Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Organization Questions Sentences for Border Agents; Iranian Dissident Speaks Out on Iran Leader`s Statement; Is Nancy Pelosi Milking the Taxpayers?; Hillary`s Opinion on Iraq Changing

Aired February 08, 2007 - 19:00   ET


GLENN BECK, HOST: Tonight, border guards under fire. The latest dispatch from the war on illegal immigration.
And lunar legend Buzz Aldrin helped you understand what might turn an astronaut into an astro-nut.


ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by Pelosi Air, with nonstops daily from San Francisco to D.C., starting as low as $300,000. Fly Pelosi Air. You are now free to milk the country.


BECK: All right. Welcome back.

Last night I told you that we were being lied to about the border by our government. I didn`t tell you why, because honestly I didn`t know. Well, in the next few minutes, we`re going to start to answer that question. But first the point tonight.

Are you sure -- are you really prepared to see where that answer leads? I`m not sure. Here`s how I got there.

To most of us, the border is prototypical common sense. People are breaking the law. Stop them. Now an open border is also an enormous threat to our security in this country and no one from either party is disputing that. Yet, year after year, Congress after Congress, nothing ever changes. Why? Why?

It`s a question that`s been haunting me since just after 9/11. Honest answers have been virtually impossible to find. But now because of the most unlikely of stories, questions are finally starting to get answered. Unfortunately, those answers are just leading us to bigger questions like how deep does this worm hole go?

You already know the story that I`m talking about. We did a little bit on it last night. Two Border Patrol agents shoot a Mexican drug smuggler and then tried to cover it up. The smuggler is free and the agents are in jail.

Now, when you first heard this story, if you`re anything like me, it never has completely added up. Every time there`s a question that gets answered, five more questions are raised. It seems the more we know, the less we know every single day.

Well, now the two young agents, who are in prison, this week got beaten up in prison, people like you and me. There they are sitting in prison, paying the price for all those unanswered questions like how did the Department of Homeland Security find the drug smuggler back in Mexico? How did they even hear about this story? What did they offer him in exchange for his testimony against the agents? What did the jury know that we don`t know? Why were these agents given 11- and 12-year prison sentence when the crimes don`t even come close to justifying something like that?

Then there are the bigger questions, the ones that really make you wonder who is the wizard behind that curtain? For example, why did homeland security staff members tell Congress that the border agents said they intended to shoot Mexicans when we now know that was a lie, an intentional deception of Congress?

Why did the staff members also say that the agents admitted that they knew the suspect wasn`t armed when they shot him? Again, something we now know that never happened.

Why did the lead prosecutor in the case reportedly infer that going soft on the agents would send the wrong message to Hispanic voters?

And then there`s that one final question, the question that you need to ask yourself. Do you really want the answer? Because in a minute you`re going to hear some of these answers from our guest. But I promise, you the only thing that they will prove is that none of us have any idea just how deep the truth is buried.

First, here`s what I do know tonight. When something that common sense says should make sense makes no sense, then you`ve got to continue to ask questions. And I`m not going to stop asking, and I hope you`ll join me until someone, anyone, has the courage to explain to me what our government has gained by selling us out to people like drug smugglers.

Here`s what I don`t know. Why does this have anything to do with politics? This is not about left and right. This is about right and wrong. An article in the paper today said this case has, quote, "become the cause celebre among conservative groups." What? Shouldn`t all Americans care about two men who were locked away simply to serve some unknown person or group`s agenda?

But here`s the other thing I`m only starting to figure out. An agenda does exist, but don`t we deserve to know what that agenda is?

T.J. Bonner, he`s the president of the National Border Patrol Council.

T.J., I`ve got to tell you, I find myself going down into the conspiracy corner on this one, because the answers just are not making any sense to me at all. And I don`t want to live in a conspiracy, but I`m -- I`m afraid that`s where this is leading.

T.J. BONNER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: Well, the only other option, Glenn, is gross incompetence. It`s one of the two. And I find it hard to believe that people in those people would be grossly incompetent, incompetent to the point they would believe the word of a drug smuggler, disregard the medical evidence and the disregard testimony of two sworn law enforcement officers.

BECK: You know what? Let`s start with Rene Sanchez. He`s a Border Patrol agent. This drug smuggler was shot in the butt. He goes across the border. His mother calls the mother-in-law of Rene Sanchez and says, "Do you know what people on your border just did to my son?" He calls homeland security.

How is there a connection between here a Border Patrol agent and a drug smuggler`s mom? And why is the Border Patrol agent helping this drug smuggler out?

BONNER: Renee Sanchez was born in the United States, raised in Mexico. Childhood buddies with the drug smuggler. There`s your connection.

BECK: OK, so then you have the drug smuggler. And what was he offered for his testimony against these two border agents? He was ordered (sic) amnesty, we know. But there`s also speculation that he was offered much more than that, including citizenship?

BONNER: I`ve heard that he was offered the path to citizenship, a green card, not just for himself but for his family. But that offer was withdrawn when he was caught with a second load of marijuana, 1,000 pounds of marijuana, in October of that same year.

BECK: OK. So then we take away his offer of citizenship, something he shouldn`t have been -- he`s a drug smuggler.

BONNER: Exactly.

BECK: Something we shouldn`t have offered him in the first place. But then that second arrest is expunged from his record. Why?

BONNER: Well, because if that arrest stands, then the government loses its witness, its key witness in the quest two innocent Border Patrol agents.

BECK: OK. T.J., this is where you lead every time. It goes to conspiracy corner, because it doesn`t make sense. My gut tells me money is exchanging hands. We are looking at Mexico style corruption here. Is -- do you believe that`s even possible?

BONNER: It`s possible. You hate to think it, Glenn, because the ramifications are frightening. But it is certainly within the realm of possibility.

BECK: You know, we have -- one of the questions that I hear all the time is these guys got 12 years. And gee, Glenn, something else had to happen. Because a jury saw them. They got -- you know, this went through the court system, and the judge gave him 12 years. I`m not excusing what these guys did. They did try to cover up the shooting. But that`s not...

BONNER: That is not a crime. Let`s be clear about that. Covering up a shooting in self-defense is not a crime. It`s an administrative infraction, and they should have been disciplined.


BONNER: But not imprisoned.

BECK: What should they have received?

BONNER: According to the Border Patrol policy, the most you can receive for your first offense, which this was, of failing to report a shooting, is five days off without pay.

BECK: Holy cow. So what is it that -- I mean, here you`re the head guy of the union. I can`t even imagine the message that`s being sent down to our Border Patrol. What is it that the average person can do to get to the bottom of this?

BONNER: Well, I`m not sure what the average person can do to get to the bottom of this. What we need is a special council appointed to go in with subpoena power to get to the bottom of this, put people under oath, threaten them with prison if they tell the truth.

BECK: I`m telling you, my friend, it`s not going to happen. I think there are too many people involved. T.J., thank you much.

There is another story involving our borders that`s making the headlines. It`s pretty disturbing. KKK apparently been using illegal immigration as a marketing tool, and enrollment is now on the up swing. That`s great, isn`t it? Ku Klux Klan has found yet another group to hate. But wait. You know what? The KKK also would like you to know they`re not all bad. No, really.


ANNOUNCER: We at the Ku Klux Klan understand the importance of a healthy planet, and that`s why we`re leading the fight against global warming. Our new fuel efficient crosses now emit one-third less greenhouses gases than they did ten years ago. We`re also urging our members to leave their cars at home and instead march -- or walk to work.

We`re the KKK, striving to make our planet more green. I mean, white. OK, green and white. But mainly white.



BECK: Coming up, Iran`s supreme leader threatens the United States. Tonight, an Iranian dissident speaks out from the belly of the beast.

Plus, a promising cancer drug may not be made because there`s no money in it. The shocking truth behind drug companies and a possible cure for cancer, in tonight`s "Real Story".

And the second man to ever step foot on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, drops by to share his thoughts on what could make an astronaut just a little crazy. Don`t miss it.


ANNOUNCER: After accurately predicting the outcome of the Super Bowl...

BECK: How about those...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Indianapolis Colts?

ANNOUNCER: ... it`s now time for Glenn to pick a new sport not to watch. Find out which it will be by going to OR iTunes. Then download Glenn`s podcast, "Sick, Twisted Freak".



BECK: All right. Have you been thinking to yourself that Iran has been awfully quiet lately, well, then you`re in luck. Their supreme leader, who you almost hear from but who is ultimately in charge of everything that happens in his country, came out of his hole today, saw his shadow and said, quote, "The enemy knows well that any invasion would be followed by a comprehensive reaction to the invaders and their interests all over the world." I`m not really sure, but I think that means six more weeks until Armageddon.

The ayatollah, not a man to be taken lightly, although President Tom gets all of the headlines, it`s the ayatollah, the one with all the real power. When he says jump, Tom says, "How hi?"

Alireza Jafarzadeh is a man who revealed the clandestine nuclear facilities in Iran in 2002. He`s also the author of "Iran Threat".

Alireza, is this just posturing, or what does this statement mean today?

ALIREZA JAFARZADEH, AUTHOR, "THE IRAN THREAT": Thank you very much, Glenn. It`s a good pleasure to be on your show.

BECK: Thank you.

JAFARZADEH: This is not just posturing. This is real. This is serious. Ali Khameini, the supreme leader, has an agenda. They have a global view, believing the globalist point of view. They want to turn the entire countries in the region into an Islamic republic modeled after Iran and expand their rule beyond the Iranian borders establishing global Islamic rule. And they`re on schedule in doing that.

BECK: OK. So what did this statement -- why did this statement come out today? What does it mean that he made this statement?

JAFARZADEH: Well, I think the Iran regime is scared now that they are afraid that the international community is going to get tough on them, both on the nuclear weapons program of Iran as they get closer and closer to the February 21 deadline.

And then with what`s happening in Iraq, the Iran regime is trying to steer the situation in Iraq. They are going on the offensive in terms of rhetoric, threatening the rest of the world, that if you stand in our way we are going to confront you. And this is meant to deter the international community. And we should not be beguiled by that.

BECK: OK. Now but this is not -- as I take it, and I mean you -- when did you leave Iran?

JAFARZADEH: When I left Iran in the mid-`70s to come to the United States to study. But I went back to Iran after the revolution. And I could sense how things were moving in the wrong direction.

BECK: Right.

JAFARZADEH: It was soon after the revolution. But I`ve been in touch with the network inside Iran for the last 20 years or so.

BECK: OK. So now you know it from the inside out. And the reason why I say this is not just saber rattling, and correct me -- show me where I`m going wrong here -- is the people do not support this regime. They want democracy; they want freedom. And when a -- when a regime feels collapsed as close as it is in Iran, they will make good on that promise. Am I wrong?

JAFARZADEH: You`re absolutely correct, Glenn. Because this is a regime that is highly unpopular among its own population. The vast majority of the Iranian people are opposed to this regime, especially the younger generation, which is the most of the population.

There`s an organized opposition all over the country. This is the same opposition that revealed all the major nuclear sites of Iran, known as the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

When Ahmadinejad went last month to a university in Tehran, he was confronted by the -- by the students. They called him a dictator. They burned his pictures in front of his own eyes. It was a very daring act by the students, knowing that they could be arrested, they could be jailed and they could be killed.

There was some 4,000 anti-government demonstrations in the past one year all throughout the country from the old province of Khuzestan down south to the Kurdish region, to the northwest providence of Azerbaijan and the capital of Tehran, where bus drivers were on strike.

So there is tremendous potential inside Iran, an organized opposition, and I think the international community should recognize that and try to explore that.

BECK: OK. So if you have the Iranians leaders saying that we`re going to, you know, kick up some more -- we`re threatening, et cetera, et cetera -- do they actually have any teeth? Will the Iranian people fight the U.S. and the rest of the Middle East if they trump up some charge that we`re coming across their border or whatever? Will the Iranian people be convinced by their leaders?

JAFARZADEH: There`s nothing that could rally the Iranian people behind the Iranian regime ruling dictators. There`s no way...

BECK: Then why should we be -- why should we fear them?

JAFARZADEH: Well, first of all, they have a network of their own. You know, it`s a small group, but they have the deadliest force in terms of the Iranian revolutionary guards, what they`re doing in Iraq. They have these terrorist groups that are supporting. And they have a nuclear weapons program that they`re developing.

But at the same time they have their own Achilles heel, as you correctly said, which is that internal situation. So at the same time the threat is for real but there is a solution to it. And this regime is vulnerable, and they could be confronted only and only if the United States would pursue a right policy, reaching out to the Iranian opposition, trying to strengthen and empower the Iranian opposition and help them, not hindering their efforts in Iran or also in Iraq.

BECK: Alireza, thank you very much.

Coming up, "The Real Story" on the jet-setting speaker of the House that you just cannot miss. That`s coming up.


BECK: Talking about this Nancy Pelosi story, where she wants to upgrade from a Gulf Stream 5 to a Boeing business jet.

It is a state-of-the-art military version of the 757. It has 42 -- 42 -- business class seats. It has a 16-member crew, an entertainment center, a private bed. It is $300,000 one way across the country. She says for security reasons this is the plane she needs.

Nobody flies a Boeing business jet. I`m sorry; sheiks fly Boeing business jets. (END VIDEO CLIP)


BECK: You know, there are a lot of politicians, both Republican and Democrat, that are having a heated and candid debate about the best way to deal with the situation in Iraq.

To me the least surprising part of the entire situation is how many politicians have drastically changed their point of view over exactly what the best strategy is to win this war. Why it`s not surprising: the war is constantly changing; strategies will change, as well. That`s obvious. But what is surprising is how many people are changing their position on fighting the war. We`ll get back to that in a minute.

First, our favorite senator, Hillary Clinton, is no exception to that rule. I want you to take a look at her point of view on the war and how it has changed over time. This sound byte is from November 2003 while in Iraq.


SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: From my perspective, if we don`t stay the course here, if we don`t put the time in, then I`m not sure we can count on the sort of success that the Iraqi people and the American people hope for.


BECK: OK, stay the course. Sounds familiar.

But listen to this recent statement from Hillary. Now that she wants to be president, she`s got a whole different message.


CLINTON: If we in Congress don`t end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.


BECK: You know, I heard that and it was so disturbing. She has really changed her tune. She`s not talking about strategy here; she`s now talking about pulling out of Iraq. Giving up on the war and moving on.

Let me be clear. If you voted for the war, you must remain committing (sic) to winning the war. Strategies can change, but we have to commit to winning. The final outcome cannot change. We must win. Those in Congress who voted for the war back in November -- October 2002, you`ve got to follow through. We must finish in victory.

Now, those who didn`t vote for it, you know what? You can say whatever you want. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the war. Let me remind you of that conviction she had back then.


CLINTON: This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest division I`ve ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction.


BECK: Really? Conviction? Back then I thought you got it. When you vote to go to war, you vote to win the war and fight with everything you have.

Now Hillary has the oval office in her sights, and she`s willing to say anything to make Americans like her. She`s rallying to public opinion, not to her commitment to see this war to the end. Here`s what she`s now saying about the whole thing.


CLINTON: I want to be very clear about this. If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war.


BECK: What? Let me be clear. You cast your vote, Hillary. You were already committed. Own up to it. Take responsibility. There are no stalemates in war. Only victory or defeat.

Hillary Clinton, if you want to be the next commander in chief, not president but commander in chief, you have to prove that you have the will to finish the job you helped start. A loss in the Middle East is not in our best interest.

This is the time to band together. Democrats, Republicans, everybody band together. It`s healthy to debate the war. But the debate is not whether or not we should pull out or should have gone in, in the first place. The debate is how to finish it with a win. Why accept anything less? How secure will we truly be if we turn our country into France?


BECK: All right. Welcome to "The Real Story."

Now, here`s the situation that I think we can all relate to. You`re online, you`re making travel plans, and you start to think, well, you know, maybe I`ll upgrade my seat. I mean, sure, it`s an indulgence, but I get free drinks and I will be a little more comfortable in first class than in coach, right?

Well, here`s tonight`s real story. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi isn`t really satisfied with the luxury of a better seat. Her staff wants a better plane, and on our dime. That little indulgence will cost you, me and every other taxpayer an extra $300,000 per trip, and that`s a one-way ticket.

All right, the story now has been around for a day or two. And I`ve resisted saying anything until all the facts were in. The trouble now is, whose facts do you believe?

This afternoon, Nancy Pelosi said she`d be happy to fly commercially. Right. Her camp has been singing a very different song for days. First, I want to give you a little history. After the tragedies of 9/11, it was decided that the speaker should be given use of a private plane. I agree with it. I don`t care if it`s a Republican or a Democrat. As the person who is second in line for the presidency behind the vice president, I think the security of the speaker should be taken seriously.

Republican Denny Hastert used a smaller military plane, like the C-21. Now, for those of us who aren`t in the military, that`s the equivalent of a Gulf Stream 5. For those of us who don`t have a private plane, let me just explain the Gulf Stream 5 as one sweet plane. It`s the best private plane money can buy. On the G-5, they give you a little bit more than an extra bag of Chex Mix and a warm cookie.

Imagine a flying suite of luxury hotel rooms that seats up to 12 very, very comfortable. Couches, a bedroom, a full kitchen, state-of-the-art electronics. These babies are bigger than most New York City apartments, and they`re more than good enough for celebrities like Jay-Z and P. Diddy, but not N. Pelosi. Girl, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself!

I`m uncomfortable. How about you?

Instead, Speaker Pelosi`s staff specifically has requested the floating...


I apologize America. I just realized how ridiculous I just looked. Anyway, they specifically requested the floating pleasure palace that was a reconfigured Boeing 757. Now, this baby is stored at Andrews Air Force Base, right alongside Air Force One. It has been called the Lincoln Bedroom in the sky. It`s got a game room, a state room, showers, a communication center. It seats up to 50 people. And if you move the seats around, the plane can hold up to 111. That`s more than attended my wedding.

When you consider all of this, I guess it`s a steal at, you know, only $22,000 an hour. And that`s just for the fuel. When you factor in the additional cost of maintenance and a crew as many as 16, it might be cheaper just to carry her around on a golden throne like Cleopatra.

Speaker Pelosi says this is about security. The smaller jet needs to refuel on its way from D.C. to Pelosi`s home in San Francisco. And she`s a little frightened about that. Well, in the news game, Nance, I say that`s -- what`s the technical term -- oh, yes, a load of crap.

You can refuel a plane at eight military air fields alone between Washington and San Francisco. And if they`re secure enough for our nation`s most sophisticated military aircraft, they should be fine for Queen Pelosi.

White House spokesperson Tony Snow said today that this is a silly story, and I think it`s unfair to the speaker. Tony, sorry, I disagree with you. There`s nothing silly about frequent flyer miles that won`t save us but cost us money.

And, hey, Nancy, what happened last month? You made a promise. You said you`d, quote, "do everything in your power to stop global warming." Did anybody tell you that the Boeing 757 pumps out 10,000 pounds of CO-2 every hour, far more than the plane they wanted to give you? If this doesn`t speak of a hypocritical sense of entitlement, a congressional irresponsibility, and a criminal waste of money, honestly, I don`t know what does.

Now, from a public tragedy, let`s turn to something much more personal. I want you to imagine for a second that you`ve been diagnosed with cancer. That`s a reality 50 million Americans are struggling with. Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in this country, leaving over half a million families each and every year without mothers, fathers or children.

But there`s some good news. Canadian research team has come up with DCA. They believe it`s a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers. You heard that right. The real story is: You can`t have it, not because it`s unsafe, but because -- you`re blood`s going to shoot out of your eyes -- because it doesn`t make any money.

You and I know there`s big money to be made when pharmaceutical companies develop new, lifesaving drugs. But the gravy doesn`t last for long. After investing millions and millions of dollars in research and to the development of a new drug, companies only have a few years to make their money back, plus a profit, before their patent expires and competing companies can make a generic form of the same drug.

So back to this Canadian team and DCA. They`re working out of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, and scientists have tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body. They found that it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but not healthy cells. Got it? That`s revolutionary. This is bordering on a cancer miracle. Tumors in lab rats that were deliberately infected with human cancer also shrank drastically when they were given DCA.

So, where`s the problem? Well, since DCA has no patent, that means it can be made generically from day one. No exclusivity equals no value. You know, I heard that today, and I thought, you know, once in a while, maybe capitalism needs to be reminded of the value of human life.

Dr. Evangelos Michelakis, he is one of the leading researchers working on DCA out of the University of Alberta. Doctor, am I overstating this? Do you believe this is a cure for many cancers?

DR. EVANGELOS MICHELAKIS, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA: I`m not sure I would call it a miracle, Glenn. It`s a very promising advance. But there have been a lot of miracles in medicine, in lab animals and in test tubes, that never translate into miracles in actual human beings. So there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic about it.

BECK: Can you do these studies? And how long will it take?

MICHELAKIS: We are about to start these clinical trials in human beings here at the University of Alberta. And we think we`ll be starting somewhere in the next couple of months. It will take several months to complete, the first stage of these trials, to know at least this drug is effective in human beings as it was in human cells out of the body.

BECK: Was this drug used for anything else? Is this drug on the market for anything else right now?

MICHELAKIS: It`s not in the market, and you cannot find it in pharmacies. You can buy it in bulk from chemical companies that sell chemicals. However, it has been used for over 30 years to treat very rare conditions of metabolism, usually in children. Universities usually buy the drug in bulk, they process it, and then they treat these very rare conditions. We know that it`s relatively well-tolerated. There are some toxicities in these patients. But, of course, we don`t know how patients with cancer will react to that.

BECK: OK. So this is something you buy at a chemical company. There are going to be people who read about this, like I did today. If I had cancer, I`ve got to tell you, I`m not waiting the two years for the human trial. If this has killed these things, lung, and breast, and, what was the other, brain cancer, if it`s killed these things in test tubes and in lab rats, what`s going to stop somebody who has nothing left to lose from going and finding some of this stuff and taking it?

MICHELAKIS: That`s a very important question. And, in fact, we`ve been bombarded with this question. But you`ve got to keep in mind that it is possible it might hurt someone.

For example, a lot of these patients are already taking cancer medications, and the interactions of this drug and any drug with the existing drugs is unpredictable and could result in worsening than improvement. So these clinical trials are really important to be performed appropriately and under the regulation of authorities like FDA or Health Canada.

BECK: I have to tell you, while I see your point, you know, if I`m dying of cancer, and I know I`m going to die anyway, I mean, how am I going to get worst than death?

You had a hard time getting anybody to pay attention to this because there`s no money to be made in this. Why don`t the insurance companies get involved and pour money into this? There`s a ton of money to be saved by insurance companies. Why isn`t the capitalist system working on that front?

MICHELAKIS: It`s a very interesting question, and you`re right. You would expect -- I think there are some laws preventing the insurance company in investing in research, but I`m not a lawyer to tell you, but I think there is some regulation. It`s not that easy to do that.

However, the authorities, like the University of Alberta and the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, have already committing and they`re helping us along with the people of Alberta that already started donating money to at least make the first step.

BECK: All right. Doctor, thank you very much. That is "The Real Story" tonight. If you`d like to find out about this story or if you`d like to tell us about another real story of your own, please click onto, hit that "Real Story" button. All this information and so much there is there at



BECK: It`s hard to be honest in America anymore. We must be able to honestly question. I have no dog in this race. Wait a minute, are you racing dogs now? Yes, and I`m not feeding them very well either. I have no dog in this race. None.

No, I shouldn`t say that. I have a dog in this race: My children and my grandchildren and my great-great grandchildren are inheriting this planet. So, yes, I have a dog in this race. I don`t want to burn to death, and I don`t want to leave my kids with a planet that`s nothing but cinders.


BECK: Now, we all know too well the other worldly details of NASA astronaut Lisa Nowak and her cross-country drive wearing a diaper with a trunk full of bizarre items to confront one-third of her alleged love triangle. Today`s news report suggests that Nowak actually broke up the marriage of the guy she seemed willing to kill for. And she`s still out on bail, but she`s also still charged with first-degree attempted murder.

Some speculate it was the stress and the intensity of the space program that might have contributed to her actions. Sounds like an excuse but, then again, maybe not in this case. Joining me now to share his insights is Colonel Buzz Aldrin, legendary astronaut, second man to set foot on the moon, and friend to the program.

Buzz, how are you?

BUZZ ALDRIN, APOLLO 11 ASTRONAUT: I am very fine, Glenn. Glad to be with you.

BECK: Nice to be with you. You know, I hope you don`t mind if we talk just personally here for just a second.

ALDRIN: No. Go ahead.

BECK: When you got back off of the moon -- and I just said this just last week -- I can`t imagine that experience. Nobody could relate to it. I mean, you were at the top -- you were on the moon. When you came back, you kind of spiraled out of control. You were an alcoholic and everything else. Is it true that you just didn`t -- you couldn`t find perspective for a while?

ALDRIN: Well, when we first came back, we were in quarantine, and that gave us a little bit of isolation. But then I had indicated that I wanted to return to the Air Force, so I waited around about a year there at NASA.

There was a lot of public appearances. We made an around-the-world trip that was really quite hectic, 45 days, 25 cities, kings and queens, you know, really not what I was expecting or looking forward to. But then, you know, after about I think it was about a year, I went to my assignment to command the test pilot school. You know, I hadn`t been a test pilot, but the Air Force wanted me to command the test pilot school. So while I was there, things began to kind of settle in as a little unsettled.

BECK: Yes.

ALDRIN: And I think I inherited -- I know I inherited tendencies for depression, trying to live up to what I thought I ought to be doing. But then when I retired from the service, after about a year there at Edwards, that`s when I went into a very unstructured life. And so things began to cascade, and the depression, and alcoholism, and the temptations really got a hold of me and really robbed me of about 10 years of productive life to convert from one occupation to another.

BECK: Right. So, Buzz, do you believe that we should take into consideration at all -- and I don`t want to make excuses for this woman.


BECK: But do you think we should take into consideration at all what an astronaut goes through when they come back from space?

ALDRIN: Well, I think so. There are tremendous transformations that are going on in a person`s existence. And to try and say, "Well, I`m going to psychologically screen people before we select them," or, "Once they get selected, we`re going to look at them periodically in a psychological way"...

BECK: They were -- but when you were...

ALDRIN: ... you`re just putting more competition into the whole business. What we need is a lot of teamwork, and good supervision, a closeness, a camaraderie, and life the veil of all of this competition that`s just inherent in a system with very competitive people who were now competing for who`s going to get the next flight, or am I going to get a good slot?

BECK: Weren`t they poking you with a stick all the time?


BECK: I always thought NASA was always poking -- can you take that? Can you take that? Can you take that. Do they do that?

ALDRIN: No, not really. That`s a hangover, I guess, from the movie, "The Right Stuff," which was just not like the book.

BECK: Really...


BECK: I think actually it was Dr. Bellows in "I Dream of Jeannie," but that`s a whole different story. So is there any way that the co- workers -- I mean, you saw, you know, we`ve got to be a close environment. This one might have been a little too close. Any way that these guys didn`t know this triangle was going on? I mean, let`s be honest. Somebody has been the first to hook up in space.

ALDRIN: No, I think you`re so right that there are people probably who were saying to themselves, "Jeez, I could see this coming. And if I had only known what to do, how I could have helped this from reaching such a crescendo."

BECK: Buzz, thank you very much. What an honor to talk to you, sir. And we will talk to you and your wife soon.

We`ll be back in a minute. First, let`s check in with Nancy Grace to find out what`s coming up tonight -- Nancy?

NANCY GRACE, CNN HOST: Breaking news tonight in the death of celebrity cover girl Anna Nicole Smith, dead at 39. Local hotel officials said the EMTs tried their best to keep Anna Nicole Smith alive after she was found unresponsive in her hotel room. The local streets closed off as she was rushed to the hospital. Paramedics pumping her chest, as they tried to keep her alive throughout the ordeal. Her death, all as legal battle loomed against Nicole Smith, DNA in a paternity fight, bankruptcy, eviction, ongoing battle over her late multimillionaire husband`s will. Was it all just too much for the superstar, Glenn?

BECK: You don`t want to miss tonight`s episode of "NANCY GRACE," tonight 8:00 and 10:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on Headline Prime.


BECK: Well, as you probably know, if you`re a conservative, you`re a hatemonger. To use an obvious example, if you like tax cuts, well, then you just must hate children.

I`m always getting complaints about something, and I should have known a comment that I made like this next one would bring the people out of the woodwork. Watch this.


BECK: Anyway, I may run and catch and throw like an elderly diabetic woman, but I can eat by weight in double-stuffed Oreos, and that, my friend, is a true story.


BECK: OK. Here comes the hate mail. This one comes in from Joan in Texas. "Dear Glenn, `like an elderly diabetic woman`? That`s the way you run and throw? Shame on you. I`m a 63-year-old diabetic woman. And although I can`t run, I can still throw a ball. I just figure you probably get letters from all kids of people, including those who take offense at every word out of your mouth, so I had to pull your chain on this one.`

Thanks for the attempt. But to really write a hate letter, you have to add expletives, insults, and you absolutely have to use the word "fascist" in a way that proves you really have no idea what that word means. Keep trying, Joan.

Up next is Ramon in Phoenix. He says, "I heard you saying that `American Idol` was getting meaner and meaner. Maybe so, but those people sign up knowing what they`re getting into. Plus, they`re better off knowing they have no talent now rather than wasting their whole life believing it."

I mean, sure, I guess it`s funny sometimes, in an evil sort of way, but I don`t know if I want my personal road to hell paved that smoothly. And they also don`t let up on the show. After the contestant has been beaten to a pulp by the judges, then they finally scrape up enough pride to walk out. They have that last shred of dignity taken away when they try to go out the wrong door over and over again.

Although, I guess it is better than being this guy. This is a guy who broke into a restaurant by throwing a cement block through a glass door. He comes in, grabs the tip jar, then tries to escape. Oops, wrong door. Now, if everything went well, he would have made off with $15. But then he bumps his head, drops most of it on the floor. So, you know, if you`re a humiliating "American Idol" contestant, take solace in the fact that, you know, at least you`re not that guy. I`m just saying.

You can e-mail me now at We`ll see you tomorrow on the radio program and back here tomorrow night for the full hour, you sick freak.