Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Former CIA Operative Discusses Al Qaeda Danger; U.K. Documentary on Global Warming Under Fire; D.C. Madam Threatens to Reveal More Names

Aired April 30, 2007 - 19:00   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, controversial statements from former CIA director George Tenet.

GEORGE TENET, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: If al Qaeda were to acquire nuclear capability, the thousands of weapons we have would be irrelevant.

BECK: I`ll tell you why it`s time to stop the finger pointing and wake up to what this guy is really saying.

Plus, a British filmmaker is in the hot seat for raising questions about global warming. Wait until Al Gore hears about this one.

And Miss America, what`s her special talent? Would you believe catching online sex predators? We`ll speak to reigning Miss America, Lauren Nelson.

All this and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Well, former CIA director George Tenet has been making the talk show rounds. He was on "60 Minutes" last night, promoting his new book.

Basically, the media coverage is just him blaming the president for everything from Iraq to Katrina to Sanjaya, I swear.

But here`s the point tonight. We need to stop living in the past and playing the blame game. I get it: George Bush made a mistake. Why? Because al Qaeda is already here in America. And here`s how I got there.

I don`t care about the finger pointing, you know, the Democrats and the Republicans. I don`t care about what happened years ago. I said the same thing when the Republicans were blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11. Can we please move on, and talk about something that`s happening now, which affects all of us?

If you watched the George Tenet interview on "60 Minutes" last night, this was the important thing that he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is al Qaeda in the United States right now?

TENET: My operational presumption is that they infiltrated a second wave or third wave into the United States at the time of 9/11.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK. Strong stuff. In his book, Tenet gets really scary. He says he`s surprised that al Qaeda hasn`t sent suicide bombers to cause chaos in half a dozen shopping malls on any given day. I`ll tell you why I don`t think they have here in just a second.

Now granted, this is his opinion, but I believe his intuition is correct. And if you`re doing a gut check right now, come on, you`re telling me you don`t believe these people are here? Al Qaeda is alive and well, and they are mapping out their plans against us.

Now, there is a lot of evidence to back this up elsewhere. Just today, five British citizens were sentenced to life in prison after a jury found them guilty of planning to build and detonate fertilizer bombs at shopping malls, nightclubs and other targets around London.

In Turkey this weekend, 70 -- I`m sorry, 700,000 citizens took to the streets because their country is about to be hijacked by Muslim extremists. They are so worried about their government potentially embracing Sharia Law, that the military has said they will step in to protect secularism.

And here in America, Jose Padilla, man being accused of being part of that south Florida terrorist cell that recruited volunteers and funneled money to Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, sits in a jail cell, as the judge says, his case may be life on the facts.

All these things are going on. George Tenet`s new book talks about a cyanide subway attack here in New York City. It was called off.

Meanwhile, we`re sitting playing politics. We`re saying, what did the president know and when did he know it?

It is crystal clear what we need to do as a nation. Republicans and Democrats need to stop playing political games and shut the pie hole. Stop telling me what you would have done, what -- you wouldn`t have ever made that mistake. Instead, tell me what you`re going to do.

Here`s what I know tonight. I know that al Qaeda is getting stronger and stronger. I was sitting on the beach this weekend with my family. I was looking at everybody just enjoying themselves on the beach. And I looked at my wife as she was saying to me, "Oh, it`s so nice to be out of the house."

Meanwhile, I`m looking at all the people on the beach and thinking, these people are going to go home. They`re going to tune out, and they`re going to plug right back into the matrix. They have no idea what`s about to hit them.

America, you better wake up, because it is around the corner. And later, during "The Real Story", I`ll tell you how things are going to change in the blink of an eye. They almost did this weekend.

Now, here`s what I don`t know. Will America take the red pill or the blue pill? Will we wake up and face the reality around us, stop playing the blame game in Washington and wipe out our enemies before they hit us?

Joining me now is Michael Scheuer, former senior CIA operative who served as the head of the hunt for Osama bin Laden back in the late 1990s.

Mike, what did George Tenet say last night that America should have heard, but didn`t?

MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER SENIOR CIA OPERATIVE: Well, he -- the idea that al Qaeda is here in America, I think that`s beyond question. We have the FBI saying they haven`t found them yet, which nobody should make -- take much comfort in.

The other point that Mr. Tenet made, which was very important, was as a country, as a government under two administrations, we have failed to secure the Soviet nuclear arsenal, and that`s what al Qaeda is in business for.

The reason they haven`t hit shopping malls, the reason they haven`t hit pizza parlors is because they want to knock us out of the war and they want president next attack bigger than 9/11.

BECK: You know, Michael, I was going to ask you about this, because I have a theory that they -- we haven`t been hit. We sit here and say, "Oh, gee, you know, 9/11, no big deal. Look, we haven`t been hit again. We wiped these guys out."

I don`t think they want to hit us until it can really be a black eye, because they`ll remind us what we`re fighting against. They want us to forget.

SCHEUER: Well, in a sense what they want is to get us out of the way, Glenn. We`re not really their main enemy. What they want to do is to knock us so hard that we have to pull our horns in and clean up using the U.S. military.

BECK: Who is our main -- who is their main enemy?

SCHEUER: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. They -- their operating assumption is that those tyrannies, those Arab tyrannies, plus Israel, only exists because the Americans are there to support them.

BECK: You know, the -- I read a story this weekend about Saudi Arabia. They`re really starting to scare the bat crap out of me, and they`ve scared me since 9/11.

They wouldn`t give us details, according to George Tenet, about a plot to kill Al Gore. He was going over there, you know, here`s a former vice president, and they knew of a plot, and George Tenet had to go over and say, "Look, you are in real trouble if we release the information that you have information and won`t help us."

They`re pulling back. Why are they pulling back from us now? Not -- not counting back then. They seem to be changing their position with us. Why?

SCHEUER: Well, we`re losing two wars, sir. We`re not a very good friend at the moment. We told them we`d take care of Saddam and we`d take care of Afghanistan and we haven`t taken care of either one.

Let`s face reality. There would be no Osama bin Laden, there would be no Islamist movement if it wasn`t for the government of Saudi Arabia. They have been America`s worst enemy for the past 30 years.

And as long as we`re dependent and our allies are dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf, we will continue to lie to the American people and tell them that the Saudis are our allies.

BECK: George Tenet says in his new book that there was a plan for cyanide attacks here in New York City, 2003. They had everything ready to go. They were here in our subways. They were pulled back at the last minute. We found out about it afterwards.

But the reason why they were pulled back was, al Qaeda said, we have something better in mind. What do you suppose that means?

SCHEUER: It means that an attack bigger than 9/11, sir. What they`re looking at, they`re really very eager to get a nuclear device. They think that would be a knockout blow for America, because only the military will be able to take care of the aftermath of that, and to the extent that they`re involved in doing that, they can`t protect the Israelis or the Saudis or Kuwaitis or the Egyptians.

BECK: Michael, would this go to -- I`ve been saying on the air that recently, that we can`t really count on Europe, because when the crap hits the fan, Europe is going to be so busy in their own countries with their own military, trying to -- just street fighting and cleaning up the mess over there, that we will basically be alone.

Are you saying the same thing about America?

SCHEUER: Oh, I think so. I think we will be -- that`s what their goal is. Whether they can pull it off is another question, sir.

But I think one of the important things about looking at past events, both under Mr. Bush and under Mr. Clinton, is you begin to understand that in neither party is protecting Americans the top priority. The top priority is simply holding on to power.

If they were really concerned with protecting the United States, our borders would be closed and regulated, and the Soviet nuclear arsenal would have been fully under control, 16 years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

BECK: Michael, I just had a woman call me today on the radio program and she said, Glenn, I watch what`s going on on our borders, and everything is common sense. If you just use common sense you could fix all these problems, et cetera.

Michael, give me a piece of hope. What is it that somebody looks at our government and is starting to be disillusioned and knows it can be fixed with common sense? Give me hope.

SCHEUER: I think the American people are always the hope, sir. They have a great deal of common sense. They`re much more bloody minded than their leaders. And they know an American is worth far more than any foreigner. And when it comes time to kill the enemy, we`ll be there.

BECK: Thanks, Michael.

Coming up, a new documentary critical of global warming is taken major heat in the United Kingdom. I`m joined by the film`s director for his side of the story.

Saudi Arabia stopped a major terrorist attack against its oil fields this weekend. How devastating would this have been to our economy? Try $6 a gallon gasoline. I`ll tell you about it in tonight`s "Real Story".

And if you thought "America`s Most Wanted" was tough on child predators, wait until you see Miss America in action. She`ll be here to tell me about her new role as a crime fighter and why she`s doing it. Don`t miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Long before Christopher Columbus, scientists knew all around the world that it was round. But dogma intervened, and the church only accepted that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, not the other way around. Scientists knew the truth, but they knew they`d be killed or imprisoned if they spoke up.

Times have changed so much. The players have changed, but the game is pretty much the same, especially when it comes to disagreeing with the accepted facts of global warming.

We have forgotten that when we challenge accepted scientific thought, we force science to either back up their claims or change them, adapting to the new and best information available. That`s a good thing. Otherwise, we`d still be eating margarine and not butter again. Or is it butter and not margarine? I`m not sure.

Without that kind of scrutiny, we wouldn`t benefit from the kinds of advances that improve our everyday lives. After all, if academic ideas can`t stand up to difference in opinion, they stop being theory and start becoming dogma. That is not a good thing. And I`m surprised, America, I have to point that out.

And it`s sadly exactly what`s happening in Britain and about to happen here. After a documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" aired on British television, a great documentary.

Some British scientists demanded changes in the film before its release on DVD, citing what they feel are grave errors and, quote, "major misrepresentations in the film`s content."

While those scientists claim to be acting in the public interest, the film`s directors call it a loathsome, "contemptible weasel-worded attempt to gag scientist criticism." That man who said that is Martin Durken.

Martin, what exactly are these major discrepancies that the scientists are talking about?

MARTIN DURKIN, DIRECTOR: Well, I don`t think there are major discrepancies. I`m currently engaged in an online debate with the person who wrote that letter. And -- from the newspaper in Scotland on Sunday.

So hopefully, that will hit the Internet shortly, and people will be able to decide for themselves whether there are major discrepancies or in fact whether the major discrepancies are on the side of man-made global warming.

BECK: You are not an ideologue on this. I mean, you didn`t ask to make this special for Channel 4. They came to you, right? And you have done several scientific documentaries.

DURKIN: Yes. Normally I make documentaries which, you know, weigh in support of reason and science against people who are waging, you know, irrational fights against science. But on this occasion, I find that the law of the people who seem to be arguing, as far as I can see fairly, and irrational arguments, claim to be scientists themselves. Obviously, there`s a sizeable scientific backing for this theory.

BECK: Does it surprise you, what you`ve found? Not the facts on global warming, but the game that`s being played? Has it surprised you?

DURKIN: I`m really flabbergasted. I think on this occasion, on this story, I think, could really sort of rewrite the way we think about our relationship between science and society.

Because we`re being asked to take our word for it, by a certain section of the scientific community. And they`re sort of closely allied with journalists and politicians. And -- but what`s at stake is an awful lot. They`re asking us to hinder development in the advanced world that, you know, we might not want to hinder development.

But in the first parts of the world, that`s a very serious policy decision. And so I certainly don`t think we should be just rubber stamping the PLAIN consensus view on this.

BECK: There`s two things that really bother me. Science has become religion on this. You`re called a Nazi or a fascist or whatever if you -- if you don`t agree with it.

And the second part of this that is so frightening is not just the freedom of speech, but like you said, the hindrance of progress. We`re asked to spend trillions of dollars on things that we have no idea if they will even work, or if we are even responsible.

I just read a story, and I believe it came out of the U.K., where someone broke a fluorescent light bulb and had to call your version of the EPA to find out how to clean it up.

Canada, they`re saying now the mercury people are coming out of the woodwork and saying, how are we going to dispose of all this mercury? We may be causing more problems than we`re trying to fix.

DURKIN: Oh, the recycling thing has just gone crazy. There`s a kind of -- I suppose once you`ve got the end of the world hovering over the horizon, it`s an excuse for doing almost everything.

BECK: Yes.

DURKIN: Now they`re going through our rubbish and threatening us with fines if you put the wrong thing in the wrong box. So people are going through those envelopes, you know, with windows in, peeling off the windows to put them in one box and shoving the envelopes in another. It`s a certain period of madness, I think.

BECK: Martin, we did a special six months ago on the extremist -- Muslim extremist agenda. And we showed things on American television that had never been seen before. And it changed, I believe, changed the debate here in America.

I`ve seen your special. It is absolutely phenomenal. We`re doing our special on global warming this week. How much trouble are we in, do you suppose? What should I expect after airing a documentary very similar to yours?

DURKIN: Oh, welcome to hell.

BECK: I`m already there, Jack.

DURKIN: You are in for a rough ride. I mean, you know, I`ve experienced some -- I`ve made controversial films before, but nothing like -- I mean, I`ve just have not witnessed the horror of this. It is really unpleasant.

For a few weeks I`ve had a taste of what scientists have had to put up with. The loads of scientists that I went out to interview, they`ve had death threats. They`ve had all that sort of thing. I had a little glimpse at that. I`m amazed that any scientist dares to stand up and tell the truth about global warming. I`m amazed.

BECK: Martin, thank you very much. Hope you get your life back soon.

Quick programming reminder, in two days, Wednesday, May 2, we will bring you that flip side of the global warming debate. Typically, there are two sides to every debate. Don`t miss "Exposed: The Climate of Fear", 7, 9 and midnight Eastern,

Coming up, the D.C. Madam sex scandal continues to loom over our nation`s capital. Is she going to name names? We`ll have the latest details.

Plus, how a spoiled terror plot against Saudi Arabia`s oil fields may have saved the U.S. economy. I`ll explain in tonight`s "Real Story".

And Miss America is not only beautiful and intelligent, but she`s Wonder Woman. Crime fighter, too. She`ll stop by to tell us about catching sexual predators and why she`s doing it. Don`t miss it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: There is a woman in Washington, D.C., known as the D.C. Madam. She is at the center of a scandal that mixes two explosive elements: sex and politics.

She is the reputed leader of a beltway prostitution ring with a client list of 15,000 phone numbers, 10,000 to 15,000. Could include some of Washington`s highest profile residents.

Her first casualty was a 65-year-old very married deputy secretary of state Randall Tobias. He resigned on Friday after admitting he got massages from some of her associates: "But honestly, I didn`t have any sex, honey."

Amy Argent Singer, she is with the "Washington Post".

Amy, you know, I saw the list when it first came out, and you just saw some of the names, and one of them was Dick Morris. And I thought...

AMY ARGENTSINGER, "WASHINGTON POST": No news there.

BECK: No surprise. I mean, there`s no surprise here. Is there anybody on this list -- do you think anybody is really frightened that, you know, the average Joe outside of the beltway is even going to know?

ARGENTSINGER: This is exactly what I`ve been skeptical about all along. I mean, the whole story plays into everyone`s fantasy, conspiracy theories about Washington.

However, Washington is a big town. Not everyone works in politics. Not everyone has a high place government job. There are a lot of guys here with means and perhaps the inclination to use an escort service who are just random lawyers, random tech guys, who knows what else?

So when you say 10,000 phone numbers, doesn`t necessarily mean we`re going to be hitting all the power players. And of course, the names that have come out thus far, with all due respect, impressive guys, impressive careers, not exactly big names.

BECK: No, it`s not like George W. Bush, or, you know, Harry Reid are on this list. And even if they were, you only have the phone numbers, right? So you have to -- somebody`s got to draw the connection of, well, your phone number is there. But that doesn`t mean that you were involved in anything.

ARGENTSINGER: No, no. And you know, innocent until proven guilty. However, I mean, as we`re seeing, though, with the case of Randall Tobias the other day, just being implicated here, and he claims that there was no sex involved. It was enough to get him to step down very, very quickly.

So whether anyone is actually going to face anything criminal, any of these clients, alleged clients, it could still be deeply embarrassing and possibly ruinous.

BECK: OK. I keep hearing, Amy, that everybody in Washington wants this to go away. If that is true, why is she going on ABC television? Because once she unloads those numbers, once she unloads her story, doesn`t she lose all power?

ARGENTSINGER: Well, you know, that`s a very good point. I mean, arguably, no one`s too sure exactly what the end game is, what the strategy is here. I mean, her argument is that she`s going to get these names out there because she`s looking at these former clients as people who can help exonerate her, who can prove that she wasn`t running a prostitution agency, but simply running a -- I don`t know, what is it again?

BECK: Come on.

ARGENTSINGER: Escort services, massages -- whatever. But arguably, this is a big publicity -- I mean, as she said very brilliantly, if all these names had come out weeks ago, we probably would be bored with this story already.

BECK: She is -- I already am, quite frankly. She -- you know, the thing is that she was -- she`s trying to present herself as a teetotaler, that she said, you know, the drugs and the sex and everything that was going on in the escort service, the legitimate escort service was just wrong.

And I thought, legitimate escort service? There is somebody who says, I`d just like somebody to go to the movie with me.

ARGENTSINGER: She`s just trying to uphold the standards of the industry.

BECK: Yes. Because it gets such a bad name.

Amy, thanks a lot.

Up next, a record-sized rally for global warming in Minnesota. The problem is, it wasn`t for global warming after all. I`ll explain, next, in tonight`s "Real Story".

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right. Welcome to "The Real Story." This is where we try to cut through the media spin to figure out why a story is actually important to you.

A couple of weeks ago in Minnesota, there was this huge rally on the steps of the state capitol. So many people showed up that one state congresswoman said it was one of the largest rallies, if not the largest, that she`d ever seen there. If you live in Minnesota and you listen to the media that day, you probably believe that the rally was part of a global warming day of action, because that`s what most of the news reports claimed.

But the real story is, the overwhelming majority of people on the steps of the capitol that day were there for a very different cause: tax relief.

Of the approximately 10,000 people rallying at the capitol that day, about 7,000 were there to protest $4 billion in new taxes proposed by the state`s Democratic majority. But if you went to the Web site of a local Minneapolis CBS affiliate, you saw the video of the tax rally being used as evidence on how big the global warming rally really was.

I bring this up to you because this is one of the worst examples yet of the media absolutely distorting reality to fit their own agenda. Why not just take the video of the Vietnam War protest on the National Mall from the 1960s, zoom way out, and tell people, "Look, it`s a global warming rally from last weekend"? I mean, would it really be so much worse than what they`ve just done in Minnesota?

It is so important that we have an actual debate about global warming. That`s why, this coming Wednesday night, we will start that debate by showing you the other side, the side the politicians, the media, everybody is trying to hide from you, with our special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear." I want to warn you up front: This is going to be a completely unbalanced, completely one-sided look at global warming.

My theory is you`re getting the other side everywhere. This is the side, thanks to the media outlets like CBS in Minneapolis, you`ve probably never heard before. But you will on Wednesday on this program.

Jason Lewis is the organizer of the anti-tax rally in Minnesota, also the talk show host on my affiliate in Minneapolis, FM Newstalk 100.3 KTLK.

Jason, is it true that the local CBS anchor says he will not cover the other side of the global warming debate?

JASON LEWIS, HOST, 100.3 KTLK: Yes. In e-mails to his constituents out there, he says, "No, the science is in. I don`t have to do this, because there`s a consensus, and the people, the global warming deniers, as some would have it, don`t have a consensus. They don`t subject their material to peer review."

BECK: Oh, I see, so we`re only doing news on consensus now? That`s good.

LEWIS: Well, I mean, you`ve got some of the brightest minds out there who are questioning this, Richard Lindzen from MIT. That`s not peer- reviewed work? Of course it is.

BECK: Sure. We have some of the pictures of the rallies. And what killed me is, it really wouldn`t take a mathematician to figure out -- I mean, it doesn`t even look like a global warming event by any stretch of the imagination. Does it to you? I mean, how do they miss this? Is this just an honest mistake?

LEWIS: Well, it could be in some quarters. But what they did in most reports is combine the totals and say, "Competing rallies drew 8,000, 9,000, 10,000," when we crushed the global warming crowd. We had anywhere from 6,000 to 7,000. They had 1,500, 2,000. To me, Glenn, that`s the lead on the nightly news. I guess Minnesotans care more about tax relief in the sixth highest per capita state tax in the country than they do about global warming.

BECK: Yes, and you are getting crushed in taxes in Minnesota. I mean, what`s up with -- I mean, I know it`s a liberal state. Al Franken is from there. But what is going on in Minnesota? They`re trying to put Sharia law in through up in Minnesota. You`ve got the airport thing with the taxis, where if you`re a Muslim cab driver they won`t pick you up with your blind dog. I mean, it`s craziness.

LEWIS: Yes, I think the liberal Democrats here felt they had an overwhelming mandate in November to change America, quite frankly. And there`s starting to be a tax revolt, at least of that aspect of it. I mean, we`ve got a surplus of $2.2 billion up here, Glenn, in a biannual budget of $31.5 billion. And they want to raise all of their taxes -- if you add all their tax increases together, they want to raise $4 billion when we`ve got a $2 billion surplus. If that isn`t overreach, I don`t know what that is.

BECK: Yes, they`re doing that in New York, and I can`t understand. We`ve got Bloomberg, a so-called Republican. And I looked at the surplus we have in New York, and I thought to myself, "Why isn`t he saying, hey, rebate for everybody, we took too much of your money"? Jason, thanks a lot.

Next, the media was all over the story that broke last Friday about Saudi Arabia arresting 172 Islamic militants likely from Al Qaeda who were apparently planning suicide attacks on a variety of targets, including Saudi Arabia oil facilities and refineries, possibly by crashing airplanes into them. In addition to the extremists, authorities also found $5.3 million in cash and a stockpile of weapons buried in the middle of the desert.

Unfortunately, just because the media covers the story doesn`t mean they`re covering it accurately. This story is not about Saudi Arabia dealing with extremists; it`s about Al Qaeda continuing to pursue their long-term goal of bringing down our economy.

The real story is that Osama bin Laden himself has been calling for attacks on Saudi oil as a means to cripple us for years now, and his followers are now listening. About six months ago, Saudi Arabia arrested 139 Al Qaeda members, including suicide bombers, inside their country. And then, a year ago, guards at the world`s largest oil processing plant in Saudi Arabia opened fire on two vehicles filled with explosives that were trying to enter the complex.

Even though the media refuses to tie all of these events together -- I don`t know why -- they are not isolated incidences. Al Qaeda knows the best way to collapse our economy is to disrupt the global supply of oil, and they know that Saudi Arabia is the key to that.

For the last couple of years, U.S. officials have been war-gaming different oil attack scenarios. In 2005, top officials from our government, like current Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former CIA Director James Woolsey, sat in a Washington, D.C., conference room and tried to figure out how the U.S. would respond in a disruption in oil from, among other things, an Al Qaeda attack on key Saudi Arabian facilities. Gee, sounds familiar?

Unfortunately, no matter what these guys did, they could not figure out a way to keep gas prices under $5.32 a gallon. Now, I know for some that may not sound like a huge deal. Maybe you just sacrifice by carpooling or, you know, skipping your summer vacation. Think about what happens to the overall economy when some of those same sacrifices are made by hundreds of millions of people simultaneously.

How much does an airline ticket cost? What about taxi and bus fares? How much does your food cost, considering that gas prices for delivery trucks and farming equipment has just doubled? How does the postal service keep delivering letters 2,000 miles for 39 cents? How long can our military keep fighting?

It is one big domino effect, and the first domino is oil. Once that domino falls, the public stops spending. The stock market nosedives. Pretty soon, people are wondering why a gallon of milk could possibly cost $14.

If you think this is all a pipe dream or they need some massive nuclear attack to make it happen, consider this: Two months ago, rumors surfaced on the trading floors that Iran had fired a missile at a U.S. warship in the Persian Gulf. Oil prices jumped over $5 a barrel. That`s a 7 percent increase in seven minutes. What would have happened if that attack wasn`t just a rumor?

Ariel Cohen, he is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. If successful, Ariel, what would have this meant to the United States?

ARIEL COHEN, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Glenn, it would mean stock market crisis, a crash. The global economy may go into a tailspin. Europe and China are much more dependent on Saudi and Middle Eastern oil than we are. We`re 20 percent dependent; they`re 60 percent to 70 percent dependent. And both Europe and China are major economies and major markets for U.S. exports.

And the bad news about this is, after the Saudis told us again and again and again that they have all the situation under control, they eradicated Al Qaeda, it turns out not to be true. The good news is, they intercepted the Al Qaeda attacks before they actually blew up the oil facilities.

BECK: But you know what? These guys, they think we`re training over in Iraq. And I heard another story on Saturday that I just cannot believe that the media here in America has not been all over, and that is, we caught the 7/7 mastermind, the guy who did the 9/11 of London. We caught him. Where did we catch him? We caught him coming back into Iraq where he trained those people, and he was coming from Iran. By the way, he was a major in Saddam Hussein`s military. I mean, Iran`s fingerprints are all over this.

COHEN: Well, Glenn, think about it this way: 19 hijackers on 9/11 managed to bring down the stock market, kill 3,000 Americans, all with the funding between $200,000 and $500,000. Here we`re talking about an intercept of an operation that was ten times bigger. It was 170 people and $5 million worth of funding. And the question is, Glenn, where this funding is coming from. Obviously, it`s coming from the Persian Gulf.

BECK: OK, 20-year low in oil supply. This is what I heard today, that we are expecting the possibility, without anything happening, of $4-a- gallon gasoline this summer. What happens if just Saudi Arabia is disrupted? What do you think that our gas prices would actually fall out?

COHEN: It all depends how much they hit and for how long the interception is going to happen. We war-gamed at the Heritage Foundation another scenario involving Iran. If Iran intercepts oil flow through the Gulf of Hormuz, which is in the Persian Gulf, where 40 percent of the global oil flow is going through, we estimated that, for a one-week full interception, or three weeks partial interception, the oil prices may go as high as $120 a barrel for a while.

BECK: OK. And that`s...

COHEN: In Saudi Arabia, there`s some choking points that can take 4 million to 5 million barrels a day, which is a major amount. And then the oil prices are over $100 a barrel...

BECK: OK.

COHEN: ... in case of a successful attack.

BECK: Ariel, thank you very much.

COHEN: My pleasure.

BECK: That is "The Real Story" tonight. If you want to read more about this, please do. Or if you`ve found a real story of your own you`d like to tell us about, please just go to glennbeck.com, click on the "Real Story" button. All the information is right there. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Some pageant contestants can sing, others can dance, but this year`s Miss America has a talent that you don`t see all that often in the pageants. She`s taking an active role in fighting crime to help kids stay safe. She`s joined by John Walsh, host of "America`s Most Wanted," in finding sexual predators online and helping them get off the Internet, away from our children, behind bars where they belong. I want you to watch this clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAUREN NELSON, MISS AMERICA 2007: Yes, I`m right on the ocean. And my house -- it says 69 outside. OK, great. I`m really excited. Bye.

JOHN WALSH, HOST, "AMERICA`S MOST WANTED": This beautiful young lady right here lured them here.

NELSON: My pleasure. Glad another one`s behind bars.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Lauren Nelson, Miss America 2007, hi, Lauren.

NELSON: Hi, how are you?

BECK: I`m good. You know, I talked to John Walsh last week, and he sat here, and we were off the air, and he said, you know, the most amazing thing about Lauren is, she was shaking like a leaf most of the time. He said you were -- it made you very uncomfortable to be there, because, you know, people were a few feet away, but you were still with a guy that, you know, you knew what he wanted to do.

NELSON: Right, exactly. I was within feet of these men. I`m standing on a front porch by myself, so not knowing -- I mean, you can`t profile these men. You never know what their next step will be.

But I knew that it was a controlled situation, with the Suffolk County Police Department being there, John Walsh and the "America`s Most Wanted" people being there. So I felt safe, but of course a little nervous.

BECK: How creepy was it to talk to them and to exchange e-mails with them?

NELSON: Completely creepy. Chatting online with them was one thing, but the worst thing was getting on the phone with them, because when you`re on the computer, you`re hiding behind a computer screen. When you`re on the phone with them, you hear their voice, they hear your voice, and it turned into a little bit of an acting job for me, because I`m not a 14- year-old girl. But I had to sound like one and look like one.

BECK: And you actually sent pictures of you when you were younger, right?

NELSON: I did. I did. I sent some of the predators pictures of me when I was 14. And that`s creepy to know that they were looking at a picture of me and then saying the things that they were.

BECK: So, why? Why this? Because this is not -- John told me, he said, "This is not a beauty pageant kind of thing to do."

NELSON: No.

BECK: Why this?

NELSON: Why? I got into Internet safety because I had a problem with it when I was 13 years old. A group of girlfriends and I were approached online by a predator, asked some information. We gave him the information. He knew that we were 13, that we were girls, and that we were in Oklahoma.

The rest of the conversation went on without a hitch. But then later that week, he got back into correspondence with my friend, sent inappropriate pictures of himself, and then that`s when we alerted our parents. So I knew that it was a problem then, and it`s an even bigger problem now seven years from then.

BECK: You know, I was in the Bahamas this weekend with my family. And I was sitting there, and we were by this harbor, and this big, huge yacht came backing in. And there was this -- she must have been 9 years old. And she was on the back of this boat. And she was with her family. And she was wearing, I mean, a really revealing bikini. And she had to be 9. I wanted to throw a beach towel on her.

And I thought to myself, as I saw her scamper off this boat, I thought, a, I would never let my daughter at 9 run around like that, you know, in a crowd, because you never know -- she could be gone in a heartbeat, second of all, how split we are. We keep saying that, you know, we`re against the sexualization of our children, and yet we continue to do it by letting them dress the way they do, promoting the clothing that they do. I mean, it`s really a problem, isn`t it?

NELSON: It is, but my issue focuses on the Internet. And you`re exactly right: Parents have to be very involved with all facets of their children`s lives, but especially on the Internet. Know what your kids are doing online. Know what Web sites they`re going to. And be involved with what they`re doing. It`s not about being nosey; it`s about protecting your kids. You`re in the driver`s seat.

BECK: What do you think that your parents did when you were growing up that made you say, "I`ve got to tell Mom and Dad"?

NELSON: Well, my parents were always very involved. My mom was the mom that was sitting next to me as I was chatting online. My dad and mom would walk through the room. The computer was always in a high traffic area. So I learned that from them. You know, at the time, that was very annoying, and it got on my nerves, but that`s the very thing that I`m promoting now.

BECK: Yes, we were just going to rearrange some of our furniture in our house, and we have the computer facing one direction. It`s in our family room. We were going to have it facing one direction. And my wife said, "We`re not turning that desk around. We are seeing what`s on that screen all the time."

NELSON: So you can see what`s going on, exactly. Exactly.

BECK: Well, Lauren, what a pleasure meeting you. And thank you so much for the work that you`re doing.

NELSON: Thank you so much.

BECK: We`ll be back with your e-mail in just a second.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: All right, we want to answer your e-mails. We get a ton of e- mails in every day. We thought we`d do something a little different tonight. All of the questions were written by children under the age of 9.

Our first question comes in to us from Becky in Madison, Wisconsin. Becky writes in, "Dear Glenn, what`s your favorite color? P.S., I like strawberries."

Good question there, Becky. I think the answer is simple: red, white and blue! But if your favorite color is green, Becky, then you might want to tune into our special show on Wednesday night, May 2nd. It`s called "Exposed: The Climate of Fear." If you love our planet, and if you`re forced to watch Al Gore`s movie in school, you`ll want to see both sides of the global warming debate. It`s what your teachers haven`t been sharing with you lately. We`ll give it to you on Wednesday.

Our next letter is from Skip in Kansas City. He writes, "Dear Mr. Beck, which celebrity would make a good president of America?"

Skip, great question. I know the perfect person to bring our country together. I believe it`s Mr. Vin Diesel. I don`t know where he stands on the issues. I don`t even know if he`s American, quite honestly. But I do know this, Skip: Vin Diesel, awesome. It`s a word that kids use nowadays. Do you think Iran would mess with us if Diesel were in charge? I don`t think so.

Second choice for president would, of course, be Jessica Alba, provided, of course, that Congress repeals the law that presidents have to be over 35 years or older. And the other reason I guess your parents are going to have to explain.

The final e-mail comes in to us from Drew in Tampa Bay. Drew writes in -- and it took a lot to put this up, but, "Poop, poop and more poop."

Drew, first, I wasn`t going to run that. But then I realized, wow, you really got it on the ball, because if you look at the state of affairs in Washington, D.C., with our elected officials sniping at each other instead of doing people`s business, if you look at the garbage that`s being force-fed into you and every friend of yours on television and the Internet, if you look at the political correctness that is crushing our country`s soul from within and emboldening our enemies to destroy us, then you can summarize it in just one word, and that word would be: poop.

I`m just saying. Thanks, 9-year-olds, for writing in. We`ll see you on the radio tomorrow and back here tomorrow night. Until then, good night from New York.

END