Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Why Won`t U.S. Commit to Winning in Iraq?; Should D.C. Ban Guns?; D.C. Madam Threatens to Reveal Secrets

Aired March 12, 2007 - 19:00   ET

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

GLENN BECK, HOST: Well, apparently Hillary Clinton thinks she`s FDR. And I`ll tell you why she`s not in a second.
Also, the Washington, D.C., madam, she says she`s going to name names. Who exactly is on that list? That and more, next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight`s episode is brought to you by "300 II: The Quest for More Sweaty, Shirtless Dudes", coming never to a theater near you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Yes, "300", the movie was No. 1 at the box office this weekend, broke all kinds of records, taking in over $70 million.

Here`s the point tonight. America will never ever win another war unless it`s a movie. Here`s how I got there.

We`ve become this schizophrenic country. On the one hand, Americans were drawn to the story of 300 Spartan warriors who held off the mighty million man Persian army while fighting for what they believed in. We had no problem paying the money, sending our kids to watch this movie, which by the way, was rated "R", full of beheadings.

On the other hand, when there`s actual beheadings taking place, actual horror perpetrated by Islamic extremists, Americans will never, ever see that on TV. Nobody will show it to you.

And if they do see it on TV, old people will come out of the woodwork saying how wildly inappropriate that video is. We`ve come to a place in our nation some networks don`t even want to show the Twin Towers collapsing.

Not this program. I think it`s important from time-to-time to remember.

It is because of political correctness that we will never ever unite. We`re never going to unite and fight against evil, because we have no idea that evil even exists anymore, because we won`t name it.

We think we understand what war is because we see it in the movies. But somehow or another, you know, we believe we can fight it without the blood. It is tragic but true.

You know what war is without blood? It`s a meeting of the U.N. Security Council. And you see how far that gets us.

Now Hillary Clinton gave a speech this weekend at the Center for American Progress. In it she quoted extensively from FDR`s two days after Pearl Harbor, which by the way, I hear was a real event, not just a crappy Ben Affleck movie.

In the speech, Hillary repeating FDR said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are now in this war. We are all in it, all the way. Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking of our American history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Wow. She`s electric, isn`t she? Then she tacked on this little coda, a thinly veiled jab at President Bush.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: That was presidential leadership that understood when American soldiers are in harm`s way, we are all at risk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: My gosh, I can`t believe she said this. Now here`s the problem. Hillary kind of left out a pretty important part of FDR`s speech. What she neglected to mention was -- were these words that FDR said only seconds later in the same speech, quote, "The United States can accept no result, save victory. We are going to fight it with everything we`ve got." Why do you suppose Hillary forget that quote, that quote in that speech?

Later, when she was asked whether we should win in Iraq, she hemmed and hawed. When did we as a country start electing people who are unwilling to say what FDR said? When did we lose the will to stand up to a deadly enemy and fight them with everything we`ve got like they do "300"?

We`ll pay to watch others do it in a movie. But if we don`t stand up and start fighting this enemy to win, this story will not have a happy Hollywood end.

So here`s what I know tonight. We will never ever win another war again ever while Hollywood is shoving bloodshed down our throats, we are consuming it with glee, while eating a giant tub of popcorn and drinking $15 soda.

At the same time, any actors and producers who finance these orgies of violence and destruction, they have the audacity to tell us that war is evil? Really? You have no problem making money off it, you bunch of sick despicable weasels. Our kids are watching the garbage you`re putting out.

And instead of being focused on the enemy that actually exists, that actually wants to destroy us, they wage war with each other in the schoolyard. The path to victory is simple. To paraphrase FDR, unite, focus and fight to win.

Here`s what I don`t know. How do the people in Washington, D.C., miss this? It`s pretty clear. As a society, why do we get so wrapped up seeing evil defeated in TV and in movies yet we can`t summon the same passion to even name a very real, very deadly enemy.

Joining me now is Dinesh D`Souza. He is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, author of "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11".

Dinesh, how did we get here?

DINESH D`SOUZA, AUTHOR, "THE ENEMY AT HOME": Well, we`ve forgotten what FDR understood and military strategists from Klautzwitz (ph) to Lao Tsu have been telling us.

And that is to win a war, you need two things. You need national unity, unity on your side and you need steely resolve, which is to say will. All the force in the world is useless if you don`t have the will to fight.

And this is where I think the war in Iraq is being lost. It`s not so much being lost in Baghdad. It`s being lost in the American mind. It`s being lost on the television screens and the corridors of Congress.

BECK: You know, Dinesh, I saw -- I have a 2-year-old son. And on Saturday morning, we get up and we watch old cartoons. And I pulled out Johnny Quest this weekend. And we were watching that together. And I was amazed. Every episode of Johnny Quest, the villain is either Chinese, Russian or Vietnamese.

Now these were made in the late `60s, early `70s. You`d never see an enemy actually resemble a Muslim extremist ever. We`re not losing it in the news. We`re losing interest the culture, aren`t we?

D`SOUZA: I`m afraid that`s true. And also, these cultural attitudes are now being articulated at the highest levels of Congress. I mean, you now have leading Democrats who want to publish a schedule of American withdrawal from Iraq.

You only have to look at this from the point of view of the enemy. I mean, if you`re an Iraqi insurgent, you say to yourself, "I don`t have to defeat the elected government. I don`t have to vanquish the American military. I just have to hang in there, because the other side is already announcing that in 16 months, it`s going to pack up and leave. So victory is assured to my side."

BECK: How do you win, in a country that has become so politically correct, the only thing left that we are allowed to tear down are ourselves? The only enemy we can actually name is the United States. How do you turn that?

D`SOUZA: I think we have to restore some of that World War II spirit.

BECK: How do you do that?

D`SOUZA: Well, I think the American people, to be honest, are ready for it. We`re missing leadership on both sides. I don`t think the American people want to lose in Iraq. I don`t think they want to pack up in shame and repeat the Vietnam Saigon-style evacuation.

On the other hand, the case has to be made. This is the nature of the enemy. This is what they want to do to us, and this is how we can win. Americans don`t want to be in a losing war. They don`t want to be in a war without a point. I don`t know if the stakes have been made very clear to them.

See, I think unlike in Vietnam, when that war ended, it was very bad for the people in Indochina. It didn`t affect us all that much. But here, the radical Muslims control Iran. They are very eager to get their hands on a second major state, Iraq. They have already said that if they do, they will target Egypt and Saudi Arabia. So I don`t think this is a war that we can afford to lose.

BECK: Do you see an FDR out there? I mean, everybody is talking about the elections. We`re two years away. Is there an FDR out there?

D`SOUZA: Not yet. I mean, with Hillary, I think you see a kind of shameless opportunism. I mean, from the time she`s been in the Senate, she`s been fairly conservative.

But now that she`s running for president, you see the incredible power of the cultural left and the Democratic Party. They have the activism. They have the money. So they`re making everybody dance to their tune, who can do the most, if you will, to undermine President Bush.

And so FDR was different in that FDA was very partisan Democrat, but for him politics stopped, in a sense, at the edge of foreign policy. He was partisan in domestic affairs, but then he tried to unite the country on the foreign front, and that`s what distinguishes him from the Hillary Democrats of today.

BECK: OK, Dinesh. Thank you very much.

Coming up, the Second Amendment is under fire in the nation`s capital. All the latest on the Bush -- the push to ban guns in Washington.

Also, will the D.C. madam pull the trigger and release the names in her little black book? We`ll tell you why some of the nation`s most popular people are a little -- a little more than just slightly nervous.

And a new documentary on Michael Moore raises questions about the filmmaker`s methods. We`ll talk to the producers who actually started out liking him and their liberals. Do not miss this one.

But first, you may have missed this this weekend. Osama bin Laden turned 50 over the weekend. I wish we would have send him some cake and some very large candles. But of course, the well wishers came out of the woodwork.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Happy birthday, Osama.

Osama, happy birthday. You`re not 50 years old, you`re 50 years young.

Osama, baby, you don`t look a day over 70. Just kidding.

Are you 1? Are you 2? Are you 3? Are you 4?

They say it`s your birthday. It`s my birthday, too, yea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: What`s integrity? Integrity is the sister, the dominant sister of honesty. Integrity is say what you mean, even when it hurts you.

EVE PLUMB, ACTRESS: Jan, how could you be so stupid?

BECK: Imagine how Washington would change if you had someone who was honest, said, "This is what I really believe." Saying that out loud does take integrity now because that can destroy you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: All right. I`m a gun owner. There, I`ve said it. I own gun. I own lots of them, and I`m burying food in my back yard, as well.

I`m just saying, gun control is one of those issues that a lot of people don`t usually discuss at dinner parties, you know, unless they`re at my house. But I care a lot about it.

So when I read this weekend about the latest in Washington, D.C.`s attempt to keep that ban in place that prohibits its citizens from owning guns -- a federal appeals court has decided that it`s unconstitutional, what a surprise there -- I wanted to talk to the people who know this subject the best.

Now I`m fortunate to be joined by two men who are almost never on the same show together. This should be a spirited discussion. We have Chris Cox, who is the political strategist for the National Rifle Association, and Paul Helmke, who is the president of the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence.

I just -- I want to start with this. I respect both of your points of view. I don`t usually do the left box right box. I hate when people are yelling at each other. I just want to reserve the right that I`m going to mute the grandstanding offender. Got it? Because I`ve got a lot of questions that I want to avoid the spin and yelling. All right?

CHRIS COX, POLITICAL STRATEGIST, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: Sounds good.

BECK: Agreed?

COX: Yes.

BECK: First of all, both of you agree that people should have the right to own guns?

COX: Yes.

Well, it`s interesting. It`s a constitutionally protected right, the self-defense and Second Amendment. It`s interesting that Paul says that he`s supportive of the Second Amendment when actions actually speak louder than words.

BECK: See now, Chris, look what you`ve done. Paul, explain your point of view, because you say it`s just certain people should have the right?

PAUL HELMKE, PRESIDENT, BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: Well, Glenn, first of all, I just want to say thank you for having me on. I used to be mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana. You`ve got a lot of big fans out in Fort Wayne. Kathy Hawks and others have done a lot of things with you.

I just want to say people think very highly of you.

BECK: Come on, I will mute you in a second.

HELMKE: I`ve been on this job eight months. And I`m here because I`m trying to bring a common sense approach to guns. I`m trying to figure out how do we work with guns to make sure that they`re not getting into the wrong hands, to stop illegal trafficking in guns and to make our communities saver. And that`s where I`m trying to find middle ground.

BECK: OK. What is your middle ground?

HELMKE: My middle ground is that you certainly shouldn`t be selling guns to felons. You shouldn`t be selling them to people on the terrorist watch-list, and there are people that can get that now. You should be careful.

You should strengthen the ATF so they can crackdown on the rogue gun dealers, the corrupt gun dealers that are following the rules and are doing sales on straw purchase, allowing the guns to get in the community.

BECK: Chris.

COX: Yes.

BECK: What is he not telling me? Because this sounds reasonable. I`m for all of those things, and I`m a gun owner.

COX: What he`s not telling you is about core self-defense. This court case that you mentioned in Washington, D.C., came down and said that lawful honest people in Washington have a right to keep a gun in their home for self-defense.

Paul and his group are outraged by that ruling. Again, this is the difference between lawful gun owners who support the Second Amendment, who support law enforcement and their efforts to prosecute criminals.

And Paul is right. There should be a line drawn in the sand. And NRA will draw a bold one, and that`s between criminals and law abiding people. We feel that law abiding people aren`t a threat to anybody. Paul feels that everybody should be treated like a criminal.

BECK: Is that true, Paul?

HELMKE: It`s not true. And it`s something -- I believe in the Second Amendment, too. I just also want to make sure that we don`t forget the first 13 words to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is the only one that has the word "regulated" in it, of all the amendments to the Constitution.

BECK: Yes, but there`s a difference between -- for instance, I live in New York City. I`m a gun owner. I`m not exactly in the least dangerous business. I`m not in the most dangerous business. In New York City, I can`t carry a gun. What happened to my right?

In Chicago, you can`t carry a gun. In Washington, you can`t. I`m a law abiding citizen.

COX: And then you ought to go run for city council, Glenn, or you ought to lobby your legislators to get the changes.

BECK: Wait a minute. Why? I have a right. You believe in a right, Paul, but it`s not everybody. Do you believe that the states have the right to do this, to make these laws?

HELMKE: Well, just as the court even here in D.C. said on Friday, there are reasonable restrictions that relate to public safety, that those are the important things.

And once you get to that, then the question is, who should be making those decisions? Activist judges are the folks that are elected by the people.

COX: Glenn -- Glenn, the last time I checked, Washington, D.C., is part of the United States and the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights applies in Washington D.C. What this court said is that lawful people have a right to keep a loaded gun in their home for self-defense.

Washington, unfortunately, the nation`s capitol, is a scary place to live. It`s a dangerous city. For far too many years, it`s been the murder capitol of the U.S.

All of Paul`s gun control laws have done nothing to prevent crime in Washington. If they worked, gun control would be the savior of Washington. It would be the safest place to live.

I`d like Paul to answer the question that the court dealt with: do U.S. citizens have a right to keep a loaded gun including a handgun in their home to defend themselves from a criminal who breaks in?

HELMKE: The court decision Friday was a shocker to me, because it ignored nearly 70 years of precedent. The last time the United States Supreme Court spoke about this in 1939, they indicated that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to relate to the militia, relate to the common defenses by the state.

BECK: My show. I`m going to mute you two both in a second. I`ve got to tell you, Paul, that makes no sense. Why would the Founding Fathers -- wait a minute. Why would the Founding Fathers want to guarantee the right for the government to have guns? Our Founding Fathers were afraid of corrupt governments, not the people on the street.

HELMKE: Actually, if you read the court decision, there is a fascinating history, and this is where the court again went wrong on the history is, actually, the concern was that the standing army that was being created in the Constitution was going to overwhelm the state Militias, which is what we had under the Articles of Confederation.

That`s why, when James Madison did his first draft of the Second Amendment, he had a conscientious objector clause there. Why would you have a conscientious objector clause there if we were doing these things?

But the crucial issue is we need to figure out what will help make our community saver. I`m happy to sit down with Chris any time to figure out what are those reasonable restrictions.

BECK: Maybe we can make that happen on this program. I`d love to get you two in a room. I`ve got to run. Paul, Chris, thank you very much. We`ll have more on this on the radio program tomorrow.

Coming up a little later, a new documentary shines a harsh light on filmmaker Michael Moore. That must be a pretty big light. I`ll talk to the producers. They`re liberals, by the way. Stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, federal prosecutors in our nation`s capitol are trying hard to prevent a high profile witness from releasing information they say is detailed and sensitive.

Is it a CIA operative? Mob informant? Maybe some a CEO -- you know, whistle-blower perhaps? No. No, this one is just a good old-fashioned pimp.

Deborah Palfrey, she`s a Washington, D.C., madam. She was busted for running high dollar hookers in the nation`s capital this last fall, but now she wants to sell her client list.

Funny, I always thought it was just you and me and the taxpayers that got screwed in Washington.

William Bastone, he`s the editor of SmokingGun.com. Let me ask you this. First of all, do you think if I were on that list and you were on this list, and nobody in Washington was on they`d try to stop this from being published?

WILLIAM BASTONE, EDITOR, SMOKINGGUN.COM: I think they would likely have fewer qualms with that list getting out.

BECK: I have a feeling. You`ve actually met with her, right?

BASTONE: I`ve actually interviewed her. We found out about the investigation six months ago, and I actually -- I think I was the only person to actually have a long interview with her about the nature of the business and her claims that what they were doing weren`t illegal.

BECK: First of all, let me just say because we just saw her mug shot there, she`s a looker! What did she say about her list? Did she mention it at that time?

BASTONE: I asked her about it. I said -- I told her our interest obviously was the nature of the clientele. And what she said was that -- you have to remember, she ran this business from northern California. That`s where she lives. The business was essentially headquartered in the capitol, and she ran it through a series of phone numbers. If you dialed a local number in D.C., she picked it up in northern California. So she wasn`t there dispatching people; it was really done all over the phone.

And I asked her -- I said, are you aware of the nature of the clientele? And she basically said that she really wasn`t certain of who the clients were because the -- you know, someone would call and say, you know, "I`m Joe Blow. Send someone to the Ritz Carlton." She has no idea who they are.

So I think the one thing there were 14 women who testified in the federal grand jury that indicted her, and these were woman who worked as escorts. If this thing ever gets to trial, when those women get on the stand, and if it ever gets to the point of them talking about how it worked and who their customers were, they`re going to really be the one whose can talk to who the clients were.

BECK: Is anybody keeping an eye on -- the name Chandra Levy comes to mind. Anybody keeping an eye on these people to make sure that the hookers are safe?

BASTONE: A hooker protection program?

BECK: Is there a hooker protection program? I`m just saying. There might be a reason the madam was living in California.

BASTONE: Well, I think as of now, until her lawyer and she who gets the discovery material from the government, I think she`s probably unaware of exactly who has testified against her.

What the government doesn`t want her to do is, when they provide that discovery material, grand jury testimony, IRS and postal service reports, that she doesn`t then take that information and try to go and sell that, as well, in addition to kind of like her ten plus years of phone records.

BECK: She posted a bunch of stuff on her web site this weekend, and Dick Morris` name was on. Anybody else?

BASTONE: What she posted -- she posted a little over a week ago was, like, one page from a 1986 phone bill. And you know, what that can tell you is, I think, absolutely nothing.

Even if you had a more recent phone bill, what does that -- what does that tell you? It doesn`t tell you something actually happened if you have a phone number.

BECK: Right. The web site is SmokingGun.com. You really have a great web site. We`ll be back in a second with "The Real Story" next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right, welcome to "The Real Story."

Now, I think one of the things that makes this show unique -- and I don`t know if it`s a good thing or a bad thing -- is that I will tell you when I`m wrong about something. I don`t see a lot of cable hosts do that, but I will. And let me just start here.

Wow, was I wrong. Let me take you all the way back to last fall. This is before the Democrats took over and solved all of the country`s problems in just under a hundred hours. Wow, what an anti-climatic gimmick that was.

Back then, I had a cute, little theory that the moderate, or so-called Blue Dog Democrats, would steal votes from Republicans who were looking for a change. So far, so good. But what I didn`t predict quite so accurately was what would happen as soon as the election was over.

The "Real Story" tonight? The Blue Dog Democrats are dead or, at a minimum, they`ve become completely irrelevant. The Blue Dogs have given away to the real face or the real power center of the Democratic Party, the far-left radicals.

The picture that you see of smiling Democrats standing side by side with Nancy Pelosi, in there fighting against the big, bad conservatives, nothing but a charade. Under the surface, there is real venom, there is real infighting going on, and it is happening between the left and the really far left.

Now, I`ve got two examples for you. First of all, after FOX News Chairman Roger Ailes made a joke about Barack Obama, kind of a bad joke, but, you know, a joke which Obama himself said he took no offense to, Democrats in Nevada retaliated by canceling a presidential debate FOX News was co-sponsoring. Now, these are the same Democrats who are always complaining that FOX is nothing but a Republican mouthpiece.

Well, here`s your chance to expose exactly what your party stands for to an enormous national audience, and they blew it. Even worse, they canceled the debate because of a crusade led by MoveOn.org, a group that`s not exactly a representation of mainstream, moderate Democrats.

So let`s start with John Edwards. John, this guy bowed out of the first debate. He was the guy who was leading that charge. John, who is really pulling the strings in your campaign?

Now, the four horsemen must be riding into town right now, because I actually agree with Dennis Kucinich on this issue. He said, quote, "If you want to be the president of the United States, you can`t be afraid to deal with people whom you disagree with politically." Now, he`s also out there blasting his fellow Democrats for canceling, saying, quote, "It smacks of manipulation."

And you know what? I can`t believe -- my eyes are going to bleed after I say this, I can`t believe Dennis Kucinich is right. Now, tomorrow night on "The Real Story," I`m going to expose the campaign manipulation that he`s talking about, and you`re not going to believe who`s really behind it.

But the key point here tonight is the thing that should chill you to your core is that Dennis Kucinich and I agree on something. Sure, I think his ideas, most of them, out of his mind nuts, but at least this guy truly believes in those ideas. And unlike the other weasels in Washington, this guy is actually willing to stand by them while everybody else scrambles to find cover.

If that isn`t proof of a party who`s lost all sense of unity and direction, I don`t know what is.

Now, before the election, Democrats tried so hard to fight off the accusations that they were soft on defense by talking about how we needed a new vision in Iraq, a new plan, a new course of action. But four months later, we now see exactly what that course of action is: withdraw our troops as quickly as possible.

And that`s not a new vision. That, in my opinion, is a lack of vision. And Mr. Party of Ethics and Honesty, that certainly is not the plan that you advertised last fall, because if it was, you would have lost the election. Americans don`t see themselves as losers. Politicians are the losers.

Late last week, we got a rare glimpse into just how fractured the Democrats and frustrated they have become when a peace activist, Tina Richards, taped a hallway encounter she had with Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee David Obey.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TINA RICHARDS, GRASSROOTS AMERICA: Are you going to be voting against the supplemental?

REP. DAVID OBEY (D), WISCONSIN: Absolutely not. I`m the sponsor of it, for heaven`s sake.

RICHARDS: For the -- to continue to the war?

OBEY: It doesn`t. The president wants to continue the war. We`re trying to use the supplemental to end the war, but you can`t end the war by going against the supplemental. It`s time these idiot liberals understand that.

I hate the war. I voted against it to start with. I was the first guy in Congress to call for Rumsfeld`s resignation, but we don`t have the votes to de-fund the war, and we shouldn`t, because that also means de- funding everything in that bill to help the guys who are the victims of the war.

The language we have in the resolution ends the authority for the war. It makes it illegal to proceed with the war. You don`t have to de-fund something if the war doesn`t exist.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, I didn`t know that`s in the supplemental.

OBEY: That`s the problem. That`s the problem. The liberal groups are jumping around without knowing what the hell is in the bill. We don`t have the votes to pass it. We couldn`t ever get the votes to pass a nonbinding resolution one week ago. How the hell do you think we`re going to get the votes to cut off the war?

I`m sorry. No, I`m not going to vote for it. I`m the sponsor of the bill that is going to be on the floor and that bill ends the war. If that isn`t good enough for you, then you`re smoking something that ain`t legal.

Do you see a magic wand in my pocket? How the hell are we going to get the votes for it? We ain`t got the votes for it. We do have the votes if you guys quit screwing it up. We do have the votes to end the legal authority for the war. That`s the same as de-funding it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Unbelievable. Idiot liberals, quit screwing it up. Probably not the reception that Tina had in mind when the Democrats took over Congress.

There are two wars going on right now, one in Iraq and one with the Democratic Party, which I could care less about. I care about the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, for America, the two have become intertwined here.

Now, Tina Richards, she`s the peace activist who you just saw in the video. She`s also the CEO of Grassroots America and the mother of a U.S. Marine.

Tina, first of all, thank you for your family`s service to the country.

RICHARDS: Thank you very much.

BECK: I appreciate you being on. And I have to tell you -- and I want to set the ground rules here -- you`re not convince me the war is wrong, and I`m not going to convince you the war is right. I don`t want to have a discussion on that. I want to try to build bridges to each other.

And I think the bridge that we have is, the Republicans and the Democrats have turned this into a vehicle to get them elected president the next time around. And I think this is shameful and un-American.

RICHARDS: And I would have to agree with you, Glenn. The Iraq war I don`t think should be a political, Republican-versus-Democrat item. I know earlier you said that the people voted for -- that the Democrats ran on a new vision in Iraq.

And I`m sorry. When I was working to help get Democrats elected, it was because they said they would get us out of Iraq. And that is what I think the American people voted for overwhelmingly.

BECK: But, see...

RICHARDS: And we`re not going to agree, obviously, on whether it`s a quagmire or whether it`s winnable or not, but there is such a fraction among America on this, on where to go with this.

BECK: But here`s the point, Tina. You know, you say that -- well, I don`t want to misquote you. Yes or no, did you just tell me that you thought that the Democrats were open and honest with you in the last election on exactly what they were going to do?

RICHARDS: Well, personally, I don`t know. I mean, I know that the candidate that I helped to -- wanted to get elected, I know she would have been, but she didn`t win.

BECK: OK. So what I`m saying is, I think -- you know, I really truly believe that if you -- there are only two real American positions here. There`s only one un-American position. The two American positions are, "End the war, it is wrong to be fighting it, it`s not winnable, whatever, end it right now," or, "Fight it with everything you`ve got."

This little weasel in the center is going to get our boys and women killed. And it is that center that is only playing it for politics. Do you agree or disagree with that?

RICHARDS: That I absolutely agree with. Just as the surge came up, you know, that they`re sending in 21,000, that`s not going to affect conditions on the ground.

And if we`re not taking -- if this war is supposedly the battle of all of America, and that it is the do-or-die for the war on terrorism, then they should treat it like that, because they`re not treating it like that is what gets me so angry.

Fine. If it is not -- and it`s obviously, by the president`s actions, the Republicans` actions, and everything else, it is not that, or they would start the draft and then send up 500,000 or a million troops up there.

BECK: Tina, I couldn`t agree with you more.

RICHARDS: But they`re not.

BECK: Hang on just a second. Wait, wait. I agree with you 100 percent. Now, I`m a conservative. I`m for the war. You`re a liberal. You`re against the war.

RICHARDS: Now, wait, wait, wait, wait. Can I correct that right there? Simply, OK, I`m a very middle-of-the-road person. I have always been middle of the road. I was born in Colorado. My mom was born in Oklahoma, my dad in Nebraska.

BECK: I`m generally in the middle of the road...

RICHARDS: I`m a Midwestern person.

BECK: ... but I run to the right.

RICHARDS: But all of a sudden, because I`m against this war, now I`m painted as a liberal. And I`m not sure why, but I don`t think that`s fair to begin with.

BECK: OK, that`s fine.

RICHARDS: And I don`t think there`s a lot of conservatives that look at the issue of the war and say, "We have to get out of there, it`s bankrupting our country."

BECK: Hang on a second, because I don`t want to argue that. That`s fine.

(CROSSTALK)

RICHARDS: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

BECK: You and I disagree on the war.

RICHARDS: And I`m just a Marine mom. I see so many of our troops over there that are being sent on missions just to run around to see if they can get shot at, it`s shameful.

BECK: Tina...

RICHARDS: They need to bring them home.

BECK: You`re exactly right on your stance on this. I wish we would have had more time so we could talk about how two people that are on opposite ends of the spectrum can unite to get the weasels in Washington to do either/or. I`m with you. Tina, thank you very much.

That is "The Real Story" tonight. If you would like to read more about it or if you found a "Real Story" of your own, please tell us about it at glennbeck.com and click on "The Real Story" button.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Work ethic? Please. Paris Hilton was a turning point in our country. She is revered by so much of our youth. They respect her. They want to emulate her. She`s a turning point in work ethic, as well as fame and fortune. You no longer have to work for anything.

PARIS HILTON, ACTRESS-MODEL: I`ve worked really hard and, you know, it`s paying off right now.

BECK: If I was Paris Hilton, I don`t know how I live with myself at the end, when I look at what I`ve created. I`ve created nothing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Now, to put it mildly, I`m not really a fan of Michael Moore. I am a fan of donuts, and, oh, yes, those two are connected, I believe. I think his movies are full of half-truths and no truths. They`re more like works of Communist fiction, the documentaries, but that`s just, you know, one blowhard`s opinion.

Now, there`s finally somebody making a movie about Michael Moore and his tactics. It`s called "Manufacturing Dissent." Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I love Michael Moore. He`s the best thing in the whole country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he abuses people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You should not be getting your news from a guy with a high school education in a Central Michigan ball cap.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he`s confused.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is no filming that is allowed here without permission.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK, this is great. I`m now joined by the directors of "Manufacturing Dissent," Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine.

Rick, I understand, when you went into this movie, you guys were actually fans of Michael Moore, and you`re liberal, right?

RICK CAINE, DIRECTOR, "MANUFACTURING DISSENT": That`s right, we`re unabashed liberals.

BECK: God bless you.

CAINE: How the heck did we get on the GLENN BECK show?

BECK: I don`t know. You said yes. You`re in it now. You can`t go away.

So, Debbie, what happened? Where was the turning point with you?

DEBBIE MELNYK, DIRECTOR, "MANUFACTURING DISSENT": Well, once we started to find out a bit of the more -- sort of do some research, and we found out there were a lot of fabrications in his films, we decided, "OK, which way do we go? Should we talk about Michael Moore in a celebratory fashion and continue to, you know, sort of spout our point of view, because we are admirers of him, or should we tell the truth?" And we decided that we should tell the truth after we found out about some of the fabrications in his films.

BECK: OK. So has this caused a problem for you? Because I know -- you know, I spoke out -- I`m a conservative, and I spoke out about Scooter Libby, and all these conservatives, they`re like, "Oh, they should let him go." I`m like, "He lied under oath. I had a problem with that in the `90s. Why wouldn`t I have a problem now that he`s a Republican?" And I got hammered by a lot of conservatives, saying, "You`re hurting the party. You`re hurting" -- I don`t care. I`m for the truth. Is that kind of what you guys felt?

MELNYK: Yes, I mean, we`re for the truth, as well. And we feel that we do think this film will actually help the left, because we think that you can clean house by showing the truth. And we also think that, you know, Michael Moore is out there for himself and not necessarily for the social issues which are in his films, because if he was really out there to help change things, then he would set up infrastructures that help social change instead of just moving onto his next film.

BECK: Right.

CAINE: And, Glenn, one other thing here, Glenn. I think it`s important that both the left and right, that you have these periodic house cleanings. Let`s face it. The Republicans would have been a lot better off in the 2004 election had they gotten rid of Tom DeLay sooner, had they dealt with Mr. Foley. And when these things are allowed to sort of stick around and fester, it`s a problem.

And what`s happened is that both sides sort of lie for their cause. So if you have a bad actor on your side, most people are reluctant to call that person out and say, you know...

BECK: I got to tell you, I said it when they sat Michael Moore next to President Carter at that convention, I thought, "Oh, my gosh, this is amazing that this is happening." What are some of the lies that you found or his tactics that you found that you expose in this movie?

MELNYK: Well, one of the things that we found out was that, in "Roger and Me," there was a satellite truck which was apparently supposed to have been stolen. Now, what we found out was -- and this was during a town hall meeting with Ted Koppel and "Nightline." But we discovered that actually there was no meeting set up with Ted Koppel and "Nightline." That was never going to happen in Flint. And no satellite truck was ever stolen.

But, meanwhile, we see in "Roger and Me" a reporter talking about how a satellite truck was stolen in Flint. That never happened; that was fake.

BECK: And he actually did meet with Roger, right?

MELNYK: Roger Smith. He actually had around a 15-minute interview with Roger Smith at the Waldorf-Historia after their dog and pony show. And, yes, they talked.

CAINE: He also spoke with him at a GM annual shareholders meeting in Detroit, as well, and he chose not to include any of that footage in the film.

MELNYK: Now, that wasn`t an interview. That was more of a Q&A, so I suppose you could say it wasn`t an interview.

CAINE: Right, yes.

BECK: What did you find out about Michael Moore the guy? I think he`s -- and this is just -- I don`t know him. I don`t know anything about him. He strikes me as a miserable human being.

MELNYK: Well, I think he`s very funny, I mean, so I`m going to defend that, because at least he does make entertaining docs. Just don`t take everything at face value and take it with a grain of salt.

But we also found that, you know, I mean, obviously, some of his employees didn`t like how he treated them. And he`s, you know, I don`t know, we didn`t really -- we didn`t really go into his personal life as much.

BECK: Personal life doesn`t matter?

CAINE: No, no, the personal life matters quite a bit. What we found, what we really discovered was it was quite sort of an open secret within the film business that he`s not very well-liked.

BECK: OK, Rick, Debbie, thank you very much. We`ll be back in just a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. We talk a lot about dirt bags doing horrible things on this show, but you`d be hard-pressed to find somebody worse than this guy. After appearing to help this 101-year-old woman out the front door of her apartment building, on her way to church, he slaps her face repeatedly, then he takes her purse, goes through all of her pockets.

Now, obviously, he could have just taken the purse without hitting her in the face. She`s over 100 years old. No reason to turn into an elderly beating Rocky Balboa, but he hadn`t had enough. He turns around and nails her one more time, knocking her to the ground.

You know, if you can look at it again, he`s already done robbing her. He has a clear path to the door. There`s absolutely no reason to hit her again, but he does. Maybe he thought she was going to, you know, speed after him with her walker. Unbelievable, 101 years old. Her name is Rose Moret.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROSE MORET, BURGLARY VICTIM: I got a little angry, you know? And I said, "That so-and-so, I hope you get caught." I`m 101 years old. How are you going to run after a mugger?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Unbelievable. This idiot wasn`t done. Police believe he -- and I kid you not -- hopped on his pink bicycle and rode down the street, assaulting yet another easy mark. This one was using a walker, and she was 85 years old.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SOLENGE ELIZEE, BURGLARY VICTIM: I pray for him, because if he can change, we`ve had less one bad person in this world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I think this is where I split with the greatest generation. I really don`t have the optimism necessary to believe a guy like this can be reformed, nor do I have the attention span to attempt it, nor do I care if anybody else attempts it.

Honestly, when you rob two women with walkers whose combined age approaches the age of our country, there`s no hope for you. Done. I give up. Leave it to the people far more enlightened than me to try to rehab that piece of garbage.

Now, on a happy note, before we go, one quick e-mail. "Glenn, my husband and I were wondering if your neighbors still have their Christmas lights on."

Please, of course not. Sherry, having their Christmas lights on in March? That would be ridiculous. I think these are probably the lights celebrating daylight savings time. They were on last night. I don`t know, a little too early for the St. Patrick`s Day lights, which are right around the corner.

Hey, white trash, take the lights down! Neighbors are starting to talk on national television. You can e-mail your complaints about your neighbors at GlennBeck@CNN.com, and we`ll see you tomorrow on the radio and then back here tomorrow night. Bye-bye.

END