Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Can We Fend Off Another Terror Attack?; Will Government Tighten Process for Buying Nuclear Materials?; Study: Women Control Households

Aired July 12, 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, al Qaeda back and strong as ever. How in the world did this happen? And how vulnerable are we?

Plus, meet the people who hate my guts. We`ll talk with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who called me a traitor, and D.L. Hughley, who for some crazy reason also doesn`t really like me.

D.L. HUGHLEY, COMEDIAN: I don`t, I don`t, I don`t, I don`t like -- I don`t like him.

BECK: And who`s in charge at home? From the Department of the Obvious, a ground-breaking new study says it`s women who are in charge at home.

All this, and more, tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: They`re here. U.S. counterterrorism analysts say al Qaeda has restored its operating capabilities to a level unseen since September 11, 2001. Hello, America. Here`s the point tonight.

Look out, here it comes. And I`m not talking about an attack on our soil, but about a wave of fury against us by our leaders, who are clearly failing us. And here`s how I got there.

The president himself commented on the resurgence of al Qaeda in his press conference today, but kind of downplayed it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is a perception in the coverage that al Qaeda may be as strong today as they were prior to September the 11th. That`s just simply not the case. I think the report will say, since 2001, not prior to September the 11th, 2001.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: OK. Whatever. I mean, let`s just take a look at where we stand here.

The latest threat assessment is summarized in a five-page document called "Al Qaeda: Better Position to Strike the West". Kind of sounds eerily similar to the infamous "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the U.S." report was making the rounds before 9/11.

Now, according to another report, an ABC News report, dozens of FBI agents have now been given a two-week deadline to run down more than 700 leads on an FBI worry list developed in the wake of that failed attack in London in Glasgow.

The list includes about 100 specific leads here in the New York City area, which makes me all warm and fuzzy. And it would also explain the two giant Coast Guard ships I saw trolling the waters right around the George Washington Bridge early this morning.

All of this, coupled with Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff`s gut feeling that something`s on the way, our porous borders, another new al Qaeda tape that just came out, and all of our leaders playing politics instead of solving this stuff, this is a recipe for disaster.

Intelligence agents have been calling this the summer of chatter. I read today, the White House is talking about it in their weekly non- emergency emergency meeting.

So we`ve got the bad guys chattering, the good guys talking. Maybe somebody should do something.

Our visa problem has not been fixed since 9/11. In fact, it is twice as bad as it was. Our borders are still insecure. Not because we didn`t pass new legislation, but because we don`t enforce our own laws.

If the crap is going to hit the fan -- and all signs are pointing to that happening, you know, sometime or another -- it is -- it`s not going to be our government that saves us. I`m convinced of it. It is going to be we, the people; you, me, or somebody like us who`s vigilant. Somebody who sees something and says something.

So tonight, here`s what you need to know. Regarding terrorism, the other shoe is going to drop. Sometime soon maybe, if Chertoff is right. The only question is, can we catch it before it lands with a tragic thud?

Clark Kent Ervin is a special -- a former inspector general from the Office of Homeland Security, and author of "Open Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack". He joins us now.

Let me just -- Clark, let`s just go through some of the things that have happened since 9/11. The visa problem, twice as bad as it was in 9/11. We haven`t fixed that. In fact, you were the inspector general in 2004.

What did you see when you went to the embassy in Saudi Arabia?

CLARK KENT ERVIN, FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL, OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY: It was astounding, Glenn. We found just kind of on happenstance that there were boxes and boxes of visa applications that had been unexamined by the FBI. These were applications of young Saudi males who had applied to enter the United States at or about the same time as the 9/11 hijackers. They got those visas.

And so it would seem to me that the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, somebody should have gone through those boxes years ago to see whether there were any ties between the 9/11 hijackers and these other Saudi males who got visas to enter the United States.

BECK: Do you have any idea? Are they still sitting there?

ERVIN: You know, the last I heard -- I checked as recently as a year ago. There had been no effort to find out anything last year, and I`ve heard nothing to suggest that anything has changed since.

BECK: You know, it`s funny, because I heard Gordon Brown, the new prime minister of England, just say that the big problem in England is, these people are overstaying their visas, and we`ve got to do something about it.

And I thought, good heavens! How is it they`re now facing this, as well? I mean, there seems to be no learning curve here.

ERVIN: That`s exactly right, Glenn. Visa overstays is a big, big problem. The good news is, we do have this system called US-VISIT to give us some sense of who`s entering our country. The legal check points, not illegal but through legal checkpoints.

But the bad news is, the Department of Homeland Security has given up, essentially, on an exit feature. So we don`t when people leave. And because we don`t know when people leave, we can`t easily track them down to figure out whether they`ve overstayed their visas and might potentially be terrorists.

BECK: And that doesn`t even include all the people that are coming into our country that we don`t know who they are.

ERVIN: Well, that`s exactly right. Illegal immigration. Now there`s a lot of focus, and there should be, on our southern border, border with Mexico, bin Laden. Al Qaeda has considered sneaking across the southern border through the throngs of illegal immigrants seeking work in the United States.

But you know, the northern border, our Canadian border, is even more lightly defended than our southern border, and that`s why Ahmed Rassan tried to sneak across the Canadian border back in 1999, intending to blow up LAX.

BECK: We did a story just -- I think it was last week about a town where there -- I mean, it`s just a street. And one side of the street is Canada, the other side, and people just blow through. And you`re -- I think you`re supposed to stop and just leave a note that you`re coming in. It`s insanity.

ERVIN: It is insanity. And I`m also concerned, by the way, about the visa waiver problem. You know, it`s not for nothing that the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, came to the United States on a British passport. Or that Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker, came under French passport.

If you come from Britain or France or any of the other 25 visa waiver countries, you can escape the scrutiny of the visa process. You don`t have to be interviewed. There`s not a double-check that you are who you say you are when you arrive in the United States as the person who applied for the visa. That`s a huge loophole that should be ended.

I think the next terrorist who comes from abroad is likely to come on a visa waiver passport.

BECK: We had a -- we had a problem today with a jetliner that had to land in New York that was on its way over to London. It turned out that it was somebody who saw something and said somebody. And it turned, really, into not a lot.

But even the problems with the airports, our cargo on the planes is going unchecked.

ERVIN: That`s exactly right, Glenn. The good news is, we`ve done more in the aviation sector than any others, spending $20 billion plus. Cockpit doors are hardened, et cetera.

The bad news is, even in the aviation sector, we`re still vulnerable. About 20 percent of the cargo that goes on airplanes in this country, doesn`t go on FedEx planes or DHS planes but rather on passenger planes. Virtually none of that cargo is checked before it`s loaded into the belly of an airplane. And that therefore there`s a huge risk of a bomb in a passenger plane.

BECK: Clark, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

I mean, America, listen up, man. I mean, listen to this. This guy knows. They`re not doing enough. It`s really going to be up to us.

Now, let`s assume the worst for just a minute. The terrorists do succeed in their latest plot. How do we react this time? Are we going to be the America that we were on 9/12?

Are we going to unite against Islamic extremism? Are we going to unite, God forbid, against each other or against our own government that seemingly is letting us down again and again and again. What is the mood of the country and what does it point to?

Joining me now is Robert Butterworth, a trauma psychologist.

Dr. Butterworth, I sense anger in this country that I have never, ever felt before. We are being disenfranchised with our politicians. What -- what do you think would happen if we were hit with another large terrorist attack? Will we be the people we were on 9/12?

DR. ROBERT BUTTERWORTH, TRAUMA PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, I think part of the problem is that the society as a whole has kind of psychologically become complacent.

I mean, there are a lot of people in denial about whether another attack will actually occur. And when you`re in denial as a group, and something happens, you`re in shock and you can`t act.

Now, obviously this week with the president this morning saying, perception, and Chertoff saying gut feeling. And in a sense it`s a way to stir those emotions saying, wait a minute now. For all those complacent people, you`d better start getting a little anxious. Not anxious to the point where you can`t think and act, but to the point where you can start preparing.

But Glenn, if another attack does occur, and we aren`t psychologically prepared, we could -- right, we could turn on each other, because we don`t know what to do. We don`t know how to act. And we don`t know who`s in charge.

BECK: Yes. I just fear that these politicians have sown so much hatred, the Republicans have said, "Oh, it`s the Democrats that are un- American." And the Democrats are saying, "No, it`s the Republicans that are un-American."

And they`ve sown so much hatred. I`d hate to see what we might reap, especially once the game -- you know, what did you know and when did you know it. Both sides knew what was coming. We all know what`s coming. It`s just a matter of time.

The question is, what have you done? And I`m so afraid that they have sewn so much hatred that -- that we will turn against them.

BUTTERWORTH: Well, you know, I`m an eternal optimist. And I`ve seen it before, even out here in earthquake country. When bad things happen, we kind of join together, at least for a brief period of time.

But I think as a society we`re not talking about, God, what would happen if 10 blocks or 20 blocks of our city are hit with a dirty nuclear bomb? What do we do?

I mean, in earthquake country and tornado country, people have disaster plans. They know kind of what to do. And I think in a sense, nobody wants to talk about it, because as you said, when you start stirring this up, people get angry.

BECK: Yes. Well, you know what. The thing you have to do, America, is just prepare yourself and don`t wait for the government to do it. You`ve got to take care of yourself.

The thing -- also, the other thing that frightens me is, what is the tipping point that turns people from, hey, let`s be reasonable, let`s be rational, to the America that put Japanese behind razor wire? What is the -- what`s the trigger that makes good people go nuts and say, "Put them all behind wire"?

BUTTERWORTH: We go to a certain point where our brains turn off, and we turn into rage. And rage and fear, I mean, it`s us -- it turns into a situation, us against them. And in order for us to survive, we have to do something about them. And that thing to do can be -- can be deadly.

BECK: Thanks a lot, Robert.

BUTTERWORTH: Thanks.

BECK: Coming up, you can get just about anything on the Internet. Music, cars, furniture. Oh, yes, new one, radioactive material. Just how easy would it be for a terrorist to build a dirty bomb? The answer will surprise you, and it`s next.

And yes, believe it or not, it is true: not everybody likes me. I know. Hard to believe. Tonight, two outspoken critics of mine, Robert Kennedy Jr. and D.L. Hughley, join me. It`s a smack-down, two against one. Tonight`s "Real Story". This is one I`d like to miss but you won`t want to.

Plus, we`ll look deeper into the circumstances surrounding the pizza bomber case. Something doesn`t seem right on this. We`re looking for answers. I think we may have found some answers that will shock you, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Coming up, I`ll take on two of my toughest critics: Robert Kennedy Jr., who called me a traitor and a fascist, and D.L. Hughley, who just doesn`t like me for some reason. And I like you, D.L.

Both will join me tonight. See if we can find a little common ground. I`m guessing maybe with one, but probably not with Kennedy. Should be interesting.

But first, back in 1970, a book called "The Anarchist Cookbook" was published. It offered instructions for making conventional bombs from every -- everyday things that were readily and legally available. That was then.

Today`s angry extremist isn`t satisfied with Molotov cocktails. They want a dirty nuke. And according to a new report obtained by CNN, it seems that you can buy the radioactive ingredients online as easily as ordering a -- ordering a book from Amazon.com.

The report that government investigators created, a fake company to obtain the real deal license to buy the radioactive materials. Then they took and they scratched out the license and they took the initial steps any terrorist with an e-mail account could have done to buy this stuff to build a mid-sized dirty nuke. That sounds great.

Thankfully, it seems, some in Washington are doing something about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EUGENE ALOISE, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE: In our view, NRC has not been aggressive enough in licensing and tracking radiological sources, the materials that can be used to make dirty bombs.

So we believe they need to be more aggressive in this area. We`ve had for several years now. It`s evidenced by the fact that it took them three years to develop guidance which we beat in 28 days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Holy cow.

Sound bites are one thing, little hearings are one thing. Are lawmakers really going to do anything about this and plug the holes in our leaky licensing system?

Senator Thomas R. Carper, he`s a Democrat from Delaware.

Senator, you were there today. How amazed at this report were you?

SEN. THOMAS R. CARPER (D), DELAWARE: Not entirely amazed. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has responsibility for trying to birddog the nuclear radioactive materials that are in different places around the country.

They have put in this sort of category from top to bottom, categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. One and 2 being the most lethal, the most dangerous to us, five being the least dangerous.

What happened here, another federal agency, a watchdog agency, was probing to see how -- how good the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was at protecting these materials, making sure they didn`t fall in the wrong -- wrong hands. And what has happened here is that the government`s own agents were able to place orders for a substantial amount of lower radioactive materials, which bundled together and put in great concentration, could cause real -- real trouble.

Good news, the federal government did the probing, found a weakness, and now it`s the job of the NRC to fix that weakness and the job of the Congress to make sure that the NRC does its job.

BECK: You know, I`ve got to tell you, I`m not convinced the NRC even gets it. I want to show you this. This is from -- who is he? I think he`s the commissioner from the NRC. Here`s what he said. Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARD MCGAFFIGAN, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION: We talk about dirty bombs as being weapons of mass disruption. I personally think that we contribute to that. That this psychological fear that we have is a combination of threat inflation on the part of the terrorists` capabilities, combined with lack of knowledge of real radiation effects.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Hey, Senator, could you do me a favor? Could you move the NRC to Lower Manhattan, please, and put their offices there? Maybe they`ll -- maybe they`ll take a dirty nuke a little more seriously.

CARPER: Senator George Voinovich and I lead the Nuclear Safety Committee. We`re going to be meeting. We met today right after the hearing. We`ll be meeting, probably, next week with the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be holding hearings, probably by the early part of September to say, "NRC, let`s get our act together on this. What are we doing? How can we do it better?

Everything I do, I know I can do better. I make mistakes; everybody makes mistakes. We want to make sure that -- that there`s fewer mistakes like this that are made by -- by the NRC.

BECK: But you know what? I have to tell you, Senator, and I appreciate your candor on this, and I appreciate your work on this. But the NRC, I mean, first of all, they say they`re going to fix the problem. Are they going to go back and look at all the other licenses that they`ve already issued?

And B, there was just a story last week that one of our nuclear power plants, we had painters that came in. They were all illegal aliens. And I understand they were painters and there was no danger to the plant. But still, we have people who are undocumented aliens gaining access to our nuclear power plants?

Good heavens, sir, this is -- this seems to be, you know, some things that maybe are a little out of control?

CARPER: Well, most -- as I said earlier, most of us make mistakes. The sin in making a mistake is to keep making the same mistake over and over again.

The NRC has less range, if you will, for making mistakes. They have to be almost perfect. And I just say if it isn`t perfect, make it better. And that has to be the watch word at the NRC. Vigilance every single day.

BECK: OK. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your time.

Coming up, the -- the new study that came out today that reveals women, not men, wear the pants in the family. Oh, really? Hey, thanks Dr. Obvious. I could have told you that one for free. My wife tells me I need to listen to the story. So stick around.

And it`s time to face the foes. Robert Kennedy Jr. and D.L. Hughley, not real big fans of mine, so I invited them on to see if we can find some common ground. May get feisty. Take a Tums. Don`t go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: The scientific super-geniuses at the National Institute of Mental Health have just published a groundbreaking new study in the "Journal of Counseling Psychology". The results show that -- brace yourself, America, because this -- this is going to come as a shock. The revelation: wives have more power than their husbands in making decisions and dominating discussions. Yes.

Hey, attention, all scientists. Next time, save your money. Call me. I could have told you that one.

David Vogel was the lead researcher on this study and also a psychologist at Iowa State University.

David, how much money did you spend to figure this one out? Come on.

DAVID VOGEL, RESEARCHER/PSYCHOLOGIST, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY: The grant from National Institute of Mental Health was $50,000.

BECK: You didn`t need $50,000. Are you married?

VOGEL: I am.

BECK: You knew this, didn`t you?

VOGEL: I would say it`s pretty equal.

BECK: The -- what?

VOGEL: We`re pretty equal in our decision-making.

BECK: Yes. And that`s what it says. It says that when you have relationships that are equal in balance, and women who are not, you know -- I don`t know, honestly, I don`t know any relationships where they`re like, "Little woman, shh." When the relationship is not like that, it`s a better relationship.

VOGEL: True.

BECK: Well, what -- what did we need the science for? Isn`t that common sense?

VOGEL: Well, a lot of researchers have previously been suggesting that because men, at least traditionally, had earned more income in their jobs, that that lended to them having more power in making decisions. And that that led to different behaviors when they were having conflict, where men tried to exert that power, to sort of keep it.

But our study showed that the power was equal, or maybe even favoring the women during discussions, and it didn`t necessarily link to the outcome or the behaviors during that conversation.

BECK: Didn`t it really pretty much come down to -- doesn`t it come down to all relationships, that guys are just sleepy, we want food, we want sex, we want the couch? You know what I mean? Just "Whatever, honey, yes. I`m with you." Did you find any evidence of that?

VOGEL: Well, I think that`s part of what we normally think. But actually, both men and women in these discussions were engaged, were involved. They reported discussions as important things to talk about. And I think that`s really what`s healthy, when both people are involved and engaged in the relationships.

BECK: Are they -- are just men better at faking engage -- engagement?

VOGEL: Well, it didn`t seem like they were faking it in our studies.

BECK: OK. May I ask you to do a study on this? Because I believe this is -- this is the biggest problem in all marriages. And it is the fact that men and women are thermostatically challenged.

Every time I go to bed at night, my wife wants the electric blanket and I would like the air conditioning on. It doesn`t matter what time of year it is, I`m always hot; she`s always cold. And I believe that is the real answer to most marriages.

VOGEL: Turn the air conditioning on and then buying a thermal blanket?

BECK: Mm-hmm. If I give you $10, can you ask a couple of people on that one and see what you could come up with?

VOGEL: I`ll do that one next.

BECK: OK. David, thanks a lot.

Coming up, what do you do when somebody doesn`t like you? Well, if you`ve got your own TV show, you invite them in. Robert Kennedy Jr. and D.L. Hughley will both join me next. Can we work out our differences? Can`t we all just get along? Stick around, find out. It`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: I know this is going to come as a shock to you, but the "Real Story" is there are actually a few people in this country who don`t like me. Yes, I know, I was surprised. I thought, "Really?" I mean, why not invite these people to come on the show, you know? To know me is to love me. Put them back on the show. We can get all the hate out in one segment, and we`re going to start tonight with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Last January, he wrote that I was "CNN`s chief corporate fascism advocate." And then, last Saturday, at a Live Earth event, he went even further.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST: And so I`m going to tell you this, that the next time you see John Stossel, or Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, these flat-Earthers, these corporate toadies, lying to you, lying to the American public, and telling you that global warming doesn`t exist, you send an e-mail to their advertisers and tell them you`re not going to buy their products anymore.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: So what does RFK, Jr., think of these corporate toadies, what should happen to these people?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: This is treason. And we need to start treating them now as traitors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Wow, I mean, since the penalty for treason is either imprisonment or execution, I`m a little curious as to which one Mr. Kennedy had in mind for me. I sent him a letter asking him just that question, and now he`s here to hand down my sentence.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., actually, thank you for agreeing to be on the program and answering the question in person. I have a theory: to know me is to love me. And you don`t know me.

KENNEDY: Well, I`m waiting, Glenn.

BECK: OK. Tell me my stance on global warming.

KENNEDY: Your stance, as I understand it, Glenn, is that you acknowledge that global warming exists, that probably human beings are causing it, although I don`t know if you`ve really made that commitment, and that -- but you don`t understand, you`re not ready to commit to the idea that we need to invest energies or times or entrepreneurial resources in order to solve the problem.

BECK: Wow.

KENNEDY: That`s my understanding of your...

BECK: You know what? You`re going to stop calling me a fascist and stop calling for my execution on this. You`re kind of close. I do believe in global warming. I`m not sure if man is causing it, but I`m willing to listen to that side and be convinced of that. The biggest problem I have is, I`m not convinced that things like the Kyoto treaty are the right answer.

However, sir, I am -- I`ve been asking on the air for a moon shot. Where is the politician, where is the president that will do, like somebody famous in your family said, "We`re going to do this in 10 years, let`s get off of oil?"

KENNEDY: You know, Glenn, you`re saying that now, but what you`ve done on your show, as I`ve said, you`ve turned the issue...

BECK: Is said that.

KENNEDY: Instead of getting serious people to seriously debate this issue on your show -- and there`s incredible scientists out there...

BECK: Yes, and I`ve had several of them on.

KENNEDY: No, you`ve brought people on like Jorn Wanberg (ph) and John Christy and...

BECK: But does that make it treason? Should I be executed, or should I spend prison time for my personal beliefs, sir?

KENNEDY: No, no, no, I didn`t say that. Go look at the speech.

BECK: Yes, you did. Would you like me to show it again?

KENNEDY: You asked me a question, what your sentence should be. Your sentence should be that you should have to read the IPCC report and from cover to cover. And I know you don`t have it. I don`t mean this with any particular disrespect, but I don`t believe that you have a long attention span.

BECK: I am trying to ask questions, sir, honest questions. And yet you call me a fascist for asking questions. You, sir -- and I know you probably, and I mean no disrespect -- probably have even a shorter attention span, because I`m only asking you to read the definition of fascist. What, sir, is a definition of fascist? In your world, someone who says, "Wait a minute, slow down, let`s just talk about this before we spend all kinds of money and raise all kinds of taxes, let`s just slow down, sir."

KENNEDY: Let me answer your question. You asked me what the definition of fascist is. The American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as the domination of government by corporate power. You and John Stossel, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have made yourselves the primary spokesman for the domination of corporate power over American government, and that is...

BECK: Sir, I`ve got to tell you -- you know what`s really sad? You know what`s really sad, Mr. Kennedy, is you and I actually agree on something. You and I agree that corporations have become far too powerful in this country. And if you actually knew me, you would know that I believe that with everything in me. And I speak out about it an awful lot. You and I also...

KENNEDY: Glenn, why don`t you use the power that you have, this enormous power to communicate with the American public...

BECK: Wow, a Kennedy said I had enormous power.

KENNEDY: Instead of being frivolous, instead of being sarcastic, why don`t you listen and have some real scientists on your show, and not these phony corporate-paid scientists, doing the real work...

BECK: Because there are actual scientists, sir, that disagree with not global warming. They disagree with some of the steps that people like you are touting.

KENNEDY: Glenn...

BECK: I`m just saying, how do we solve it, sir? That`s all I`m asking.

KENNEDY: Glenn, the 2,500 top scientists in the world, from 120 nations...

BECK: The 2,500 scientists that you`re talking about had to each of them do one page on a specific thing. They did not have a consensus on everything in the report. That`s why some of them had to sue to get their name off of the IPCC report. They don`t all agree on the entire report, just their piece of the report.

KENNEDY: The report is clear. Get a real scientist on your show, rather than getting these guys who are just industry thugs and industry...

BECK: So it prison or execution for...

KENNEDY: Well, here`s what I think, that you go back to journalism school, number one...

BECK: I didn`t go. I`m not a journalist.

KENNEDY: Right, I can tell that. And, number two, that you read the IPCC report with somebody standing over your shoulder to help with your ADD.

BECK: That`s not the law for treason or that`s not the sentence for treason, but I guess we`re making up new laws in your world. Robert Kennedy, thank you very much.

Well, earlier I told you that I`d be having two guests on as part of today`s "I hate Glenn Beck" segment. Yes, I get to do it again. Second guest wasn`t quite as specific as RFK, Jr. You know, he didn`t actually say why he doesn`t like me, but here`s actor and comedian D.L. Hughley, who I like, and what he said recently to Michael Smerconish who was filling in for me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

D.L. HUGHLEY, ACTOR: I`ve got to tell you -- and if Glenn Beck -- and this is honest -- if Glenn Beck were doing this show, I don`t think I could do it, because I just...

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You`re killing me. Now you`re killing me. You`re killing me.

HUGHLEY: I don`t like him.

SMERCONISH: He`s all about having the conversation, too.

HUGHLEY: Well, I don`t think that that`s true. I think that it`s a different kind of conversation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I think that`s what we just tried to have a few minutes ago, a little conversation. Let`s do it now.

HUGHLEY: How you doing, man?

BECK: How are you, sir?

HUGHLEY: And I don`t think it`s fair for me to say I don`t like you, because I`ve never met you.

BECK: You don`t know me.

HUGHLEY: Right, that would be unfair.

BECK: See? That`s what I said. To know me is to love me.

HUGHLEY: I don`t know about that, but I didn`t think I would like Michael Smerconish, and I ended up liking him, because I think that -- I don`t want to be one of these guys who has an ideological difference with somebody and then ascribe that to their personality, so that would be wrong.

But I do believe you there I thinks that I`ve seen that -- like, I was watching the show last week.

BECK: OK.

HUGHLEY: And you made this huge leap in logic from five Russian guys walking into a liquor store and passing a $100 bill as, you know, somehow associated with...

BECK: Counterfeiting.

HUGHLEY: ... counterfeiting, and trying to -- I don`t even know what the purpose of that was. But you`re not willing to make the leap in logic in that the president could be equally as -- I mean, like...

BECK: See, how do you -- how many shows have you seen?

HUGHLEY: Probably about 40.

BECK: You`ve never heard me take on Bush?

HUGHLEY: No, I don`t think you take Bush on. I think that you state the obvious. Everybody knows -- no matter what, whatever political or ideology we ascribe to, he`s not doing a very good job on any number of fronts.

BECK: I`ve got to tell you, I have said recently, a lot, that Bush has betrayed us every step of the way.

HUGHLEY: But you think he betrayed you on the immigration front.

BECK: Oh, I think he`s betrayed -- you ready for this? I think he`s betrayed on prescription drugs and building a giant government. I`m a conservative. I don`t believe in giant...

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Wait a minute. Let me explain.

HUGHLEY: I`m a Democrat, and I don`t believe in giant government.

BECK: OK. Great. Good for you. So I think he`s betrayed us on that. I think he betrayed us on immigration. I think he betrayed us on this war.

HUGHLEY: Oh, OK.

BECK: I think, on the war, when he got in, he didn`t tell us the truth. And it`s not weapons of mass destruction. He didn`t tell us the truth from the beginning. And I`ve been saying that for years.

HUGHLEY: Well...

BECK: And then he not only got in and fought it or went in and told us not -- didn`t tell us the truth, then he went in and fought it with our hands tied behind our backs. What are we doing?

HUGHLEY: And I agree with that. I think that the logic, like I heard you go on and say that we should attack Iran, well, or that we should not attack...

BECK: Never attack Iran.

HUGHLEY: ... or that the war should be with Iran, and that we should want, our goal should be to stabilize that government so that -- that`s the government we should be worried about is the Iranian government.

BECK: Yes.

HUGHLEY: But the problem is that we`ve sold so damaged our credibility, and our military capacity, that we`re not a threat -- they don`t believe...

BECK: D.L....

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: Here`s the biggest thing. I`ve read the stuff that you say on stage. And I mean, absolutely, hang on, I went through it and I`m like, "I agree with everything you say."

HUGHLEY: Well, then, damn it, I do like you, Glenn.

BECK: No, because you say in it, it`s not just Bush, you say it`s the parties on both sides.

HUGHLEY: I absolutely believe that.

BECK: Amen, brother.

HUGHLEY: But I believe this, too. That there is -- like even the immigration debate seems disingenuous to me. If you really believe that at some point that it is a security risk, we`d be talking more about our northern borders. We`re nation built by immigrants. If you go to the Statue of Liberty right now, give us your tired, your poor, if we don`t mean that, scratch that out and put, "P.S., except for Mexicans," because that`s -- or brown people. I really have a problem with that.

I think that we have come to a place in our country where we honestly can`t have dialogue, because freedom of speech is under attack from both sides, and particularly the left. I mean, I`m a lefty, but the fact that two men can`t say, "This country needs to get a grip and stop asking questions it doesn`t want the answers to."

BECK: You know, I have to tell you something, the day that somebody from the left and somebody from the right can sit down and end saying, "You know what? We agree on some things, disagree on other things," that`s the day we fix our country.

HUGHLEY: Well, yes, but me and you are in the studio.

BECK: Oh, no, we`re clowns. I learned that a minute ago.

HUGHLEY: Thank you very much. Thank you. It was a pleasure.

BECK: Thank you. Thank you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Federal indictments were finally unsealed yesterday in the bizarre case of the pizza bomber. By the way, everybody on this section of the program likes me, I think. According to those reports, here`s what we know. On August 28th, Brian Wells -- this is 2003 -- Brian Wells, he was a pizza deliveryman. He sat against a police car with his hands cuffed behind him. Hours earlier, he had walked into a bank and demanded $250,000, claiming to have been kidnapped and a bomb strapped to his neck, a bomb that would go off if the bank didn`t cooperate.

The robbery went horribly awry. Wells was quickly apprehended in the parking lot of the bank. And then he sat there against that squad car with the bomb still strapped to his neck. Police say he knew full well that he wasn`t an unwitting victim in the day`s events, but a patsy and a co- conspirator.

Authorities claim that, to some degree, Brian Wells was a willing participant in the plot, though his accomplices had told him that the bomb was phony, a prop to fool the bank. Just as they clicked that bomb around his neck, they told him the truth, that the bomb was real, something Wells would find out soon enough, as it blew a grapefruit-size hole in the middle of his chest.

Ed Miller has been covering this case extensively for "America`s Most Wanted." Ed, you don`t hate me, do you?

ED MILLER, REPORTER, "AMERICA`S MOST WANTED": No.

BECK: Good. I`m just -- tell me this. I`m finding -- I`m looking into the story, and I just can`t get over how many dead people there are that you never heard that have to be connected to this case.

MILLER: Yes. This is unbelievable. I mean, this is like a Hollywood movie. As a matter of fact, if it came out as a movie, people would say, "This can`t possibly be real."

BECK: You would never believe it.

MILLER: But it is. Yes, I mean, the characters are incredible at the center of this. You obviously know there`s this woman called Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong. And she`s the one who really had the motive in the very beginning. She wanted some money. Why did she want money? Because she was mad at her father. She said that he cut her out of her inheritance, so she wanted to kill him. Not get back at him the way most people would, but she wanted to kill him. She wouldn`t kill him herself. She wanted to hire a hit man to do it. So she goes to this guy by the name of Barnes to hire him to kill the father. He says he needs $125,000. And so that`s why the bank heist plot was begun in the first place.

BECK: OK. But actually, there`s more to this story, because she has all of these boyfriends that have mysteriously fallen against a coffee table, or what were some of the other ones? One was shot in bet, but he was an abuser. Isn`t it five people that she dated that are now dead?

MILLER: Well, we`re not able to confirm all of that. We know for a fact that two of them are dead. And some people are calling her the black widow. We know that she had some sort of svengali pull over men. She must have been wearing some kind of powerful perfume or something.

BECK: Oh, she`s a good looker. I mean, are you going to pass up a little bit of that? I don`t think so, America.

MILLER: Let me just tell you, "America`s Most Wanted" spent a whole lot of time with this woman. And other people don`t believe that she could possibly be the mastermind, that she`s rather mentally ill, and that she`s bipolar. And so she probably is not the mastermind.

BECK: Here`s the tough part, at least for me. That looks like a pretty complex neck bomb. I mean, it snaps around the neck, and they couldn`t get it off. And they actually had to cut the guy`s head off to get it off. I mean, who built that?

MILLER: Right. Most insiders believe this other character by the name of Jay Stockton built the bomb and wrote the letter. So he...

BECK: But that takes high skill to make something like that. I mean, it`s not like you, you know, you went to the hardware store, and, "You know, I need something to snap around somebody`s neck." I mean, you had to fashion that, didn`t he?

MILLER: Yes, in one sense, it was complicated; in another sense, it wasn`t so complicated, according to insiders. It was more like a child`s toy, you know, one of those crazy Chinese locks that you can`t really get out of. But if you pressed it the right way, you would be able to get out of it.

We should point out that Stockton, one of the ways the investigators believe that he was involved in this, is that Stockton and Rallstein (ph) used to build pipe bombs as kids and blow them off just for fun. So, again, they might have been building up to this thing.

BECK: Ed, I`ve got to tell you, I`m all out of time. I wish I had more time, just to -- I mean, what kind of toys are your kids playing with, man? Remind me not to send my kids over to your house if that`s what a child`s toy does. Thanks a lot, Ed.

Time to take you now to Wisconsin, where a district -- I think he hates me now -- where a district attorney has transformed his life from a soldier to a single father to save the life of one child. Scott Southworth is today`s "CNN Hero."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT SOUTHWORTH, "CHAMPIONING CHILDREN": No soldier goes to war with the expectation of coming home and adopting an orphan from the war zone. My name is Major Scott Harold Southworth. I`m a member of the Wisconsin Army National Guard and the proud father of an Iraqi orphan by the name of Ala`a.

My soldiers and I volunteered at the Mother Teresa orphanage in Baghdad, Iraq. I did not choose Ala`a. Ala`a chose me. When the sisters informed me that they were going to have to move him to the government orphanage, I instantly told them I would adopt him.

There were a number of obstacles to bringing him to the United States, not having enough money, not having a stable enough career, and not having a wife, but I could not, as a Christian man, walk away from that little boy. It really was a step of faith for me to just put that into action.

You`re a good little boy. I know you are. OK.

It`s been about two-and-a-half years since I picked Ala`a up in Baghdad. He`s learning how to walk. He`s doing addition and subtraction. He`s learning to read the English language. He`s just a brilliant little boy.

Work those legs. Work those legs.

He`s limited by some of the things he can do physically, but I never treat Ala`a as though he`s disabled.

ALA`A, ADOPTED SON OF SCOTT SOUTHWORTH: I love you, Papa.

SOUTHWORTH: I love you, too, my buddy.

Ala`a is so much more a blessing to me than I am to him. I felt a ton of sympathy for Ala`a when I was in Iraq, but Ala`a didn`t need my sympathy. What he needed was some action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: I thought I`d leave you today with two stories that are near impossible to find, but you should know. First, we start in New Jersey. There`s a devastating story involving a 22-year-old senior airman with the 6th Airlift Squadron by the name of Jonathan Schrieken. On July 4th, he had gone outside of his house. He was shot in cold blood by Matthew Marren in the chest. Marren then turned the gun on himself and saved the taxpayers, quite frankly, a lot of money. His suicide notes reportedly said that he was angry at the government, and he desired to make a statement on the Fourth of July.

Well, an anti-government maniac makes a statement that almost kills a military man on the most patriotic day of the year and you haven`t heard the story? How is it even possible? Outside of some local media and Michelle Malkin, who wrote it in her column, the story has almost been invisible. Let me ask you this question: Would that have been the case if a crazed soldier had killed a peace activist to make a statement? I doubt it. We`d still be talking about it today.

Now, another story, not exactly making front page headlines, and you have to ask yourself why. It comes from the town of Sherwean (ph) in Iraq, where 20 suspected terrorists are dead and another 20 are in custody. Our guys are over there every day taking out dirt bags like this, and that`s not what makes this story special. What you need to know is how this one happened.

First, our aircraft, U.S. aircraft, dropped 22 bombs on river crossings and blew these bridges up near the town. Right then, Iraqi forces went in to take out what was being called a huge hideout for the terrorists. Just that in and of itself is a story you never hear. Oh, you never hear about the good things.

But there`s more: The Iraqi citizens from that town, sick of Al Qaeda, saw what was going on and fought side-by-side with the Iraqi forces against Al Qaeda. They stood up and said clearly to the evil living in their community that they weren`t going to take it anymore. It`s that attitude, that bravery, that will take Iraq from a fledgling democracy to the great, free nation that they deserve to be.

We certainly hear about the negatives in Iraq all the time, and we should. Harry Reid`s telling us the war is lost. Republicans are saying that the strategy isn`t working before any real results have even been measured. But we should also hear the positive positives, shouldn`t we, like this story? With our help, Iraqi security forces hunt down the terrorists, and the average Iraqi stood by their side and did it with them.

If you want more commentary on the news of the day, please go to my Web site and sign up for my e-mail newsletter. It`s absolutely free, at glennbeck.com. From New York, good night.

END