Return to Transcripts main page

GLENN BECK

Congressional Resolution Could Alienate Key Ally; Probation Terms Not Met by Sandy Berger; Imus to Return to the Airwaves

Aired October 15, 2007 - 19:00:00   ET

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


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, partisan politics threatening our troops overseas, and the stability of the Middle East. Nancy Pelosi pushes to pass the Armenian Genocide Resolution, despite warnings that it will put our soldiers at great risk.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This passage would do great harm.

BECK: Plus, the return of Don Imus. Reports the I-man will be back on the radio just in time for Christmas. What kind of gifts does this Santa have in his bag? And who deserves coal?

And an outcry over the movie "The Golden Compass".

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will serve you in your campaign.

BECK: Could this big budget Hollywood film really be pushing an anti- Christian agenda? No.

All this and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Well, hello, America.

When you think of all the major issues in the world that our government should be doing something about, you probably think of illegal immigration, right? Or Islamic extremism. Or the economy. Or maybe, call me crazy, how about how to win the war in Iraq?

But why waste time on things like that when you can talk about the history of the Ottoman Empire? Which is exactly what Nancy Pelosi, among others, is doing.

Basically, the House Foreign Affairs Committee plans to send a resolution to the floor that would call the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire almost 100 years ago genocide.

Your first reaction might be, why would they bother with that when there are so many museums and parks to name after themselves? I know, I know. But while you don`t care about the history of Turkish-Armenian relations, the Turkish people certainly do.

Nancy Pelosi knows that this bill will anger a vital ally in the war in Iraq and that they may stop opening up their airspace that we use to supply our troops. So here`s "The Point" tonight.

In war your enemies are supposed to try to cut of your supply lines, not your own government. And here`s how I got there.

A similar bill had previously come up that the president strongly opposed. He said, and I quote, "We have significant interests in this troubled region of the world. Consideration of this resolution at this sensitive time will be -- will negatively affect those interests," end quote.

The president had said that, however, was Bill Clinton, back before 9/11. Does anybody really think the Middle East has become more stable since then?

Now, unlike his taste in women, Bill Clinton isn`t alone here. Clinton asked Denny Hastert to shelf the resolution, and he did, because he recognized how important and shaky Turkey really is. Eight former secretaries of state, including three Democrats, have come out against this resolution that Nancy Pelosi is trying to jam down everybody`s throats. So is Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

An original co-sponsor of the bill, a Democrat, Jane Harman, has announced this resolution would be, quote, "isolating" and it would "embarrass a courageous and moderate Islamic government in perhaps the most volatile region in the world," end quote.

In fact, even the leader of the Armenian Church in Turkey is against this.

So here`s what you need to know. If you want to play -- if you want to play with the wording of historical events, go to Wikipedia, Nancy, don`t risk the lives of our troops. Passing this resolution will hurt our relationship with an ally that is already tipping towards Islamic rule.

Seventy percent of U.S. air cargo and one third of the fuel used by the military in Iraq go through Turkey, along with trivial little things like water. At the very least, rerouting them will cost us time and a lot of cash.

But the truth is we don`t know exactly what the Turkish government will do. When a lower house in France passed a similar law, Turkey ended all military ties with them.

The A.P. reported today Turkey`s top general said, quote, "If this resolution passes the House as well, our military ties with the U.S. will never be the same again." Oh, well, that`s good news.

And in a sign of what`s to come, the Turkish government will seek parliamentary approval for a military operation against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. That puts our biggest Iraqi success story at risk.

Congressman George Radanovich supports this resolution. He`s here with us now.

Congressman, I`ve got to ask you: is it straight Jack Daniels, or do you have to dip into the hairspray to drink and think this is a great idea?

REP. GEORGE RADANOVICH (R), CALIFORNIA: Glenn, thanks for letting me be on here. Quite an introduction.

But what I will say is this. I was the one who carried the legislation in 1998 when then President Bill Clinton called Speaker Hastert and asked him, in the interests of national security, not to allow this to go to the floor. This was prior to 9/11.

And the important points to make are that at Incirlik, where the United States has a base in Turkey, the Turks need us there just as much as we need that base to conduct our operations in the Middle East. They take that very seriously.

This is just a House resolution. It`s non-binding. It doesn`t go to the president for signature...

BECK: You`ve got to be kidding me.

RADANOVICH: For...

BECK: You -- you have a situation where you have Turkey amassing troops on the Kurds. Why do you -- why are you doing this, sir? Are you really -- hang on. Do you really care about genocide that happened 100 years ago, yes or no?

RADANOVICH: Yes.

BECK: You do?

RADANOVICH: Yes.

BECK: Do you then think that it would be a good idea to possibly tip Turkey into genocide of the Kurds to prove that point?

RADANOVICH: Let me -- let me tell you this. The Turks are not putting their troops on the border of Iraq because of this resolution that is going before the House today...

BECK: No, but we`re probably...

RADANOVICH: It`s important to separate those two things.

BECK: We`re probably holding them at bay.

RADANOVICH: Glenn, I will say this. Back when Hitler was dreaming up his Holocaust of killing 9 million Jews, when asked about what the world might think, he said who cared about the Armenians?

This was back in the early 20th century. Had people spoken out about it properly then, we may not have had the Holocaust and...

BECK: What are we -- what are we doing? It was 100 years ago.

RADANOVICH: And the world would be taking much more seriously things that are going on today in Darfur and the like.

BECK: Great. So what -- what does this mean? This was 100 years ago, sir. What does this mean now?

RADANOVICH: What...

BECK: Why are you -- why do you care?

RADANOVICH: Glenn, it`s important to note that Turkey is trying to get into the European Union. They`re not being allowed to get into the European Union now because of human rights violations. The -- the lack of recognition of the genocide is one of those things.

We`re doing Turkey a favor by having them admit their past so that they can move forward the way they want to in the west, and it`s by a simple House resolution here in the United States.

BECK: Congressman, you and I -- I don`t think that Turkey belongs in NATO. I don`t think they belong in the E.U. I`m with you on the E.U. thing. I think that`s what you`re saying here.

But good God almighty, man, you`ve got a -- you`ve got a country that is being pushed by Islamic extremists. The last thing we need to do is put a stick in their eye.

RADANOVICH: Well, first of all, let me say, Glenn, I support Turkey in NATO. I support Turkey in the E.U. I appreciate their look westward.

Had this been done four months ago, before Prime Minister Erdogan was elected, I would have had some concerns about this. But by his election it shows a strong move to the west.

This country can handle a House resolution passed by a country, recognizing a genocide that occurred by the Ottoman Empire, not the current Turkish government.

BECK: For crying out loud...

RADANOVICH: It`s time to be a part of the world community now and, you know, admit it and move on.

BECK: OK. Thank you very much, Congressman.

RADANOVICH: You`re welcome.

BECK: I`ve got to tell you, the arrogance just kills me. They didn`t seem to handle it with France.

The negative implications to this resolution`s timing, mind-boggling to me. But I`m a simpleton. I`m not a politician. I`m just a thinker. The implications, not only for our troops but to Turkey. This is a nation that I just mentioned, already threatened on all sides by the forces of radical extremism.

Mark Paris is a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey.

Ambassador, please tell -- oh, boy, you don`t look happy. You don`t look happy. You`re going to disagree with me, too. Aren`t you?

MARK PARIS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY: Ask the question.

BECK: Do you think this is a good idea to do this to Turkey?

PARIS: No, I think it`s a terrible idea.

BECK: OK. Why?

PARIS: Look at the map, I guess, is the best way of answering. You`ve gone over some of this material already. You`re talking about country that`s surrounded by places you`ve heard of, Iran, Iraq, Syria, where there was some recent interesting air activity by the Israeli air force.

The Palestinian question. The question of getting the oil and gas wealth of central Asia and the Caspian to world markets without having them go through Russian hands.

Right at the center of this is a country called Turkey. And when you consider the range of U.S. interests that lie behind each of those words I`ve used to describe the countries around the map, you begin to realize what`s at stake here.

We`re going to be working in this area for a long time. We`ve got hard work to do, heavy lifting. We`re going to have to do it either working with the Turks or around the Turks. And I`m here to tell you, it`ll always be a lot easier to work with the Turks.

BECK: You know, I have to tell you, I don`t like -- I don`t like working with Saudi Arabia. I think, you know, we`re in bed with Saudi Arabia, and it drives me crazy.

However, when you are in the middle of a war and you have Turkey, who is trying to reach out. They`re trying to hang on to being not a full- fledged dirt-bag country. They`re trying to not give in to extremism.

It`s like Pakistan. Anybody who says, `Hey, let`s just fly our jets in and start bombing the cities in Pakistan," good God almighty, man, you`ll -- you`ll -- you`ll completely cut the legs off of Musharraf.

You`ve got to understand the regional politics involved there. They can`t look like they`re in bed with us. And we can`t pee all over them.

PARIS: Well, the comparisons that you`ve made are perhaps the wrong comparisons. Turkey is a very reliable, long-standing ally. It`s also a genuine functioning democracy.

BECK: Yes, but it is -- it is -- you can`t tell me -- look, I was -- before all this stuff started, you know, coming down with Islamic extremism, Turkey has done a great job on being a democracy, and it`s only because the military, in their constitution, protects it to make sure it doesn`t become a radicalized Islamic state.

However, please, Ambassador, tell me I`m wrong here. You can`t tell me that in five years, especially if we start treating them backhandedly, that that will stand.

PARIS: I think -- I think the military, the civilian leadership of the country, all of the civilian leadership of the country, and the population as a whole in Turkey are totally united around the proposition that they`re not going to allow even a long-standing ally like the United States to tell them how they should deal with their history and to lecture them on the morality of what they may or may not have done.

To suggest that they will simply ignore this, to suggest that they simply have no choice but to accept it, is to betray, I`m afraid, a basic misunderstanding of the way the Turks look at the problem and the way that they`re likely to react if we go ahead.

BECK: Ambassador, thank you very much.

I have to tell you, I don`t know why we can`t define, you know, genocide in Darfur today, but yet we`ve got to go back and tinker with things 100 years ago.

Now, Sandy Berger`s sticky fingers got him in trouble at the National Archives with some, but he was supposed to take a lie detector test. He agreed to take it, hasn`t taken it yet. Why? We`ll explain in a minute.

Also, Russian President Putin says somebody may try to kill him while he`s in Iran, visiting our good friend Ahmadinejad. I`ll tell you whether this is paranoid fantasy or something much darker.

And a reminder: tonight`s show is brought to you by the Sleep Number Bed by Select Comfort. Find your sleep number today at a Select Comfort store near you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Hello, America. I have identified yet a new threat to our nation. Yes. That`s what they pay me for. Our politicians. I know, you say that`s not new. But actually, it is. It`s a recent problem.

Partisan politics, an increasing problem. And I`m sick of it. I think it`s driving a wedge directly through where most reasonable, thinking people reside on most issues. And that`s in the middle.

It can be fixed before we`re torn apart. Right? That`s coming up in tonight`s "Real Story."

But first, when lying, cheating, disgraced former national security adviser Sandy Berger reached a plea deal in 2005, which he should have never gotten, over his removal and destruction of documents from the National Archives, he also agreed to take a polygraph test to prove that he was being completely honest. Well, now it`s been 25 months later, and we`re still waiting.

Hello, Bush Justice Department. Is anybody home? Is there anybody that actually cares about enforcing your own deal and our own laws?

After all, we`re talking about a man who destroyed evidence meant for the 9/11 Commission. Kind of a big deal. Evidence that may have very well not been real favorable towards the presidency or Mr. Berger or President Bill Clinton. And now, thanks to Sandy sneaking documents in his socks and shredding them, we`ll never know, which brings us back to the lie detector test.

Twenty-three Republican Congressmen, and I have no idea why this is a partisan issue, may have sent -- just sent a letter to the Justice Department, demanding that they make Berger submit to the polygraph once and for all.

Texas Congressman John Carter is one of the people who signed the letter.

Congressman, first of all, I can`t even find what his excuse was for stealing them in his underpants and his socks and putting them underneath a trailer and going back later at night. What was his excuse of why he was taking those home?

REP. JOHN CARTER (R), TEXAS: I don`t think he gave us an excuse. I think this guy may have cut one of the best deals that`s been cut in a long time when dealing with the criminal justice system.

BECK: OK.

CARTER: Pled to a misdemeanor for an issue of national security. It`s just amazing.

BECK: Why was that deal offered, Congressman?

CARTER: I have no idea. I worked in the courtroom for 21 years. And this was a heck of a deal. He got it.

And then now to let him complete his probation without meeting all the terms of his probation -- if you don`t meet your terms of your probation, you`ve got to go do your time in jail. That`s the way it`s supposed to work.

BECK: All right. So Congressman, here`s what`s bothered me from the very beginning. Is there any doubt in your mind, if I went into the National Archives and I was preparing for a -- for testimony in front of Congress, forget that it was the 9/11 Commission, which is our generation`s, you know, Warren Commission. Forget about that.

If I just took something from the National Archives, stuffed them in my socks, got out, shredded them, took some other documents, hid them, came back later, is there any chance I wouldn`t be in jail for a very long time?

CARTER: Not in my opinion. I think you -- quite frankly, I think you should be in jail for a long time. That`s a -- that`s a clear violation of national security.

BECK: So this is a partisan issue right now. We`ve got the Congressman who, like you, they`re all Republican who signed this letter, but yet it has to be a bipartisan issue for him to get away with it.

Why? Who -- what does he have? What did he have? Who`s involved in this? Because this is clearly a scandal.

CARTER: I don`t know what he had. It`s no way for us to know, because quite frankly it`s been shredded, and that`s the real key to this whole thing. You have eliminated information that we need, we want, and it`s important to the security of our country, by shredding these documents. That right there is a frightening thing to think about.

BECK: Is this going anywhere, Congressman? Is this...

CARTER: You know, I hope this thing is going to wake them up. I read -- one source said that the probation has already been terminated. If it`s been terminated, no, it`s not going anywhere. But that`s the dropping the ball of the Justice Department.

BECK: Where`s Bush on this? Have you talked to the president? Have you called him up? Have you said, "What are you doing?" Where`s Bush on this?

CARTER: I haven`t talked to the president. But the Justice Department -- if they let him complete his probation without living up to the terms, they dropped the ball.

BECK: Have you heard anything from Clinton? Where is Hillary Clinton on this? She has unofficially brought him back in as an adviser. Now, if we`re looking for someone who could possibly break into the National Archives and get rid of incriminating evidence, he`d be the guy.

But how is it that anyone -- let me rephrase this. Why do you suppose, Congressman, no one seems to care?

CARTER: That`s the $64,000 question right there. We ought to care. And you know, Hillary Clinton is talking about putting this guy back to work. And lord help us, let`s hope she`s not planning on putting him in national security.

BECK: This is the same guy who we had problems with with Chinese technology and missiles.

CARTER: Exactly.

BECK: Great. OK. Congressman, thank you very much.

Coming up, after being hounded from the airwaves, new report says Don Imus is back in business. I`ll tell you whether you can expect to see a kinder, gentler I-man. Fat chance.

Also, a new film taking heat for what some are calling an anti- Christian agenda. I`ll talk to two men who know a few things about Christian entertainment, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the authors of the "Left Behind" series. Don`t miss it. They`re coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, it was six months ago when they -- when they tried really hard to just jam a stake into the chest of Don Imus about his off-color remarks of the Rutgers women`s basketball team. Now new reports are surfacing that he`s going to be back on the air December 3 with a new target: Hillary Clinton.

Michael Harrison is the editor and publisher of "Talkers" magazine.

Michael, Don Imus, the huge winner in this.

MICHAEL HARRISON, EDITOR/PUBLISHER, "TALKERS" MAGAZINE: Oh, certainly. His stock is through the ceiling at this point.

First of all, that was one of the biggest stories of the year. A radio talk show host, the subject of one of the biggest news stories of the year? That`s gold in our business.

BECK: But it doesn`t -- it really kind of shows -- I mean, he`s been off for six months. So the guy gets -- how much did he settle for with CBS?

HARRISON: I don`t know, $20 million, $30 million, something like that.

BECK: So he gets six months vacation where they pay him $20 million. How much is this contract with ABC worth?

HARRISON: That I don`t know. I wouldn`t say. But it`s probably worth -- you know, he`s like A-rod in radio.

BECK: Yes, he`s -- he`s deep into the eight figure category.

HARRISON: Oh, yes.

BECK: So how did he lose here? Because correct me if I`m wrong. Imus`s career, not necessarily, you know, on the upward swing when he left.

HARRISON: Actually, this has given him a chance to reinvigorate himself and reinvent himself. This is one of the best things that has ever happened to him. Because the truth of the matter is that a lot of people in the industry were saying that Imus was sort of on a slow fade.

BECK: Right.

HARRISON: And now he has every opportunity to get another 5, 10, 15 years in. He`ll be going -- he`ll be like Paul Harvey if he wants.

BECK: Let me ask you this. Maybe a little inside baseball. But ABC just sold a Citadel. ABC is not a broadcast company. I mean, now it`s owned by Disney. I mean, it`s -- you know, it`s a tourist company.

They would have never made this move as ABC-Disney. Is this because a broadcast company that cares about ratings and isn`t afraid of a little controversy, is that why he`s coming to WABC in New York?

HARRISON: I certainly think that you`re right, that because Citadel is now running ABC and they are broadcasters and Imus is a broadcasting commodity, that broadcasters understand, they`ll take the chance on him.

I don`t think it`s that big a chance. He comes with built-in audience, built-in advertisers, and tons of celebrity, if you will.

BECK: Yes.

HARRISON: Plus he`s controversial. He`s got the whole thing. Now it`s a matter of him delivering.

BECK: Does anybody really care about this story? I don`t think anybody in America really cared about this story.

HARRISON: No, the press is obsessed with it. I`m sure that the Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, they care about it.

BECK: Yes.

HARRISON: Because it reinvigorated their careers, gave them another six months of action. But no, I don`t think anybody really cares about it.

BECK: We toyed with even whether we should even cover this. There have been so many Imus stories recently, and this is the only one that we`ve covered in I don`t know how long. Because I don`t think -- I mean, there`s no lesson to learn here, other than you can take anything bad and turn it into your favor when people don`t care.

HARRISON: But -- yes, but you have to admit that it did stir up a lot of discussion about hip-hop culture, about double standards, about gender relations. It was a catalyst for some interesting dialogue.

BECK: And it`s going to be -- it`s going to be quite interesting for Hillary Clinton, because there`s going to be no bigger enemy than Don Imus and Hillary Clinton.

HARRISON: So Imus will be to Hillary what Rush was to Bill.

BECK: Good luck. All right, Michael. Thanks a lot.

Coming up, the political divide. Are we just supposed to sit here while our politicians throw mud at each other and, you know, us not expect that we`re going to get just a little dirty? That`s the answer in tonight`s "Real Story".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Al Gore, inventor of the Internet, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, savior of the universe. The worldwide reaction to Al Gore`s victory and a look at the runner-up who some say probably should have won, in just a minute.

But first, welcome to "The Real Story." I know that, for better or for worse, one of the hallmarks of this show is talking about the different threats that we face: radical Islam, Iran, cyber terror, Putin, Chavez, Middle East oil, terror at school, illegal immigration. I mean, the list goes on and on and on and on and on. I`m here five days a week. Try the veal. And they`re all real.

However, I`ve recently had something of a -- I don`t know, I think it`s an epiphany. Or maybe I just need to change or clarify my threat assessment. The "Real Story" tonight is that the biggest, most pressing, most imminent threat we face, I believe, is from within. I call it my "when a stranger calls" theory, because it`s just like that movie when they said, "The call`s coming from inside the house!" It`s just like that.

Ever since 9/11, I`ve been saying that no one can defeat us but ourselves. I know it`s an old cliche, but I believe it now more than ever. America is like the driver who is so busy looking out for other cars that might hit him that he doesn`t realize -- "Excuse me, your own engine is overheating, and it`s about to catch fire."

A few years ago, when I asked what the worst thing was that America -- that could happen to America, General Tommy Franks said something that should make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. He said the biggest threat we face is, quote, "a massive casualty-producing event that causes our population to question our own Constitution and begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass casualty- producing event, which, in fact, then begins the potential unraveling of the fabric of our Constitution," end quote.

He`s talking about an event that causes us to forsake our democracy for the sake of our democracy, something that really only seems rational when you`re watching a mushroom cloud rise over Los Angeles. And that is exactly the situation that seems to scare the hell out of Newt Gingrich, as well. Listen to what he recently said at the National Press Club.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NEWT GINGRICH (R), FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I am genuinely afraid that this political system will not react until we lose a city. And nobody in this country`s thought about the threat to our civil liberties the morning after we decide it`s that dangerous and how rapidly we will impose ruthlessness on ourselves in that kind of a world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I have to tell you, I`ve heard this from a lot of politicians off the record. Newt just summed up in 15 seconds what I`ve been feeling and I think a lot of America`s been feeling for months. Outside threats like Islamic extremists may light the fuse, but it`s the anger, the frustration, the division, and the fear that we`ve created inside our own borders that will be ignited by that fuse and will, quite possibly, destroy our own Constitution when it would finally explode.

Brian Doherty, he is the senior editor for "Reason" magazine, author of "Radicals for Capitalism." Brian, is Newt Gingrich wrong?

BRIAN DOHERTY, "REASON" MAGAZINE: It depends on what Newt`s saying. You know, there`s kind of two messages you can get from that. One of them is we need to start thinking now about how important it will be to preserve what is vital and important about America, even if the most horrible eventuality occurs.

BECK: I think that`s what he`s saying.

DOHERTY: Yes, but there`s another way to read it, which I think some people are reading it, which is that it`s sort of shedding crocodile tears about civil liberties, saying the civil liberty impact of that nuclear explosion is going to be so horrendous that we should do whatever we can to make sure it never happens, which is a recipe for shredding the Constitution in order to save it. I hope that`s not how people take it.

BECK: No, I don`t think that`s what Newt is saying. What we`re looking at is an overreaction. We will be so -- for instance, I hear from -- if I`ve heard from one, I`ve heard from all of them, where do the presidential candidates stand on the Second Amendment? And I think that stems from, if something goes down, we have all of these groups everywhere, you know, 26 states now have growing secessionist movements. In Vermont, 8 percent two years ago said secession was a good thing. Today it`s 14 percent.

I could see our government reacting to some sort of a massive event by saying, "OK, we`ve got to gather up all the guns or we`ve got to do this," and that would tear us apart, because we would lose significant liberties.

DOHERTY: I`m very glad you brought that up, and it`s important, especially for Republicans, to remember when thinking about executive power that that executive power is going to be held maybe -- or maybe very likely -- by someone like Hillary Clinton a couple of years from now, and that should certainly give you pause when you`re wondering, how much do we need to restrict the executive branch? And it`s a lot.

Even in the face of whatever threat we can imagine, we can win. We`re a very rich country. We`re a very powerful country. And we can win this clash of civilizations. But we need to do it by sticking with the values that brought us to where we are.

BECK: But we don`t even know what they are anymore. Most people don`t even know...

DOHERTY: Sure, we do. Openness, checks and balances, liberty, not an executive that can do whatever it wants to whoever it wants.

BECK: Do you really believe that this country really understands -- I`m not saying the informed people, but for the general dopes that are at home, you know, watching TV going, "Another episode of `Dancing with the Stars,`" and they have no idea what`s coming, you think those dopes actually know what our Constitution means, what our founding fathers meant?

DOHERTY: Glenn, I have the utmost respect for every dope watching us right now. And I don`t...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Let`s dance.

DOHERTY: I do. You know, I believe that statements, you know, like those who give up liberty for security deserve neither, statements like "give me liberty or give me death," they are ingrained in America. And forgive it almighty God and forgive it Glenn Beck if we`ve lost it. And I really don`t think we have. I think we`ve...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: My little beam of sunshine named Brian. Thanks, Brian.

BECK: Now, Russian media has reported that an assassination attempt on President Putin would be made during his trip to Iran, which is supposed to begin tonight. But the "Real Story" is -- actually, I don`t have a clue as to what the real story is. Because I can`t -- I can`t take one thing coming out of either one of those countries at face value anymore.

The only country I trust less than Iran is Russia. And when you put the two of them together, it takes every CIA agent on the planet to figure out who`s actually telling the truth. Maybe the reports are real. Or maybe it`s a lot more complicated than that. Maybe the Iranians are setting themselves up so they can clamp down, you know, once pro-Western democracy groups are blamed. Or maybe it`s the Russians who are setting this up, hoping that the Russian people will rally around their new vulnerable leader.

Or maybe -- and I know this would be crazy -- maybe, just maybe we`re all reading way too much into this and it is as simple as it seems after all: Muslim extremists from Chechnya really do want Putin dead. And for some pretty good reasons, too. The only thing I do know for sure is that, when nothing is real, when just like everyone in our story before this one, everyone is using everyone else for their own gain, then, in the end, someone always seems to end up dead. The question is: Who will it be, us or them?

Andrew Kutchins, he is the director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic International Studies. Andrew, how serious are these threats?

ANDREW KUTCHINS, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Well, hard to say, Glenn. You know, it is making the phones of us criminologists ring a lot more, I`ll say that. But I don`t think I`ll be able to satisfy your viewers with an explanation.

The kind of interesting thing to me about this is that the Kremlin is saying one thing and the Iranians are saying another. And I think that kind of gets to the point that, you know, if the Iranians and the Russians were such close allies, as many want to make them out to be, you`d think they`d get their stories straight. But they haven`t.

And, in fact, if they were really close, there wouldn`t be a story. Either the Russian and Iranian intelligence services would have cooperated to take out whoever the threat is, or there wouldn`t be a threat.

BECK: Well, help me out, Andrew, because as I see the Russians and the Iranians, I don`t see them as buddies. I see them as the Americans and the Soviet Union in World War II. They`re using each other. I don`t know which one`s using which or, you know, which one`s going to come out on top in the end. But I think they look at each other and go, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, let`s get together." Am I wrong?

KUTCHINS: Well, I think the comparison`s pretty good, Glenn, in that there is a real absence of trust in that relationship. The Iranians are very concerned the Russians are going to sell them down the river on their nuclear program, and they have good reason to think that.

The Russians think Mr. Putin thinks that Mr. Ahmadinejad is a whack job, like we do, and he can`t really be trusted. The last thing the Russians want to have happen is for there to be a war, a military conflict in Iran. They probably think that`s more dangerous, actually, than Iran having a nuclear weapon in the long run, but they certainly don`t want the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon, either.

BECK: But I don`t understand this. They are getting into bed with Iran. They are standing against international relations. They do have the Chechnyans. The Chechnyans do want Putin dead. They`ve got Islamic extremists who have gone on killing rampages, and yet they`re getting into bed with someone who, in the end, they`ve got to know would train people to kill them, as well.

KUTCHINS: Well, here`s the paradox, Glenn, in that the one thing the Russians and Iranians agree about is that they both don`t like the Chechens, and they don`t like the same types of radical Sunni Islam. So the Iranians, to the best of my knowledge, have never supported any terrorist activities on the territory of the Russian Federation, and the Russians certainly don`t want to give them any reason to do so.

BECK: Right. Do you think that Putin is going to come out as this savior, and he`s going to tell the whole world, "Look, I`ve talked to them, everything`s going to be great, no nuclear weapons"?

KUTCHINS: Yes, just like he did seven years ago when he met with dear leader of North Korea, and then dear leader said, oh, that was just a little joke.

BECK: Yeah.

KUTCHINS: You know, Putin`s had a great year, especially winning the Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014. If he goes to Iran and somehow manages to talk Ahmadinejad down on the nuclear weapons program, then I think we do have to take the Nobel Peace Prize away from Al Gore and give it to Vlad.

BECK: OK. It would be a shame to do that. Thanks a lot. That is "The Real Story" tonight.

Up next, a new movie that critics say promotes atheism for kids. Is "The Golden Compass" an attack on Christianity? From Hollywood? Can`t be. We`ll talk to Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, the authors of the world-famous "Left Behind" books. They`re coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I`m pretty good with eating anything on the floor unless it has the kind of sticky, adhesive surface that like cheesecake has. Did you hear about the guy who`s possibly getting life in prison for stealing the donut, the glazed donut? The point of the story for me was, who puts a glazed donut in their pocket? I mean, I`d never eat it. I don`t know about you. But now it`s got like pocket fuzz all over it. If it was a cake donut with nothing else, maybe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I mean, I have my standards, America.

You know how Hollywood knows it has a potential hit on its hands? Probably when the movie in question pisses off as many people as possible, it`s always a good sign to them. With nearly two months to go before it actually hits theaters, "The Golden Compass" is the latest example of this controversy-to-cash equation, having already been the source of an angry press release by the Catholic League for, quote, "selling atheism to kids," and, ironically enough, the National Secular Society of London, because the filmmakers took out all the really juicy anti-religious parts.

The film is based on the first installment of an award-winning children`s series called "His Dark Materials." Nothing spooky or sketchy about that title, huh? The author is an avowed atheist. But if Tinseltown has already pretty much sanitized it for our protection, what`s the problem?

Well, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, authors of the wildly popular "Left Behind" series, are here to tell us.

Tim, let me start with you. What`s the problem with this movie?

TIM LAHAYE, AUTHOR, "LEFT BEHIND" BOOKS: Well, the problem is it`s a vicious attack on Christianity, the church, and moral values.

BECK: OK, the movie is or the book is?

LAHAYE: Well, nobody knows about the movie. They say that they`ve cleaned it up, but how do we know until we see it?

BECK: OK.

And, Jerry, you have the same problem? I mean, look, guys, no offense. You know I love you, right?

LAHAYE: Yes.

BECK: OK. But, look, I mean, here`s the thing. I used to watch "Bewitched" when I was a kid. I never once wanted to be a warlock. My kids have read "Harry Potter." They don`t want to be a warlock. I mean...

JERRY JENKINS, AUTHOR, "LEFT BEHIND" BOOKS: Yeah, I grew up on "Wizard of Oz," and I don`t think it bothered me. I`m not sure what bothered me, but it wasn`t that.

BECK: I mean, I never wanted to be the Tin Man.

JENKINS: Yes, really, the fact is this is not our issue. I mean, we`re being asked about it, but we`re not on some campaign. We haven`t come out with any statements or anything like that.

To me, it`s a parenting issue. If you think your child is too young to understand fantasy or if it turns out that the movie is anti-religion, anti-God, anti-Christ, then you don`t let your kids watch it. I`m not for book banning. I`m not for book burning. I`m not for boycotting movies unless, you know, you`re being a parent and protecting your child.

BECK: Yeah, you do it yourself. But, Tim, you say that atheism is on the rise in this country and it`s tearing us apart, and I believe I agree with you.

LAHAYE: Well, it`s not only on the increase, but it`s becoming more evangelistic and more aggressive. And I think this is just one symptom. Pullman admits that he`s an activist atheist, and he`d like to tear down the church and discredit it in the eyes of the young people. I think this is more than entertainment, like "The Wizard of Oz." This is something like indoctrination against belief in God.

BECK: OK. I have not -- I`ve never even heard of this series before. Can either of you -- have either of you read this series? Can you tell me what`s in it that is so disturbing, the things that are in it?

JENKINS: That`s the problem, is that we haven`t seen it and we don`t like people criticizing our stuff when we haven`t read it. But from all the things that have been quoted about the author, he clearly is, as Dr. LaHaye says, an active atheist and wants to propagate his views. You know, we live in a free society where we`re competing in the marketplace of ideas, and I say bring it on, but make it clear what you`re doing, and then if it`s something that kids shouldn`t see, then parents ought to keep them from seeing it.

LAHAYE: I commend you, Glenn, for bringing this out in the open and giving us an opportunity to say that this is dangerous. I don`t necessarily call for a boycott, but I do call for an exposition by people, a response by people saying this is dangerous. We do that about poison and other things. We ought to do that about things that are harmful mentally.

BECK: You know, we don`t -- I think that you are onto one thing, is we don`t pay attention anymore to the things that are put into our kids` heads. We just say that, oh, well, you know, this is entertainment, what difference -- they know the difference between fiction and fantasy.

Things were different when we were kids. The culture was not jamming down atheism or evil. In many respects, our culture was still a "Leave it to Beaver" when we were watching, you know, "Bewitched." And so our values were different. Now our values are on the attack every second of the day with our kids.

LAHAYE: Well, this atheism is even more subtle. Jesus made it very clear that children have a built-in faith. He said "they that believe in him." He just took it for granted. You have to teach children atheism, and that`s the harm. They`ve got the public school that secularize God and launderize (ph) anything Christian. Now they want to use Hollywood, and that`s the most powerful vehicle that the human mind ever invented. That`s why we think it`s kind of dangerous.

BECK: OK. Jerry, Tim, thank you very much. We`ll talk to you again soon.

And by the way, America, just so you know, what`s her name that stars in it, Nicole Kidman, says it`s OK. And so, you know, you`ve got it on the word of a Hollywood starlet that married Tom Cruise that we don`t have anything to worry about. So there you are.

Now, if you enjoy, you know, awkward discussions like the one we just had, well, you know, the kind where you can say "Jesus" without fear of death, then you`re going to love my Christmas stage show, coming this December to, again, these nine cities across the country. These Christmas shows sell out every year. It is about finding the real meaning of Christmas. And, yes, that does mean talking about Jesus there at the end. Sorry, ACLU! If you`re an ACLU attorney, you`re going to hate it.

If you want to experience a fantastic night of storytelling, warmth, a few laughs, and the awkward weeping on stage, then please go to glennbeck.com right now for information on how to order your tickets. They went on sale today.

I am so happy that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, because nothing brings peace to a war-torn region of the world like a fluorescent light bulb. And we`ll delve into that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, no surprise. This last Friday, Al Gore picked up the Nobel Peace Prize. Thank goodness. Of course, there were complaints that other, more deserved candidates should have gotten the award instead. In particular, I don`t know, some woman who I think had something to do with saving a bunch of kids from the Nazi gas chambers, or whatever. Sour grapes, is what I say.

In fact, if you compare that woman`s accomplishments to the accomplishments of Al Gore, I think you`d find there is no comparison.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Irena Sendler was a Catholic social worker who saved 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazi death chambers during the Holocaust. Al Gore was a United States vice president who, in 2000, accepted the nomination for Democratic candidate for president of the United States. He lost.

Irena Sendler helped 2,500 Jewish children avoid certain death by smuggling them out of the Warsaw ghetto. She hid their true identities by putting their names in a jar, which she kept buried in her garden hoping she could someday dig up the jar, locate the children, and inform them of their past. Al Gore hosted "Saturday Night Live" on December 14, 2002. The musical guest was Phish.

Eventually, the Nazis discovered that Irena Sendler was helping the Jews. She was sent to prison and tortured mercilessly. Eventually, Al Gore would become a presenter at the Grammy Awards, presenting along with Queen Latifah the award for best rock album to the Red Hot Chili Peppers for their hit record, "Stadium Arcadium."

IRENA SENDLER, SAVED JEWS IN HOLOCAUST: The Germans beat me, tortured me, broke my feet and legs, and when they finished this, they condemned me to death.

AL GORE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Are you with me? I can`t believe these outfits.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At the age of 97, Irena Sendler is still alive. Her moving story has been turned into a play that has been performed by school children around the world. At the age of 59, Al Gore is still alive. His moving story has been turned into a slide show, an Oscar- winning documentary, a book, a book on tape, a DVD, and, oh, yeah, a Nobel Peace Prize.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: I mean, you see what I`m saying? That`s it for tonight. Don`t forget my free e-mail newsletter. Tomorrow you can read about my conversation with Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who`s on a crusade to stop President Bush from ratifying the United Nations Sea Treaty. If you`re even just a little worried about handing over our oceans and our national sovereignty to an international tribunal, then you want to read about it in tomorrow`s free e-mail newsletter. Sign up for it now at glennbeck.com.

That`s it. From New York, good night, America.

END