`t see it. They`re like ghosts. These people blend into society, and the problem with our country is they -- we don`t want to believe that we`re at war, because they don`t see it like they did in World War I and World War II.
These people are at war with us, without a doubt. They are at war with us. We, in turn, are not at war with them, because we can`t feel it. We don`t see it. We don`t understand them. We still don`t understand the mindset and the ideology and the culture of people that want to die.
It`s not like they`re taking a risk. They are going to go to war and take a risk at dying. They want to die for their cause. We don`t get that. The people in this country don`t get it. They don`t understand it, and because they don`t, you know, they`re sort of in this deniability stage about it being realistic.
BECK: You`ve seen so much. You were here on 9/11 and everything else. You know what`s coming. What keeps you awake at night? What do you -- what`s your worst nightmare that you think is plausible?
KERIK: Suicidals. We have yet to see in this country suicidal operations like we`ve seen now in Jordan, in London, in Madrid and in other areas around the world. We have yet to have the internals here.
BECK: Why? Why?
KERIK: Well, one of the main reasons is because from September 11 on, you know, we have changed the way we gather intelligence. You know, there`s the Patriot Act, the mandate by the president for the CIA and the FBI to communicate.
BECK: You know this as well as I do: that`s not nearly as strong as what they have in England. I mean, what they have in England makes the Patriot Act look like child`s play.
KERIK: It does, but I think we`re better in collecting intelligence and communicating. You know, the NYPD Shield program, you know, how are we dealing with the private sector and communications and coordination between the private sector and the -- and the intelligence agencies? We`re doing 100 percent more than we were doing on September 10 of `01.
KERIK: So I think a lot of that has had a lot to do with preventing, preparing, planning, being preemptive, proactive, and that`s going to be the key to the success of fighting this war on these -- in this country.
BECK: OK. Thank you, sir.
KERIK: Thank you.
BECK: Up next a fast look forward into Anna Nicole`s -- her baby daughter. We have some pictures that might hold a clue on who the father really is. Don`t miss it. It`s coming up next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Want to know Glenn`s latest take on Britney, Anna Nicole and Kim? Or which of these ruthless world leaders happens to be driving Glenn completely out of his mind today?
Then sign up right now for Glenn`s free e-mail newsletter. Just go to GlennBeck.com and look for the entry form on the side of the page. By the way, did we mention it`s free? It`s free.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: All right. As a public service to you, the viewer, it`s time now for our Anna Nicole Smith update. Update. And the update is there is no update.
A hearing is set for tomorrow 9:30 in the morning to decide whether or not to overturn the court`s ruling last week, which gave Anna Nicole`s remains to a court-appointed guardian.
But even after her body and this ridiculous case is finally laid to rest -- put the woman in the ground -- there is still the paternity question.
Emy Craciunescu -- sorry about that, Emy -- runs PhoJoe. This is a facial recognition company.
You say you already know who the father is. Who is it?
EMY CRACIUNESCU, PHOJOE, FACIAL RECOGNITION COMPANY: I think -- well, based on our findings we believe the father is Larry Birkhead.
BECK: OK. Now -- see this is the photo that you`ve made. First of all, I have to ask you, because you`re the guy -- isn`t your company the company that started this software, the ageing software where you could age it?
CRACIUNESCU: I wouldn`t say we started it. We just perfected it.
BECK: OK. You perfected it. You`re like 12. How old are?
CRACIUNESCU: I`m 27.
BECK: You`re 27, OK. Now how does this software work, because I saw that picture, and I thought, wow, it really looks like, you know, Birkhead.
CRACIUNESCU: Well, it`s a combination of Birkhead and the mother, Anna Nicole, but it`s not just software. That`s where it`s different. It`s part art, part science and a little part intuition, too.
CRACIUNESCU: It`s a process.
BECK: How did you age the baby? I mean, how do you -- how do you do this?
CRACIUNESCU: Well, the artist, Jova Hayes (ph), compared about 60 photos of the five potential fathers, and based on the eyes, you know, the main features, the eyes and the ears and the head shape, she came up with Larry Birkhead being the most likely father.
BECK: Now wait a minute. Wait, wait, wait. You did that. You compared the picture of the baby or this picture that you made?
CRACIUNESCU: No, pictures of the baby to the photos that we had of the five potential fathers as well as Anna, of course.
BECK: OK. And so then you took that -- you took that information and then you aged the baby to make her look like this picture?
CRACIUNESCU: That`s correct.
BECK: OK. And you actually take some of the characteristics of the father, and you -- you mix them into this photo, and that`s -- that`s how you got them. You mixed the photos of the two.
CRACIUNESCU: We put it all in the pot, and we just stir it up, and we -- this is what we came up with.
BECK; I`ve heard that people have actually -- tell me if this is true or not. I`ve heard people who are like 80 years old will send a 30-year- old picture of themselves and say, "Hey, what am I going to look like when I`m 80?" Is that true?
CRACIUNESCU: That`s true. We do it for a lot of weddings. The husband wants to see what his wife will look like just to make sure he, you know.
No, but I`ve heard that older people send it in and then compare, and it`s pretty accurate.
CRACIUNESCU: We`ve had some customers who have kind of, I guess, tested us, you can say.
BECK: Go ahead.
CRACIUNESCU: Go ahead? Well, just photos of themselves when they were younger to see what they would look like now, and we were very accurate.
BECK: Can any of this be used in a paternity hearing?
CRACIUNESCU: If they want to use it, I mean, I don`t know why they just don`t use the DNA. They can use it. We`d love for them to use it.
BECK: Yes. OK. Emy, thanks a lot.
Coming up next, why NAFTA`s superhighway is bad for business, bad for our security and bad for the environment, Al Gore. That`s tonight`s "Real Story", next.
BECK: All right, welcome to "The Real Story."
Yesterday, I told you about James Cameron and how he doesn`t believe in miracles, especially the religious ones. Well, yesterday, Jim better steer clear of Houston, Texas, now that Miss Guadalupe Rodriguez is in town, because the Virgin Mary appeared to her on a pizza pan.
Now, I`m not saying that the holy mother definitely appeared on a giant cookie sheet, but I`m not not saying that either. So, James Cameron, who feels stupid now?
Moving on, you know that fence that the government is supposed to be building between the United States and Mexico? Personally, I don`t think that thing is ever going to be built for all kinds of reasons, most of them revolving around politicians in Washington who have sold us out, like a bunch of jellyfish. Today, some Democrats and environmental groups are now doing their extra-special part to make sure that I`m right.
Their latest problem with a fence along the border is that they feel it will interfere with the native habitat of the ocelot, a blood-thirsty mountain cat. The real story is: Boo frickin` hoo!
If every ocelot on planet Earth has to go paws-up in the name of protecting our border, I`m pretty comfortable with that, how about you?
First of all, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the building of a 700-mile fence along the border with Mexico. So far, 83 miles have been built. Contractor must be getting paid by the mile or the hour.
Ocelots: You`ve been warned. See all that construction going on, the guys with the hard hats, drinking coffee, listening to .38 Special on the radio? At their current rate of progress, they`ll be done with that 700- mile fence by 2015, so make your relocation plans now while you still have a chance.
Secondly, this is what an ocelot looks like. Not exactly "Hello Kitty," now, is he? Everybody knows that, given a chance, these feline monsters would rip your throat out and then play with your lifeless corpse like a rubber mouse. So save your tears, you Sierra Club-PETA-Greenpeace crybabies. Man up. Like it or not, as life on Earth evolves, some species just don`t make it.
Ocelot, I know you`re on the endangered species list, an argument that quite frankly bores me to tears. But as far as I`m concerned, all "endangered" means is that you`ve gotten some good press from a bunch of bleeding hearts in Birkenstocks, former Jerry Brown supporters, with a taste for tofu.
You`ve had a good run, ocelot, but illegal immigration threatens my survival. And if it`s going to be me or you, guess who`s used up the last of their nine lives? Yes, you have!
Truthfully, I don`t mind wasting, you know, good fence money installing one of those swinging little kitty doors, but I haven`t heard a lot of support for that one, so it looks like you`re out of luck. However, I am open to enslaving the ocelots and turning them into a pack of roaming mercenary death cats, serving the United States as a deterrent to illegal border crossings, but I don`t see non-nut jobs signing up for that one, either.
Look, ocelots, maybe someday in a "Planet of the Apes"-like scenario you`ll end up taking over the world, and I`ll be crying, looking at the half-buried Statue of Liberty. And if that`s the way it goes down, congratulations. Then you can call the shots, fence me out, and eat me first.
Until then, either adapt or get your affairs in order. Because given the choice between saving Pepe the Panther and our national security, I say, "Adios."
Speaking of the border -- you know, by the way, I was just thinking, do I need to remind you here that I`m a conservative? Yes, redundant after that story, isn`t it?
Anyway, last week, the Bush administration announced a plan to allow 100 Mexican trucking companies to haul freight deeper into the United States than ever before. Right now, trucks from America and Mexico are allowed only 20 miles in to each other`s country to deliver cargo.
This "pilot project" that will never go away will met Mexican truck companies travel throughout the entire United States without any restriction. The real story is, this is one more unacceptable step towards this great country becoming something more like MexAmeriCanada, and we`ve got to stop the insanity.
This is an unofficial offshoot of the NAFTA superhighway plan, a proposal that would build a highway that is four football fields wide and will stretch all the way from Mexico, cutting right through the heartland of America, to Canada.
See, the advocates of this kind of "progress" are always yammering on about free trade, but the facts don`t back them up. Just like the original NAFTA sent over 600,000 U.S. jobs south of the border and Mexico is now even starting to feel the NAFTA sting, this plan to allow Mexican trucks throughout the U.S. will only hurt American trucking, the industry that helped build this country into the economic giant that it is.
Allowing lower-waged, lower-standard Mexican drivers to compete in the U.S. market with regulated American truck drivers is the very definition of unfair trade. International corporations win, while the working man here in America loses.
As I said a minute ago, I`m a conservative, but I think I found a way to even convince Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio that this is a bad idea. Al and Leo, hear me out here. While you`re carpooling in your Prius and stuck in all the new traffic that this moronic plan would create, roll down your window, and take a deep breath, and think about this.
One study predicts that Mexican trucks would add 50 tons per day of smog-forming emissions into the air, more than all the pollution generated by the 350 biggest industrial sources combined.
I don`t know about you, but I`m sick and tired of diluting our sovereignty. I am sick of politicians telling us half-truths, untruths, and everything but the truth. North America is not one country, but three of them, and I like it that way. I love Mexican food, and Canada usually shuts the yap and minds their own business.
You make good neighbors, really, you do, Canada.
Maybe the European Union is comfortable with giving up their individual identities in favor of cultural and economic homogenization, but not here, not in America. The economic, environmental, national security impact of this idiotic proposal is far too great to ignore, but that`s what we`ll do.
We certainly don`t need to give more people more ways in and out of our country. We can`t even patrol the ones we have now. Like it or not, in the post-9/11 world, our protection must take precedent over big business and, dare I say, big cats.
Here now is James P. Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Jim, you said that this plan is playing a game of Russian roulette on America highways. What do you mean by that?
JAMES P. HOFFA, GENERAL PRESIDENT, TEAMSTERS UNION: Well, absolutely. We`re turning unsafe trucks, unsafe truck drivers from Mexico, opening up our borders when there`s no showing that they are safe or that these drivers have the necessary training.
Congress said a while back, just a couple of years ago, that there shall be no cross-border trucking until they meet our standards. They haven`t met our standards. And does anybody believe what the Bush administration is saying about that they`re going to inspect thousands of trucks?
HOFFA: Well, I`ve been to the border. No one is inspecting anything, and they`re basically going to turn these people loose. I`ve got another one. The American driving public is really the guinea pig for this very dangerous experiment.
BECK: OK. So, please, I continue to ask this question, and it always is answered the same way. It`s one of two ways, either money or I don`t know, but as I`m looking at this, I just started jotting down on the side of this story just reasons why it`s a bad idea: bad for our air quality; bad for the safety on our roads; bad for homeland security; bad for border security; bad for drugs; bad for American jobs.
So why the hell are our politicians doing it?
HOFFA: Well, there`s a groupthink here in Washington about the border and about NAFTA, which I`m fighting and you`re fighting, and we`re saying, you know, we are sovereign countries. We should protect our highways.
And what`s happening is, there`s this groupthink that we`ve got to open these borders. And they`re along with the other people, which are really the money people, the big corporations, that have moved across the Rio Grande, the GMs, the Sonys, and General Electrics, you know, hundreds and hundreds of major corporations that want cheap trucking.
They don`t give a damn about the safety of our highways, and they want to unleash these trucks coming across the border so they can save a few bucks, and they can put it in their pocket for their CEOs. That`s what it`s all about. You know, it`s the old story, Glenn: When you can`t figure it out, it`s about money.
BECK: OK. Tell me if this is true, because it sure rings true to me: $25 is what a Mexican truck driver is paid currently to take a load across the border. Why do we think that some drug lord wouldn`t say to somebody who`s making $25 per delivery, why wouldn`t we believe that somebody would come to them and say, "Hey, $10,000, just get this across the border"?
HOFFA: Well, I think this happened already. I know of incidents like that. I`ve got one better for you. You just think about, you know, the fact that these -- we don`t know who these people are. You know, the Mexican government -- you know, NAFTA has been law since, what, 1992, 1993. They have had all this time to modernize their system to make it like the United States.
To this day, they still don`t have a computer system that basically tracks truck drivers, just like they track you and me and our cars. You know, I have a record. You have a record. If I get a speeding ticket, it`s somewhere in a computer. They don`t even have that.
So when these people come across the border, you`re right. We don`t know who they are. We don`t know if they`re really the people they say they are. We all know that you can buy fake I.D. anywhere in Mexico or San Diego or...
BECK: New York.
HOFFA: Or New York, and so who are these people? They`re not in a computer, so how do we know who they are?
BECK: OK, so, Jim, quick. I`ve got about 20 seconds. What is it that the guy who`s currently screaming, you know, at their television, sitting on their couch, what is it we can do? We`re tired of hearing this with nothing to do.
HOFFA: Well, you know, the Teamsters are leading the fight. A number of politicians, Patty Murray, a number of people are going to have hearings. We`re going to speak out about the emissions. We`re going to speak about highway safety. And we`re going to call attention to this.
The answer is, you know, it`s the old story. If we don`t stand up and speak out, write your congressman. Let`s do something to try and turn this around.
BECK: All right, Jim, thanks.
HOFFA: Thank you.
BECK: That`s "The Real Story" tonight. We`ll be back in just a minute.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Al Gore, what a fraud. I may have a bigger carbon footprint than Al Gore. I`m not sure. I want to see my carbon footprint. And if it`s not big enough, I`m going to expand it.
I`m going to go out and smoke coal cigarettes today, just to piss Al Gore off. But I`ll show you his carbon footprint, and it will astound you, how a guy who`s telling me to use a fluorescent light bulb has a huge carbon footprint.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Now, it turns out that Al Gore is a big hypocrite on this, according to at least the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His 20- room house, pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt hours in 2006. I don`t know how many I really spent until this morning. I looked it up. That`s more than 20 times the national average. Gore`s average monthly electric bill was about $1,300. That means that the Gores paid almost $30,000 in gas and electric in 2006.
Well, lucky for Al Gore, his Oscar goody bag included 100,000 free pounds of greenhouse gas reductions from TerraPass. The press release says that this is enough to balance out the average year in the life of an Academy Award presenter. For example, 100,000 pounds is the total amount of carbon dioxide created by 20,000 miles of driving, 40,000 miles on a commercial airline, and 20 hours in a private jet, and a large house in Los Angeles.
Tom Arnold is the chief environmental officer for TerraPass. Tom, you are quite possibly the smartest capitalist I have ever met. This is brilliant stuff.
TOM ARNOLD, CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, TERRAPASS.COM: Well, I`ll take that as a compliment. Thank you.
BECK: I actually mean it as a compliment, because what you`re doing is you`re selling, basically, special dispensation, aren`t you?
ARNOLD: Well, we hope that it`s kind of a little mind-opening. Maybe you this morning, when you calculated your own personal carbon footprint, were taken aback by the sheer quantity of that number. And our goal is to translate that into positive action.
BECK: You know, I mean, let`s have it -- honestly, I think what you`re doing with the money, because you are -- I mean, you can sell it here a little bit. You`re building wind power, and solar power, et cetera, et cetera, right?
ARNOLD: Yes. The idea behind TerraPass is a simple service that helps you balance out carbon emissions, so it`s very difficult to take that number down to zero. What we help you do is support clean American energy that can help balance out the rest.
BECK: And I will tell you that I have said from the get-go, the way to solve this problem is through capitalism, and you are a smart capitalist on this. However, let`s be honest with each other. This is what Americans always do. We say, "Oh, we`re too fat," and then we look for the fat pill, and we don`t change our habits.
This is not changing habits. This is really lifestyles of the rich and famous. I can be -- I can reduce or erase my carbon footprint by sending you a check.
ARNOLD: Well, you can do that. It`s not a substitute for conservation, and it`s not the right long-term solution. But as a short- term solution, as a pathway to get people thinking about this, to get people to think, "Hmm, maybe I should fly commercial instead of in a private plane, maybe I should switch to green electricity," if we can get those people thinking about those issues, then we can make the right long- term decisions.
BECK: OK, so help me out on this. Tom, I`m going to show you my carbon footprint, and I was surprised by how large my footprint is.
Look at some of the things that we did. I do have a pool, recycle 30 percent of waste. That`s an awful lot. Solar water heater, no. Solar electricity, green electricity with renewables, no. Personal travel, I only drive about 5,000 miles a year. Airplane for personal, five to ten. I`m on the subway about 100 miles a year, 500 miles a year in taxi. This is what kills me. Business travel, 30,000 miles a year. My carbon footprint is 401 tons. The average person is 18 tons.
How much makes me sleep at night? How much do I have to pay you?
ARNOLD: So, Glenn, that`s about 20 times the average American. We sell carbon at about $10 a ton, so you`re looking for about $4,000.
BECK: So for $4,000 -- so for $4,000, give it to you, then when all the blogs hammer me and say, "Look at this mean, evil conservative," I can say, "I already paid the bill."
ARNOLD: Yes, and your money will go to support really important projects. There`s cow power projects in the Midwest, where we make electricity from cow manure. There`s three or four wind farms in the Midwest where we`re trying to displace all this coal-based energy with cleaner, again, domestic energy, so you`ll be supporting some pretty important projects with that money.
BECK: Tom, thank you. I do mean it as a compliment, that you are a very bright capitalist. Thank you.
Time now to check in with Nancy Grace, see what she`s got coming up on the show tonight -- Nancy?
NANCY GRACE, CNN HOST: Glenn, the clock is ticking down, as legal battle over cover girl Anna Nicole Smith goes on. Just hours ago, a Florida court gives one more chance to the battling mom, the boyfriend, and the lawyer, that emergency stay by Smith`s own mother who wants her daughter buried in Texas.
All the while, Anna Nicole Smith`s body still lies at a Florida morgue under tight security.
And tonight, Glenn, a 16-year-old, a straight-A student, a little girl found thrown away like garbage on a busy street. Months passed, no witnesses, no clues. Glenn, I don`t believe it. Somebody saw something, and it only takes one tip to crack a case, Glenn.
BECK: Don`t forget, you can check out Nancy tonight, 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on Headline Prime.
BECK: Latest issue of "Rolling Stone" has hit the newsstands, and in it there is a profile -- no, no, actually more of a canonization of Keith Olbermann. The thing that struck me when I was reading the article wasn`t the article itself or the self-importance in it, but a small sidebar in which he took a swing at three anchors on this network, Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, and yours truly.
Here`s what he had to say about me. "A wolf in sheep`s clothing. The very dangerously bigoted guy who is selling himself as a pragmatic philosopher. I don`t think he sees his own bigotry. There`s something about him that suggests that, one night, he`ll say something that will cost him his career in television."
You know, let me be clear about something here. Keith Olbermann is right, at least on the last part. After 30 years in broadcasting, three hours of live radio content every day, plus one hour of TV a night, one comment could end my television career. It`s not a question of if, but of when.
Until the inevitable comes, I`ll continue to tell you what I believe. At the same time, I struggle to find the answers to the issues that we face on my own. We`ll talk about it. Yes, I am not perfect. If I were, I wouldn`t really bother to ask any questions.
I mean, I guess I could just stay out of trouble by asking clearly scripted questions to guests who won`t disagree, but that would kind of be planned and kind of a planned perfection that breeds arrogance that is far more dangerous than being a dope like me who says the wrong thing from time to time.
If I`m going to be shut down for that, well, it will likely be because of an intolerant ideologue like Keith Olbermann. The very idea smacks of the same McCarthyism Murrow fought so valiantly against.
Hey, Keith, you`re not saving the world`s democracy; you`re killing it, my friend, by trying to limit the marketplace of ideas to only those that reflect your own.
Me personally, I surround myself with varying points of view. My staff: blood shooting out of your eyes liberals, conservatives, men, women, minorities, and, you know, it`s weird, I don`t need a mailbox outside my office to communicate with them. Oops, did I say that?
When you make pronouncements as bold as, "The man who sees absolutes where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning is either a prophet or a quack," you better be a prophet, man. You know, and frankly, Keith, nah, you`re not really a prophet. I`m just saying.
We`ll see you tomorrow night. Good night.