Return to Transcripts main page
Emergency War Funding Bill Full of Pork; Al Qaeda Member Confesses to Masterminding Plots
Aired March 15, 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, how some in Congress are using war funding for their own personal gain. This story is going to shock and disgust you.
Plus, the mastermind of 9/11 has confessed. That and more next.
Well, now, Congress has taken the debate over additional funding for the war today, but what you are not hearing about is all the ridiculous pork that some very greedy politicians are asking for, I believe, in exchange for their votes. This is akin to blood bribes.
Now, a lot of people tell you this is just business as usual. Either way, they`re blood votes, and it`s wrong.
Here`s the point tonight. Our soldiers` lives are up for sale to the highest bidder in Congress, and here`s how I got there. Originally president bush had asked Congress for $105 billion in emergency funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democrats in Congress are saying, "Oh, they want to grant that request to continue funding the war, even though they also want to end the war." Why? Because some of these same congressmen will also be giving themselves an additional $20 billion, with a "B", for emergency pork projects that is just -- that is just riddled in this bill, and the bill just got a green light from the appropriations committee today.
Now what sort of goodies is Congress taking in earmark for itself? What kind of cash and prizes did it take to sell our soldiers out? Well, let`s see.
There`s $25 million for spinach handlers in California. I don`t know how you handle your spinach, but I`m sure it shouldn`t cost $25 million.
Seventy four million dollars for peanut storage in Georgia. No, that`s not crazy at all, Congress.
Two hundred eighty-three million dollars for a milk income loss contract, cleverly titled "MILC", a program for farmers in Wisconsin. Hmm. Got pork, Congress?
There are several more earmarks that I`d like to tell you about, but if I did, man, my -- blood would shoot out of my eyes, and I don`t want to break the emergency glass for the duct tape so I can wrap my head so it doesn`t explode.
Lots of things in this, but I want you to remember. This is an emergency spending bill for the war. Is there enough -- is there a spinach handling emergency that I`m not aware of? Is there a peanut storage crisis that I`m not aware of?
You`ve heard of blood diamonds. They just made that Leonardo DiCaprio movie on that. This is blood milk, blood peanuts and blood spinach.
How do these congressmen live with themselves? This bill should be about life and death of our young men and women in the Middle East. That`s it. This is our future. This is what happens to our country. You`re not going to vote for it unless you get a $74 million grant for a peanut garage?
Some in Congress used to say that this is a war over oil. Well, as obscene as it is to send people to die and fight for oil, I think it`s even worse to fight and die over spinach.
This isn`t the first time the American people have been raped by Congress, but this time I don`t know. I feel a little extra dirty. It`s going to take me about a half hour of just rocking back and forth in the Lifetime movie shower when I get home.
Here`s what I know tonight. I again have to tell you I`m sorry. I was wrong. I apologize. Last week on this program I told you that politicians were playing political games with our soldiers` lives so they could keep power and win the next election.
Well, I am sorry, America. I was wrong. They`re also doing it for money. How naive of me.
I`d like to ask those congressmen, from Wisconsin, those congressmen from Georgia and California, how do you feel? How do you feel about holding our troops hostage unless you get money for spinach, for peanuts?
You know what? I`d sooner eat a big back of crack that was made in a crack house that was supplied by drug money and the mob than eat any peanuts that were stored in the facility that was built by the blood and the bodies of our troops.
Here`s what I don`t know tonight. When will America finally stand up to these soulless representatives, to whom we have, unfortunately, lent our power, and say, "Enough. Stop playing games with our troops"?
There`s only one thing that should be in this bill, and that this: war. Do we fight it, or do we not? It`s yes or no. Peanuts and spinach and milk aside.
Joining me now James Antle. He`s a writer for "The American Spectator".
Jim, you say this is -- this is always going on. This is business as usual.
JIM ANTLE, WRITER, "AMERICAN SPECTATOR": When you talk about the culture and corruption of D.C., this is really what you`re talking about. The entire legislative system, the entire appropriations process is completely based on this kind of log-rolling and horse trading, no matter how important the issue.
BECK: Jim, doesn`t it make you feel extra dirty to watch this? We`re talking about the lives of our soldiers. We`re talking about the future of our country, and they`re talking about milk and spinach and a stupid garage for peanuts?
ANTLE: You know, you`re facing a deeply divided Democratic party that`s trying to paper over its differences on the war and present a united front, and they`re going to do so by buying some of the votes. They`re also going to be able to pass some legislation, some appropriations that they wouldn`t be able to get through.
I mean stand alone a museum for sugar, places to contain peanuts, just would not pass as stand-alone items, but if you put them in an important piece of legislation, like the emergency funding for the war, like the transportation bill that was loaded with pork, like the energy bill that was loaded with pork, you`re going to see these things get through.
BECK: I`m just looking over all of the things that are in this. I missed the sugar museum. Is the sugar museum -- is that real? Is that in this?
ANTLE: It`s not in this, but in the past we`ve had Congress study using the northern lights as an energy source. You`ve seen studies to reduce the smell of cow flatulence. There have been numerous absurd, just absolutely outrageous pork projects that have gotten through the appropriations process.
BECK: OK. Jerry Lewis, which is appropriate that Jerry Lewis is in Congress, he`s a representative out of California and a Republican. He said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JERRY LEWIS (R), CALIFORNIA: What does a $25 million bailout for spinach producers, $60 million bailout for salmon fishing industry, or $5 million for fish breeding have to do with the global war on terror?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: You know, I have to tell you. I understand the Walter Reed thing in there, because that`s just pure politics. That is -- that is, if the president vetoes or any Republican votes against it, the Democrats can then come out and say, "Oh, gee, look. He doesn`t want to help our soldiers when they come back, and we sure wanted to." That`s what that is in there.
Answer the question, if you can. What does a spinach project have to do with the war?
ANTLE: Maybe the Democrats are trying to show that they`re strong to the finish when they eat their spinach.
No. It`s just typical Washington absurdity, and one of the main reasons why the Democrats were able to take power in 2006 was because the Republicans engaged in some similar antics.
However, when you`re looking at something as important as the Iraq supplemental bill, you really begin to take it to whole new levels. This was supposed to change the tone. We were going to have a moratorium on any further pork projects. I guess it was a real short moratorium.
BECK: Yes. I think that`s the point. The reason why the Republicans lost last time is not because of the stance on the war or anything else. It`s because Republicans, because conservatives like me, felt sold out.
I went and I actually lent you my power. I voted for you? I thought you stood for something, and then you treat me like this? You create some of the biggest programs ever. You only care about your own party and your own pork and everything else?
That`s why, because people like me wouldn`t go out and vote for them. I`ll go vote for somebody else. I`m not going to lend you my power.
Now the Democrats, this quickly, they get the power. They say there`s a moratorium. They run on things like it`s going to be honest. It`s going to be fair. It`s going to be open. We`re going to cut down on pork because it`s out of control. And they do this on the Iraq war bill? How is that going to play in two years?
ANTLE: There is an overwhelmingly bipartisan consensus that this is the way to get elected, that voters, what they mainly want is to see goodies in their districts. They want to see peanut storage. They want to see jobs brought back to their district through the misappropriation of the appropriations process.
BECK: You know, I have to tell you. If that is true, and I hope it`s not, if that is true, you`ve got to ask yourself, you always get what you deserve. What is it we deserve, if that`s the way we`re voting?
Jim, thanks a lot.
ANTLE: Thank you.
BECK: Khalid Shaikh Mohammad has confessed to planning 9/11 and just about every other unsolved crime in history. I`ll separate fact from fiction coming up.
Plus the recent global warming hype brought us the first carbon footprint. Tonight I`m going to show you the very first meat footprint. What am I talking about? Stick around, Al Gore. You don`t want to miss tonight`s "Real Story".
And new developments today in Anna Nicole Smith saga. We are dealing now possibly with a murder investigation. I`ll give you the details you knew were coming, coming up.
BECK: "The language of war is victims." That was just part of a long statement from the military hearing for Khalid Shaikh Mohammad that was held this past Saturday in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
According to a transcript that was released by the Pentagon yesterday and then revised today, Mohammad confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl, full or partial responsibility for more than 30 other terrorist attacks or plots.
Now the confession came as a result of military hearings that will determine whether or not this guy and 13 other alleged terror operatives can be declared enemy combatants.
We live in an upside-down world. It`s the first time since his capture four years ago that Mohammad spelled out in his own chilling words his intimate involvement in a range of activities from planning to bomb landmarks in New York City and London to an assassination plot against Jimmy Carter, one against Bill Clinton, and another one against Pope John Paul II.
Considering that Mohammad has now confessed to everything, except being the father of Anna Nicole Smith`s baby, we have to assume that at least some of the things that he says isn`t true, but where do the lies end and the truth begin?
I`m joined now by a whole team of experts. Paul Butler, former terror prosecutor and senior defense official; Peter Brooks, Middle East expert from the Heritage Foundation; and Edward Turzanki, he`s an intelligence analyst from the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
Paul, let me start with you. Is there any way possible that we could find that he is not going to be declared an enemy combatant?
PAUL BUTLER, FORMER TERROR PROSECUTOR: No. He -- virtually I think he specifically did admit that he was in the course of his combatant status review tribunal, which was the hearing that was just had.
BECK: What would this allow us to do to him now?
BUTLER: Well, it allows us to continue to hold him at Guantanamo as an enemy combatant detainee, and the probable next step is to put him into the military commission process where we`ll be tried for war crimes.
BECK: Ed, I don`t know. Something doesn`t sit right with this confession. You`re in the intelligence community. You know what`s going on. These are smart guys. What is he doing? Why is he confessing to all of this?
EDWARD TURZANKI, INTELLIGENCE ANALYST, FOREIGN POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: Because, Glenn, he knows that he can game-play our system both legally and in terms of public opinion.
And now he has a megaphone, and he may be puffing a little bit just for his even ego, but he also wants to make sure that people know he is still around.
And as you said earlier on, things are topsy-turvy. We allow our adversaries to use our system to get their message out, and we tie ourselves in knots as to how we`re going to treat this person and what his rights are.
BECK: So is this -- is this kind of in the Middle East -- and actually, Paul, you`d probably be best to answer this -- is he legacy- building here?
BUTLER: To some extent. I think he`s -- he seems to be proud of what he`s done. I think -- I think we question whether he`s telling the truth a little bit at our own risk.
You know, some of these things he described were strategic operational plans that he may have conceived but may not have gone so far as to set into motion. And so I don`t know that he`s puffing. With some of this he could be trying to throw us off the trail of others, but I think a lot of what he said can be corroborated.
BECK: Peter, how is this playing in the Middle East? What is the message that is coming out of the television sets in the Middle East about this guy?
PETER BROOKS, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, I don`t think there`s going to be much said on it. I mean, some of it is horrible. I mean, I`m hearing from my sources in the intelligence community that 80 percent of this is correct, that they believe that 80 percent of these plots, about 30 plots, 24, 25 of them, are accurate, that he was involved with them. So he was -- he was behind this. There`s no doubt about that.
This is -- this really, what I see, Glenn, is that this is a reminder to us here in the United States that we`re still at war, that terrible things can happen to us. And if we think that this is the only guy out there that can perpetrate these sort of horrific acts, we`re not embracing reality.
BECK: Any chance that -- I mean, do all of you think that this guy, we`re going to kill him, aren`t we? I mean, he beheaded Daniel Pearl. He was in charge of 9/11. Does he get a death sentence?
BROOKS: Well, I think -- I mean, I think we`re going to let the justice system do it. He certainly should spend his life away in jail, and I think that other things such as the death penalty are certainly appropriate.
BECK: And what happens in the Middle East, if we do kill him here?
BROOKS: Well, I mean, I don`t know that he has a lot of supporters. Remember, Glenn, we`re dealing with a very small group of radicals, but you`re right. You`re right to point out that there could be consequences. There could be consequences to this.
And he does have supporters, but each guy like him that we can put away is one less that we`ll have to deal with. And fortunately we`ve had him for four years, probably gotten all the intelligence we can get out of him. But I don`t think it`s necessarily going to inflame the Middle East, because we are dealing with a very small group of, you know, terribly dangerous radicals.
BECK: And he originally, he claimed that we were torturing him right off the bat, and he wouldn`t say anything.
BROOKS: I think that`s part of the justice system. He`s trying to work the justice system, as one of the other guests said. He wants to work the justice system. He can say that. But you know what? We got a lot of good intelligence out of him. And I think that -- who knows how many plots we stopped by interrogating him?
BECK: OK, now but Ed, he`s spilling his guts now. Why the change in plan? First it was we`re torturing him and I won`t say anything, and now he`s spilling his guts.
TURZANKI: Well, remember, Glenn, that when these guys are taught, the first thing they`re told is claim that you`re tortured, claim that Islam was insulted because, again, you`re going to get a public reaction. As to why he`s talking now. He may have been talking all along. We`re hearing about it now, because his trial is coming up or his hearing is coming up.
From the intelligence perspective, as Paul said, let`s get as much information out of him as we can, and also let`s keep in mind. We have to be able to go after these guys and hold them so extraordinary rendition, intercept program, Guantanamo.
All of those things that have been leaked in our press wind up compromising our ability to go after these guys, keep them and get the terrible secrets, not just to fix the last problem but to prevent the next attack.
BECK: You know, Paul, I`m a fan of "24", and I hope that Jack Bauer actually exists in our intelligence community. I`m not a guy for torture, but I am for, you know, if we thought something was going down and it was imminent, shoot the guy in the leg, shoot the guy in the hand. I don`t care what you have to do to him.
If there was a nuke going off and we had just a few minutes to find out, do whatever you have to do to get the information. That`s my own personal information.
But a guy like this, he doesn`t talk under torture, does he?
BUTLER: I think it`s important to remember a couple of things. One is at his hearing, this recent hearing where the transcripts were released, he said he was making these most recent statements not under any duress or coercion so those statements stand on their own.
The sources and methods that were used to get the original statements from him, I think they will be, you know, subject to some litigation. But one of our guests mentioned, you know, there`s a thing we picked up called the Manchester manual which lays out the counter-interrogation training that these guys receive, and it`s a difficult thing to overcome. And I think once they`ve pierced that veneer that`s when they change their tune.
They hang in there as long as they can to throw us off the trail and not admit who they are and what they are involved in. But once you`ve pierced that veil, oftentimes you see, well, they give up an awful lot.
BECK: Peter, Paul, Ed, thanks.
Coming up, the recent increase of immigration raids. That`s a good thing, right? Yes, you`d think so. Not so much. Tonight I`m going to give you the "Real Story" on those raids.
And Anna Nicole Smith. Her death now may be turning into a murder investigation. We`ll have the details on that and the paternity battle for Dannielynn. Stick around. Coming up.
BECK: I`m going to Kim Caldwell, one of my favorite contributors on the program. Oh, she`s just a delight. She`s from the TV -- TV Guide Channel. She`s been watching "American Idol" so the rest of us don`t have to.
You know what? I`m going to pretend...
KIM CALDWELL, HOST, TV GUIDE CHANNEL`S "IDOL CHAT": Glenn, wait. I`m only one of your favorites? I`m very hurt.
BECK: No, you are only one.
BECK: And don`t ask me to rank you because -- no, Kim. I`m going to pretend here that I`m not watching "American Idol".
CALDWELL: Are you?
BECK: And you pretend -- you pretend -- you just pretend that I don`t know anything about anybody on it this year.
BECK: And tell me what happened.
CALDWELL: No, I`m just kidding. It was, last night, is that what you were talking about?
BECK: Yes. Right.
CALDWELL: Last night was the elimination night, and we actually -- it was our first big "Idol" tonight show, the pre show that we do for the TV Guide Channel.
BECK: I was watching that. Yes.
CALDWELL: Yes, I know you were. With popcorn.
BECK: It was good.
CALDWELL: But actually, the show kicked off Brandon, who was a former backup vocalist for Christina Aguilera. He obviously had problems stepping up and being a solo artist.
CALDWELL: And the night before had forgot some of his lyrics in front of Diana Ross.
BECK: This is the guy -- I saw him...
BECK: You know what? Let me -- you know, forget about Brandon. Let`s just talk about Diana Ross for a second. Can we play a little bit of the Diana Ross piece from last night?
CALDWELL: The intro. I hope it`s the intro.
BECK: Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: I don`t know about you, but a little pitchy for me there, dog. I mean...
CALDWELL: Did you just critique Diana Ross?
BECK: Yes, I did. I did.
CALDWELL: She`s the No. 1 -- No. 1 selling female artist of all time.
BECK: She stopped selling -- stopped selling music like 1968. I mean, come on.
CALDWELL: I still think she is a diva. I ain`t talking trash about Diana Ross. I`m sorry, Glenn. I`m not going there.
BECK: Yes. I`m not afraid of Diana Ross and her Diana Ross mafia known as the Supremes.
BECK: Did you talk to her?
CALDWELL: I actually -- I was supposed to interview her, and I totally got, like, booted and didn`t get to interview her.
BECK: Really? Yes, I can see why you have so much respect.
CALDWELL: I was really sad. I was crushed. But then I met her in the elevator, and she was really nice.
BECK: Was she lucid?
CALDWELL: No. Well, no...
BECK: She wasn`t?
CALDWELL: Yes, she was.
OK. I guess I`ll see you guys later, bye.
BECK: No, was she lucid?
CALDWELL: Glenn, are you?
BECK: Well, yes, I am.
CALDWELL: Really, OK.
BECK: I haven`t touched a drink or anything else in, you know, 12 years.
CALDWELL: Yes, sure.
BECK: No, I haven`t.
CALDWELL: Can we talk about "American Idol"? I thought that`s what I come here to do, and now you want to talk about drinking.
BECK: OK. So you`re saying in the elevator she was drunk?
CALDWELL: No, I`m saying that on "American Idol" last night Sanjaya was the one that everybody thought was going to go home, but it was actually Brandon.
CALDWELL: And the guys are slacking, because there was three guys in the bottom three. No girls were in the bottom three, and they were really bringing it on Tuesday night, I have to say.
BECK: Well, Kim, America heard your words, taking a legend down. I heard it. America heard it.
CALDWELL: Thank you, Glenn.
BECK: And we`ll just try to repair that later on in the program.
CALDWELL: Yes. I`ll make sure it`s posted all over my web site, KimberleyCaldwell.com.
BECK: Seriously. My fifth favorite contributor to the program, Kim, thanks.
"The Real Story" coming up next. Tonight, I`m going to tell you in the world`s first meat footprint segment, what my meat footprint is. Trust me. You don`t want to miss this, coming up.
BECK: All right. Welcome to the "Real Story."
If it seems like you`ve been hearing a ton about immigration raids lately, well, you`d be right. There were more than three times the immigration arrests in 2006 than there were in 2005, five times more than 2004. This year, in just three months, the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency has arrested twice as many people on criminal investigation charges than they did in all of 2005.
Wow. Good news, huh? Looks like they`ve got the problem under control and fixed. Yes, that`s what they`d like you to think. I`ll explain in just a second. But, first, I want you to watch this clip from President Bush yesterday in Mexico.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A lot of Americans were deeply concerned that the United States was not enforcing our laws. They felt like there wasn`t a commitment to the rule of law.
Over the past year, I believe we have shown the American people that there is a strong commitment to the rule of law. And I think members of Congress are now feeling more comfortable that the country is committed to rule of law, which then makes some more open-minded to my argument, which is that, if we can have migration reform, it will make it less likely somebody will feel like they have to sneak across our border and, therefore, take pressure off the border. In other words, security for the country, border security, will be enhanced by a good migration law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Is there anybody except the president of the United States who really feels that way? I`ve got news for you: I don`t know a soul that feels that way.
I think Americans feel -- maybe it`s just me -- I think we feel like we`re being played for fools. I hate to say it, but the "Real Story" is these raids that you`re seeing right now, they`re show. They`re show. I hate to tell you, Mr. President, but a few months of tough enforcement, while what we`ve got Bank of America still doing what they`re doing, it doesn`t convince anybody that our government is serious. It`s a game.
You know, you`re not hearing about something in the media, but you need to. There are closed-door meetings happening right now in Washington on a major immigration reform bill. And guess what? Any chance of that bill passing hinges on the ability of our politicians, and most importantly our president, to try to convince the slugs like you and me that they`re actually finally enforcing the law and making us feel all cuddly and safe, but mark my words: This is a smokescreen.
As soon as the ink from the president`s signature is dry, the crackdown ends. Millions of illegals will be on the path to citizenship, and there won`t be a damn thing anybody can do about it.
If you don`t believe me, I want you to go to your computer right now. Right now go to your computer. I want you to go to Google, and I want you to type in "1986 amnesty." I`ll wait. You do it. You do it tonight, "1986 amnesty." You read about what happened after President Reagan granted amnesty, after he made a deal with Congress. What happened to the 2.7 illegal immigrants?
Well, let me just say, it didn`t exactly stop new aliens from trying to get in here. Those who don`t know history are doomed to repeat it.
There`s something else that the president said in that clip that you just saw, and, man, it just grated on me, something that nobody is talking about. Did you pick up on it? While in Mexico, he started referring to illegal immigration as, quote, "migration."
Gee, it`s not illegal, Mr. President? Think of it more of a transition or a job relocation program. Mr. President, you may not think that anybody is watching what you say. God help us all if we`re not paying attention. You are pandering to Mexico, and we are watching it.
We see exactly what`s going on, and it`s not getting me a warm, comfy feeling inside. This was no slip of the tongue; this was calculated. Did you see him pause before he said "migration"? It was a premeditated change, sir, and, unfortunately, for you, sir, we have the video to prove it. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Convictions run deep in this capital when it comes to immigration.
I respect your views on migration.
Immigration is an emotional issue.
We haven`t had a serious debate on migration until recently.
We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country.
But in the debate on migration, I remind my fellow citizens that we are a land of immigrants -- of migration -- of immigrants -- migration -- immigration. -- migration -- immigrants -- migration -- immigrants -- migration -- migration -- migration -- migration -- migration...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Giving me a migraine.
Next, there`s a new poll out on global warming. Now 83 percent of U.S. citizens now believe it`s a serious problem. That`s up from 70 percent in 2004. Everybody panic! We`re all going to burn to death in a flood!
But the polling geniuses didn`t ask the far more important question. Here it is. Who`s responsible? And what, if anything, can we do to fight it?
Well, I`ll answer both of them for you right now: Big meat is responsible. Become a vegan if you want to make a difference. Oh, now not so interested, huh?
"The Real Story" is that the U.N. report concludes that the world`s meat industry generates far more greenhouse gas than all of the worldwide transportation combined. Think about that. The U.N. is saying that the steak you ate for dinner last night did more harm to the environment than your drive in to work this morning.
Now, if you believe we`re all going to die in some sort of fiery flood, why wouldn`t you, you know, change? Why wouldn`t you stop eating meat? Yes, I`m talking to you, Al Gore. That`s exactly who I`m talking about. Why haven`t you made the adjustments to your personal diet?
I mean, I admire your passion, and congratulations on that little Oscar thing, but if you literally believe that the ocean will -- the ocean levels will rise by 20 feet, it`s not really unreasonable to wonder why you haven`t switched to a veggie burger is it?
Last week, a member of PETA was on the show, and afterwards I asked him to calculate how bad my meat-eating really is for the environment. It`s bad, I warn you. You know, what`s my meat footprint?
Matt Prescott from PETA is back now to give me the results. How bad is the footprint, Matt?
MATT PRESCOTT, PETA: Well, Glenn, I`ve got to say, your meat footprint is pretty deep, but I think I`ve got hope for you yet. When we talked earlier and you said that you opposed foie gras and veal because of the cruelty, I think that shows something. You know, most people just don`t realize that chickens, and cows, and pigs are abused in these hideous ways.
BECK: I realize, but I...
PRESCOTT: That they have their testicles cut off without painkillers, and they`re scalded alive, and have their throats slit...
BECK: Hang on just a second. Hang on, Matt. I want you to know, I realize that. It`s, for instance, foie gras, it bothers me when I eat it, but I still eat. Veal, because it`s a cute, little, cuddly cow, it bothers me. I don`t want to torture my food, you know, so it`s a little more tender, but chickens?
PRESCOTT: Anybody who`s ever had a dog or a cat knows that animals feel pain. They know that they don`t deserve to be tortured. Chickens and pigs and cows all feel pain in the same way that dogs and cats do. They`re intelligent animals. They`re individuals. Yet they`re abused in ways every single day that would warrant cruelty to animals charges if dogs and cats were the victims.
BECK: If chickens weren`t so darn yummy, I`d be with you. Actually, driving a Prius or going to an In and Out Burger, which does more damage to the environment?
PRESCOTT: Going to an In and Out Burger, by far. You know...
BECK: Let`s look at the damage that people do. Like me, we`ve put some charts together, and maybe you can take us through this here, Matt. First is my river pollution. What kind of damage -- what kind of damage am I doing?
PRESCOTT: Far more than a vegetarian. Rivers in people`s backyards and people`s own communities are grossly polluted by the meat industry. In California, the dairies throughout California wreak havoc on the waterways. This is water that children play in. This is water that, when your kids go outside, they swim in.
BECK: Well, wait a minute, why are you comparing me here to Kobayashi? That`s the guy who does the hot dog eating contest. That`s a little unfair.
PRESCOTT: Now, come on, I mean, you`re not eating 100 hot dogs in one sitting, at least I hope you`re not.
BECK: Well, I might try.
PRESCOTT: Kobayashi should try to switch to veggie dogs. They`re delicious and they don`t do any of the environmental harm. They`re better for his health and better for the animals.
BECK: Water waste, here`s the chart on water waste, what my meat footprint is on water waste. Look at this. And what are we talking about on water waste?
PRESCOTT: Well, we`re talking about not just the rivers; we`re talking about the oceans, if you eat fish. When we talk about water pollution, we`re talking about all of the trawling that the commercial fisheries are doing. They cast these giant nets into the ocean that rip up the coral reefs, and they spew out tons of ground-up animals. The nets catch porpoises, they catch dolphins, they catch birds and turtles. They grind them up on the ship and then they spew them back out.
BECK: And the final chart -- and I don`t even understand this one, help me out -- is manure waste. How am I exactly responsible for wasting - - what are we saving the manure for? How am I wasting manure?
PRESCOTT: We`re not talking about wasting it. We`re talking about generating it.
BECK: Oh, generating it.
PRESCOTT: Generating it. So by eating meat, you`re supporting an industry that raises and kills, in the U.S. alone, about 10 billion animals a year. All those animals are creating massive amounts of manure that`s going into our land, and that`s also going into our waterways, the same water that...
BECK: So, Matt, an honest question for you. Can you actually believe in, you know, we`re all going to die in some horrible flood because of global warming and not be a vegetarian or a vegan?
PRESCOTT: Well, for a long time, I myself wasn`t a vegetarian when I believed in environmental causes, but when I learned about the fact that eating meat is the number-one worst thing a person can do for the environment and for their own health and for the animals, I became vegetarian.
BECK: If I had to choose Whoppers and a Prius or carrots and a Hummer, which would you do, because I`m only doing one?
PRESCOTT: Well, I`d go with the carrots and the Hummer, you know. Gore, I think, is genuine. I think other environmentalists are genuine in their concern and in their efforts.
PRESCOTT: But they miss a big component, and that is that, by encouraging people to go to vegetarian, to go to Web sites like goveg.com, people can do far more good than they can by buying a Prius or switching to energy-saving light bulbs, which are all good things.
BECK: Matt, thank you very much. That is the "Real Story" tonight. Back with the latest on Anna Nicole next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: If you had Vietnam, you`re a winner. Angelina Jolie has a brand-new Vietnamese child. Again, if you had Vietnam in the pool, you are a winner.
Jolie and Brad Pitt are collecting the whole set. We have 5-year-old Maddox, adopted from Cambodia, 2-year-old Zahara adopted from Ethiopia, Shiloh, born to the couple in May. They made that one the old-fashioned way. Of course, now you have the Vietnamese child. I, unfortunately, had Madagascar in the Ivory Coast. I mean, looking back now, what a moron.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: All right. Breaking news for you on the Anna Nicole Smith front. She apparently is still dead, America.
But roll up your sleeve, if you`re an Anna Nicole junkie, tap that vein, man, because you`re about to get the next big fix, latest twist in the never-ending saga. Rumors now of a murder investigation circling around Anna Nicole Smith`s death. It`s about time. Authorities are denying it, but it kind of makes you wonder, doesn`t it?
And as for the father of 6-month-old Dannielynn, it looks like Howard K. Stern is going to be forced to give a DNA sample. Correct me if I`m wrong: Shouldn`t we have had that swab of him two months ago? Do we have to hear any more about this?
Pam Bondi is a Florida state prosecutor. Pam, first things first. Tell me why prosecutors or why investigators are denying this, but where is the rumor of a murder investigation coming from?
PAM BONDI, PROSECUTOR: Well, Glenn, in Florida, we have a law, and it falls under our homicide -- it`s a homicide statute. It`s a third-degree murder, excuse me, if you administer drugs to someone, and those drugs are the proximate cause of their death. It`s a really tough statute because it has to be the actual drugs that kills the person.
So without a witness or without an admission, it`s pretty hard to prove, you know. We all know that Anna Nicole was taking so many drugs that it looked like a candy shop in her refrigerator, but, you know, it`s going to be tough unless somebody flips on Howard Stern or the nurse saw something and admits to it.
BECK: Well, Pam, who was supplying the drugs? I mean, how did she get these drugs?
BONDI: Well, that`s what we don`t know. We do know that she had a prescription for methadone, which is so incredibly strong, from this Dr. Kapoor.
BECK: For what?
BONDI: I guess for pain management.
BECK: But what was she in pain from?
BONDI: That`s a great question, Glenn. And, you know, the woman is eight, nine months pregnant. This doctor is in California. She`s in the Bahamas, so he`s obviously prescribing this to her without seeing her in person which -- I`m not a doctor, but I certainly can`t understand that.
We do know that the medical board in California, as they should be, is looking at this guy for his role in prescribing those drugs to Anna Nicole.
BECK: I have to tell you, my father is in a great deal of pain as he`s getting up in age and has had serious back problems his whole life. And he was on methadone just recently. And he got off it immediately. He was so spaced out. He said, "I hate this." He wasn`t even himself. How could somebody possibly prescribe this to a woman who is pregnant?
BONDI: Pregnant, pregnant. I`m with you. And how can the people around her really condone that behavior, if they`re trying to look out for her unborn baby?
BECK: So what does the autopsy tell us? Why is this still not out? What do we know?
BONDI: Well, Glenn, we`ve had investigations here in Tampa that have taken even longer. Dr. Perper I`m sure by now knows the results of the toxicology, but a lot more goes along with that.
You also have to get investigators involved. And as we just discussed, you have to look at, you know, that overdose statute and if that could possibly apply. I think it will be tough in that case, but you have to look at all the evidence surrounding it. You have to look at the drugs she was taking.
And we are assuming that drugs did contribute to her death, so they have a lot of work to do. I think he`s doing a great job. I think they have to be thorough, especially with the whole world looking at this case.
BECK: Birkhead`s attorney yesterday was screaming, "Put up or shut up. Give me the DNA." Why are we even wasting time on the DNA from him? Why don`t we just get the DNA from the baby?
BONDI: Exactly, and right. And people are saying, oh, we need Howard Stern`s DNA. Nobody needs Stern`s down. You need to swab that little baby`s cheek. It`s not invasive at all. You basically take a Q-Tip and wipe the inside of her mouth and then you can compare it to Larry Birkhead`s DNA.
That`s all that needs to be done. I think Stern`s attorneys are fighting it on technicalities, saying they`re trying to reach some settlement with Larry Birkhead. Well, to me, settlement means -- and I`m speculating -- that Stern, of course, wants to manage the estate and the potential fortune that this baby is likely to inherit, but that has nothing to do with who`s the father.
BECK: All right, Pam. Thanks.
Time to check in now with Nancy Grace to see what she`s got coming up on the show tonight -- Nancy?
NANCY GRACE, CNN HOST: Glenn, tonight we learn police homicide detectives called in on the mystery surrounding the unexpected death of cover girl Anna Nicole Smith. Seminole, Florida, police meet with Bahamas officials over reports the 39-year-old model`s computer now at the heart of the investigation, as well as, just who was in that luxury casino hotel room at the time she went unconscious?
Of course, the DNA battle over paternity of Nicole`s 6-month-old baby girl heats up, as one would-be dad actually files a lawsuit claiming fraud.
BECK: Don`t forget, you can check out Nancy tonight, 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. Eastern.
BECK: Well, a heartfelt congratulation goes out to Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt on their 14,000th foreign adoption, this time from Vietnam. We held our 2007 Angelina adoption draft on the radio today. Basically what we did is we gathered many members of the radio staff and callers from all around the country to try to predict what country Angelina and Brad will adopt from next. We picked a random draft order, and here are the results.
Now, I want to highlight a few picks here. One caller, Tony, went with Iraq at number two, thinking that Angelina Jolie would make some sort of a statement to rescue the child from the evil U.S. imperialism. Rob went with the cause of the day, picked Sudan, but, you know, I think with the government so busy with genocide, they don`t really have time to handle "Access Hollywood" being in town for three weeks to watch the Angelina adoption festivities and circus.
Dan Andros had a brilliant pick with Bahrain, mainly because Michael Jackson lives there and children`s lives are at stake. Seems, you know, like taking kids away from that situation might be a really good idea.
I personally selected Lebanon, and more specifically a Palestinian refugee living in Lebanon. You might ask yourself why? I think it`s brilliant. Angelina can then make a statement against the U.S. and Israel, all in one kid.
In round two, I believe the steal of the draft was taken by John Carney when he selected United States. Now, it seemed crazy to me on the surface. I mean, what would make you possibly believe that Angelina Jolie would go away from her pattern of rescuing children from third-world countries? A ha, but there`s the brilliance. John believes that Angelina will adopt someone from New Orleans and say that the evil U.S. government has allowed New Orleans to become a third-world country because of, yes, the hatred of minorities.
I just went with Bangladesh. Second round pick, Bangladesh. Why do I think she would adopt from there? Pure numbers. I mean, look, I`m not a mathematician, but I am a thinker. It`s just too crowded. Bangladesh, size of Iowa, 49 times the population. I mean, I think she could go there and just start grabbing kids by the dozens and loading them in her private jet and nobody would even know. They`d be like, "I thought he was around. Where`s Johnny? I don`t know."
Then you have Stu who went with the Central African Republic, you know, for the surprise factor. He believes that nobody actually knows that that`s a country, and it is, and I hear it`s beautiful, especially this time of year.
So congratulations Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and good luck to everybody who is playing in our Angelina baby draft today. We`ll see you tomorrow on the radio and then back here tomorrow night. Don`t miss tomorrow night`s program, either. See you then. From New York, good night.