Has Iran Won the P.R. Battle?; Is Syria Using Nancy Pelosi?; P.C. Police Attack Global War on Terror
Aired April 4, 2007 – 19:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, Iran`s President Ahmadinejad says he`ll free the British hostages just in time for Easter. What a sweetheart.
Wait a second. He does look a little like the devil, doesn`t he? I`ll tell you what he`s really up to.
Also, putting the fun back into Iraq war funding. Actually, the outlook is not so amusing. What happens to our troops when the money stops?
And “The View”. Has it become nothing but propaganda?
ROSIE O`DONNELL, CO-HOST, ABC`S “THE VIEW”: It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved.
BECK: Who`s responsible for Rosie`s wrecking ball of a mouth?
All this and more, tonight.
BECK: Well, if you haven`t been watching this program in the last couple of nights, then you saw a stunning twist in the Iran hostage crisis.
I told you last night on this program that President Ahmadinejad would free the 15 British soldiers he`d been holding hostage. And today, he`s granting them amnesty. Yes, he`s pardoning them. He`s saying that they`re going to be released very soon.
Here`s the point tonight. Our enemies have defined us, but we still refuse to define them. I will again tonight. They are evil, pure and simple. Here`s how I got there.
This is what Ahmadinejad said earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, IRANIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I declare that the people of Iran and the government of Iran give amnesty and pardon to these 15 people. And I announce their freedom and their return to the people of Britain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: You know, I`m not sure exactly how all of this went down. We have to take everything that President Tom says with a grain of hummus. But the bottom line is Iran played chicken with the west, and we blinked.
When the sailors were taken, Tony Blair had a chance to say to Iran and to the rest of the world you`ve got 48 hours to return our people safely, and if you don`t, we`ve got issues. He didn`t say that.
In fact, if you believe Ahmadinejad, Britain said they wouldn`t go into Iranian waters ever again. Now here`s Tony Blair`s response earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: We respect Iran as an ancient civilization, as a nation with a proud and dignified history. And the disagreements that we have with your government, we wish to resolve peacefully through dialogue. I hope, as I`ve always hoped, that in the future we are able to do so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Wow. Tony Blair. Where did you put your spine? Did you leave that on the counter with your keys?
Our combined governments have given the Middle East the impression that we are afraid of the dictators in the region, and you know what? I believe that impression is accurate. Our enemies know this, and now their impression has spread across the globe.
President Tom is evil, but he is also a brilliant chess player. He has just turned this into a huge victory in the Middle East. He took innocent people hostage, and then granted them a pardon. He has now packaged himself as a kind, benevolent leader, generously giving Britain, quote, “a gift,” an olive branch for Easter week.
To me, there are two very scary results from this whole ordeal. First one. The media is going to fall right into President Tom`s trap. They are going to portray him as calm and reasonable instead of what he really is, evil, calculating and dangerous.
And, two, I hate to say it — I mean, I don`t want to throw Britain under the bus here, but let`s face facts. We can no longer count on England as an ally in this war when it really counts. No offense to them, but it appears that the only blood they can stomach is in their pudding.
This crisis has proved that the British government won`t stand up when we really need them, and the thing is we need them now more than ever.
Tony Blair`s show of weakness, coupled with Iran`s P.R. victory, means that the people who want to destroy everything that we stand for just signed up a whole bunch of new members in the Middle East.
Here`s what I know tonight. We need to man up. First step of doing that is very simple. We need to say very clearly that the government in Iran is evil, and they are our enemy.
We need to wage the biggest public relations campaign this country has ever seen, in and out of Iraq. We also need to empower the people of Iran to rise up and topple their government, because they want it more than we do.
Here`s what I don`t know. Now that Iran has defined us as weak, what will their next move be?
Joining me now is Kathleen K.T. McFarland. She is the former deputy secretary of defense under President Reagan.
Kathleen, my thesis is, Iran is evil. They`ve just won the P.R. battle in the region and possibly the world.
KATHLEEN K.T. MCFARLAND, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Yes.
BECK: And England is afraid. Where do I have it wrong?
MCFARLAND: Well, I think the first two are certainly right. I mean, this man has committed what — under all terms this is an act of war. He has seized innocent sailors on the high seas. They are NATO allies, so he`s not only declared war technically against Great Britain. He`s also declared war against the entire NATO alliance.
As a result of this, nobody got mad at him. He was able to hold the world hostage for 13 days. He dominated the headlines, and now as you point out, he can be very magnanimous and release these people.
BECK: So you don`t agree with the third one that England is afraid?
MCFARLAND: I`m not sure. You know, England wanted — Great Britain wanted to get its people back. There may have been good cop, bad cop between Tony Blair and President Bush. I`m not sure. And we may not know that for another couple of days.
BECK: This is really a scary thing.
BECK: I read that we released a couple of people that we had taken that were coming after our troops, they were Iranians. We released them, I think it was yesterday or the day before.
MCFARLAND: We released one yesterday.
BECK: Any connection there?
MCFARLAND: It`s not clear that we released him. This was someone taken prisoner by armed gunmen in Iraq. I don`t know if that was us or not.
We the U.S. do have five Iranians that we`re holding that are in the north of Iraq. I don`t know what they`re doing in the north of Iraq. That`s not where they normally are. And we are allowing the Iranian ambassador to come and talk to them. I`m not sure where that plays out.
But you know, Glenn, the point that you`ve made is a very good one which is you`re implying what do we do next? What happens next? What do we do about this? Because this is — there`s nothing to prevent him from doing the same thing again tomorrow.
BECK: He did this last summer. I mean, I know…
MCFARLAND: He did.
BECK: Granted, it was Hezbollah. They`re not connected at all. But this is what he`s…
BECK: He`s prodding. He`s testing us.
MCFARLAND: Well, and he`s ratcheted it up one, because normally Iran doesn`t do things directly. They do it through their surrogates, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Shiite militia in Iraq.
MCFARLAND: This is a time when they`ve taken the Iranian military has seized them. So when I look at that and say OK, so what do we do? What would Reagan have done? Reagan would have declared economic warfare on him.
We don`t — the military options maybe some day, you keep it on the table. But that`s way down the road. What Iran has an Achilles heel and that`s its economy.
BECK: I have to tell you. I have — I`ve been asking myself over and over again, and I wish the Republicans would ask themselves this more often what would Reagan do?
BECK: You know, the answer to this is to treat it like we treated Poland: empower the people on the street and strap them down with economic sanctions.
MCFARLAND: Yes. Absolutely. That is — you`re so smart. That is exactly where to go.
BECK: She thinks I`m smart. She likes me. She likes me. She really likes me.
MCFARLAND: Well, Glenn, the U.N. sanctions have — it`s been effective.
What people don`t realize is the Patriot Act sanctions have been extremely effective. We are shutting down their access to foreign currencies through the international banking system. We should keep doing that. We should ratchet it up one more level. We should now dump stocks of companies that are doing business with Iran.
BECK: We actually have a story on that in “The Real Story”. We`re going to get to it in about a half hour. Thanks so much.
[photo]BECK: Now for perspective of what`s going on inside the country of Iran, who`s pulling the strings, this is the former crown prince of Iran, Reza Pahlavi.
Reza, this has got to be perceived as a victory for our enemies in the region, but the average person on the street of Iran, it`s my understanding, they like us. They hate their own government as much as we hate their government.
Is this something today that if you were in your home in Iran thinking, oh, boy, this guy is even more powerful now?
REZA PAHLAVI, FORMER CROWN PRINCE OF IRAN: Glenn, let`s first understand that when you have a regime that`s losing its legitimacy day by day even more, the only way it can compensate for that is to create a constant atmosphere of crisis, whether it is domestically or abroad.
Also, let`s understand that, in order to keep the glue that gells their security apparatus together, it has to show its manhood somehow. This is a classic case of playing to that audience within the regime itself.
But I don`t think it is fazing any of my compatriots on the streets, because for them it`s a matter of rejoining this world, having the better life, having the freedom to travel and the only obstacle between them and the free world is this regime. So…
BECK: But this regime, you know better than I do, I don`t think that they really care about people at all. They use — I mean, they`ll throw them into — into the gear shaft to keep that thing moving at the drop of a hat.
And you`ve got to believe, watching what`s happening in the Middle East with everybody going soft, Pelosi over in Syria, of all places, meeting with them. You`ve got to think that the dissidents are going, “Oh, come on, we thought we had a glimmer of hope here.” Is nobody going to stand up to these guys?
PAHLAVI: The point is absolutely correct and indeed. The question that has to be asked all along is for a regime that has had a track record of criminal behavior from day one, is any rewarding of that behavior in the interest of Iranians or, for that matter, the free world?
How long are we going to go on about this game? Is it any time for the world to decide once and for all that the only solution that remains, because we don`t want to go the road of conflict and war and that kind of things.
But instead, empowerment of the Iranian people who are the best ally of the free world ready to fight that fight, except for they feel abandoned, they feel ignored, and that perception certainly doesn`t help the people of Iran. It perhaps helps the regime, the regime that is creating all these problems in the first place.
BECK: You have had to have spent time at night, because I know I have, and I`m not an Iranian, you must have spent time and thought what is it going to take for the mainstream media to start saying, “Wait a minute. These guys are torturing people. They`re slaughtering people. They`re stoning women.”
Have you come up with any kind of answer that makes any sense?
PAHLAVI: Well, Glenn, some people like yourself who pick up the right arguments and understand, beyond whatever theatrics or facade that this regime is putting to the world, that the real people that are concerned here, the majority of my compatriots, are suffering under this system, and they can`t wait to come out.
PAHLAVI: However, let me say what the good news is. I think, well beyond this little incidents here and there, I think overall the world has reacted in a better way than ever before.
PAHLAVI: For instance, we have more and more targeted sanctions.
PAHLAVI: We have a certain initiative taken, for instance, from the state of California.
PAHLAVI: And divestment of tension (ph) from businesses doing — operating in Iran, namely something that ends up in the region.
BECK: Reza, I`ve got to cut you off. But you`re exactly right. And we are going to cover some of the good news. There is good news, but a lot more needs to be done. Reza, thank you very much.
PAHLAVI: Sure. Thank you.
BECK: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi now is off on her little trip in Syria on a diplomacy mission. Is she helping or hurting the relationship in the Middle East?
And fighting without funding. In tonight`s “Real Story” we`re going to put all the politics aside and just take a closer look at how the war spending bill actually affects our troops on the ground.
Plus, Rosie O`Donnell`s outrageous remarks may be boosting the ratings over at the “The View,” but how far will ABC let her go? I say al the way. Details you don`t want to miss coming up.
BECK: After preaching radical reform and the birth of a new era, the Democratically controlled Congress is, as I see it, but I`m a conservative, done nothing but Bush bash. And I place the blame squarely on the leaders of the leader, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy, quite honestly, and I think I speak for most of America, we`re bored with the Bush bash thing. It`s one thing to be ineffective here at home, but then again it`s another to take your show on the road like Nancy is now doing on her trip to Syria, trying to broker a new peace talk between Syrian president Assad and the leaders of Israel.
Nancy, in case you have forgotten, Syria declared a rogue terrorist state, a little honor they have held since 1979, maybe you should start reading the paper, then maybe you would have seen the little story about how that ultraconservative United Nations implicated Syria in the assassination of Lebanon`s president.
Now here`s a clip of what Nancy thinks she`s doing over there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Of course, the role of Syria and Iraq, the role of Syria of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, the role of Syria. And so many respects that we think there could be a vast improvement.
So, therefore, we think it`s a good idea to establish the facts, to hopefully build some confidence between us. We have no illusions, but we have great hope.
Yes. President Bush sees her mission just a little differently. Roll this out.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A photo opportunity and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they`re part of the mainstream of the international community when, in fact, they`re a state sponsor of terror.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: OK. Is she a peace-maker, is she a trouble-maker? Brigitte Gabriel, she is the president of American Congress of Truth, author of “Because They Hate: Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America”.
Brigitte, she`s not a stupid woman. And I don`t think — I`m a conservative that`s not going to come out and say the Democrats just hate America. I don`t think they do.
So how could she be this wrong? What is — how do you possibly see Assad as anything but somebody who harbors terrorists?
BRIGITTE GABRIEL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CONGRESS OF TRUTH: Well, let`s just say, Glenn, that she is misguided. I`m sure she`s a patriotic American. I`m sure she loves this country, and she just sees things differently than you and I see things.
She does not understand the Middle East. She has no concept about the Middle East. If she did know anything about the Middle East, she would not be parading down the streets of Damascus in a hijab.
BECK: So why is she — what is she missing? What do you know that she doesn`t know?
GABRIEL: She needs to realize that Syria has no interest in negotiating with the United States. Syria is using Nancy Pelosi as a puppet and a photo-op to give Syria credibility on the world stage.
So Syria is not looked at as a dictatorship or as an axis of evil or as a terror-harboring state but as a state that actually, as a speaker of the House of the United States, goes and visit and gives them credibility and say, you know, “We agree with you. We want to negotiate with you. We do not think our president is right in judging you, and, therefore, we`re going above our president to give you credibility and to show you the world that we are also representing the American government and we think that you are OK.” And that is wrong.
BECK: All right. Brigitte, I know there are a ton of people in America who say, “I`m so sick of the Middle East. They can just open up and fall into a sinkhole, because they`ve been — they`ve been fighting for 2,500 years, if not longer. Just shut up already. Why don`t you just let them fight it out themselves?”
How do you respond to that?
GABRIEL: You know what? If we knew they can fight it out themselves and just let the world forget about them, we would. We would gladly let them fight it out themselves.
Sadly, Glenn, we have Israel as the only democratic country in the Middle East, the only civilized nation in the Middle East that is very much like the United States that is in the middle of a sea of hatred and venom that the Arabs are spewing to wipe her off the map.
We also have a problem with the Middle East because now we are dependent on their oil. They are affecting us. They are immigrating to our country. They are infiltrating our country. They are studying in our universities.
The world has become very closed, and we can no longer ignore the fact that our enemies have repeatedly stated that had they want to destroy the Great Satan, America.
Let`s not forget that Iran made that statement back in 1979.
GABRIEL: They have not wavered. We are the bull`s eye. Israel is only the Little Satan.
BECK: It is amazing to me that this really has been a week of propaganda. I mean, just…
GABRIEL: It is.
BECK: It`s just — they`re rolling 300s, I mean, just strike after strike this week. You have Nancy Pelosi. You have Tony Blair folding, Ahmadinejad.
BECK: What is the view of the west this week in the Middle East?
GABRIEL: The View of the west in the Middle East this week is that we are cowards, that we are weak. We no longer have men with courage to fight and stand up for their principles.
You know, the Arab leaders have been giving that message to their population year after year after year. This has started systematically for 20 years.
However, this week we have proven to the Arab world, to the Arabic dictators, which showing to their people using their television and media, that, look, the west is cowering one after the other. Britain is no longer the power it used to be. America is no longer the power it used to be. The west is divided.
BECK: You`ve got it. Brigitte, thank you very much.
GABRIEL: Thank you.
BECK: Back in a minute.
BECK: Political correctness, an epidemic that has not only infected our pop culture but now it`s bleeding into politics. It`s going to make it even more fun, isn`t it?
The European Union has now started calling Islamic terrorists, terrorists who abusively invoke Islam. Oh, well, now it`s fixed.
They also have decided that they`re not going to teach the Holocaust for fear that it might offend Muslims in England. And now closer to hope, the House Armed Services Committee is banishing the words “global war on terror” from the 2008 defense budget in an effort to, quote, “avoid using colloquialisms.” I don`t even know what that means.
Mike Allen, chief political correspondent from Politico.com.
Mike, help me. What, what, what?
MIKE ALLEN, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO.COM: Well, Glenn, there`s no help for you, but I can tell you what the House Armed Services Committee meant by that.
ALLEN: This does have sort of a “1984” quality to it, and a House Republican aide in the “Army Times”, which broke this story, said that it reminded him of Harry Potter, the war that must not be named.
Glenn, this is silly. As you know, the global war on terror is something that has many components that fit together. When you move from the Middle East to the Horn of Africa, you`re not going to take it out of a different account in the defense budget.
BECK: And that`s what they`re talking about, right? They`re talking about making it, you know, war in the Horn of Africa, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, instead of just one giant — is there any reason other than, I don`t know, they`re not busy enough? Is there any reason that you can see other than politics to do this?
ALLEN: Right. There`s two reasons. The stated reason is that, as you said, they want to be more specific, and today the chairman of that committee, Alex Hilton (ph), said that Republicans were creating a distraction about this but did not step away from the policy.
And, Glenn, the clear reason for this is that the global war on terror is something that the president is associated with. Sometimes that`s good for him. Sometimes that`s not good for him. And Democrats want to sort of water it down a little bit.
And to be fair I`ll point out the president uses it for his purposes, too. As you know, for him to talk about the global war on terror sounds more noble than simply invading Iraq.
And as the president talks about his legacy, the No. 1 thing he says that he wants to do is leave the tools in place for his successor to fight a war on terrorism that he says will go on for generations.
So both sides use this vocabulary. Certainly, the House Armed Services Committee presumably has bigger problems to deal with.
BECK: Mike, I have to tell you, I am not a guy who, you know — I disagree with the Democrats, don`t get me wrong. I disagree with them, but I`m not a guy who thinks that they hate America. I`m not a guy who thinks they want to lose the war.
But I`m — Democrats, I`m holding onto a thread here. I mean, everything that they`re doing right now is proving me wrong. What are you doing? Why don`t you do some real work instead of all of this political garbage?
They have turned this into nothing but just trying to win the next election. Am I wrong? Help me out. I want to be wrong.
ALLEN: Well, I`m not going to buy quite that formulation, but I will say that Democrats are trying to make Iraq the president`s personal war. And broader efforts against terrorism, which most Americans agree on, and which the next president is certainly going to deal with, they want to make it everyone`s.
But you can`t cherry pick. It`s one — it`s one big pot, and even if Harry Potter cannot name it, we`re going to.
BECK: Right. Yes, good. Thanks, Mike. Appreciate your time.
Coming up “The Real Story” behind the war spending bill. We`re going to talk to one military man about what it`s like to fight a war without any cash. Listen up, Congress. This one`s for you.
BECK: Welcome to “The Real Story.”
Iranian President Ahmadinejad, that great beacon of hope and forgiveness, has pardoned the British hostages as a gift to the British people.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, PRESIDENT OF IRAN (through translator): They will be free after our meeting. We`ll go to the airport, and we`ll join their families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: Oh, that`s great. What a humanitarian. What a prince of peace. I hope now the 15 hostages are going to be released, and we can finally start addressing the fact that the entire world will be held hostage if this guy gets a nuclear weapon. We`ll all be dreaming of the days when it was just 15 kids smoking cigarettes and being paraded in front of cameras.
“The Real Story” is that this time, it is this time right new for the United States to drop the hammer on Iran. Now, what does that mean? That means supporting the dissidents wherever and whenever we can, but it also means tightening the screws financially, right now.
Before we all get distracted with this hostage crisis, which is exactly what Iran hoped for, it was obvious that the U.S. and the U.N. sanctions were starting to have an effect. In fact, the price of oil had dropped so low in recent months that some people were beginning to wonder if the whole economy might just collapse, but Iran sensed it. They fought back.
They took the hostages. They got some great P.R. They showed off their leader`s compassion to the Arab world. They proved Britain was weak to the Arab world and, mark my words, emboldened the doves in Congress by creating the Nancy Pelosi and the Syria little fantasy that they`ve got going on now that maybe she played a role, and that all happened in one fell swoop. Boom, done.
You know, also as a little side benefit, did you notice the price of oil? Yes, back up, at least temporarily. They saved themselves. Well, now, it`s double-down time. Sure, love it if, you know, we lived in some parallel universe where the U.N. actually did their job, but we know that ain`t going to happen. The Middle East will be a glass parking lot before they get anything done.
We need to act now by making sure that not one dollar of American investment, public or private, is getting to Iran. How hard is that? Unfortunately, not yet the case.
Some of the largest investment funds in this country, including massive pension funds, are still allowed to invest in companies that do business there. Fortunately, some states, including Missouri, New Jersey and California, believe it or not, are trying to stop the idiocy.
Assemblyman Joel Anderson, he`s authored a bill that would require two enormous pension funds to divest about $24 billion in investments they`ve made with companies with ties to Iran. Now, if this bill passes — and it`s already made it through the first critical step — it will send a strong message that we as a country will not tolerate anyone assisting or profiting off a country that is actively plotting our deaths.
California Assemblyman Joel Anderson.
JOEL ANDERSON, CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY: Thank you for having me on the show.
BECK: I wish there were more people like you. Thank you, sir, for getting it. This is basically apartheid. What you`re doing is saying, “Let`s not do business with people who are screwing people.”
ANDERSON: Well, the interesting part is, I based this bill on the 1986 bill that Maxine Waters authored in our state assembly on apartheid.
BECK: You`re kidding me. It looks exactly the same, and I don`t understand how people don`t see it, especially people who are doves, and they say, you know, we want this whole thing to go away. I don`t want to fight; I don`t want to use troops. Well, this is it. This is the plan right here. Put the screws to these guys economically.
What are the people who are dissenting voices, what are they saying about this?
ANDERSON: Well, some of them are saying that it can`t be done, that we cannot distinguish these companies. But we can, if you look at your own personal portfolio. You can ask to be invested terror-free. If we can do it in our personal portfolios, we can certainly do it in our institutional portfolios.
BECK: When you first came out, you said that money is the mother`s milk of terror. Some have said that you`ve toned down your rhetoric. Have you? And if so, why?
ANDERSON: Well, actually, this is two wings to the same bird. I don`t believe that it`s a smart idea to be investing $24 billion in roughly 300 companies, foreign-owned companies, because no U.S. company can do business directly in Iran right now under federal law, but I don`t believe those 300 companies are solid a investment for the taxpayers of California. That`s the first portion.
The second portion is, people get it. I have Democrats on board. I have Republicans on board. Some Democrats have co-authored. I`ve got the Teamsters on board. I`ve got other unions on board. We`ve got Jewish groups, Iranian groups all supporting this move, because they understand that this is a smart thing to do.
BECK: It is not often that I see commonsense coming out of California, especially its state assembly, but congratulations on that. Is it going to pass?
ANDERSON: Absolutely. When you have that broad base of support…
ANDERSON: … I`m confident we`re moving forward.
BECK: Thanks, Joel.
Up next, Congress is still in the middle of their little Easter vacation — what, you don`t have the week off? I thought everybody did. The president took to the Rose Garden yesterday to blast the Democrat leadership for leaving town and, in some cases, they didn`t even just leave the town, they left the entire Western hemisphere before they made sure that the war supplemental fund was finished.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: I`ve got to tell you. You know how fast we could have fought this war? I mean, we could be done by now if the clowns in Washington would stop arguing.
“The Real Story” is, all of these back-and-forth political games and power trips have distracted us from the one key phrase that you just heard the president say: providing our troops what they need. Well, isn`t that what this whole thing is really all about?
Forget about how our troops got there, and the WMDs, and blah, blah, blah, blah. It`s all in the past. Like it or not, the soldiers are there right now, and none of us — and I`ll bet you from me all the way to Martin Sheen — want these guys sitting in a foreign country without the training, without the armor, and without even the ability to pay the Iraqis these guys count on every single day.
When you cut through all the political bull crap, the real question is what actually happens to our troops when the money runs out?
“American Thinker” contributor Gerd Schroeder, he can tell us exactly what happened, because he has seen it firsthand in Iraq, and I want to make it very, very clear Major Schroeder does not speak for the Army, nor does he speak for the U.S. government. These are his personal opinions and experiences.
What happens when the money runs out?
GERD SCHROEDER, CONTRIBUTOR, “AMERICAN THINKER”: Well, you just have to look back to 2003, September and October 2003, on the $87 billion that was allocated by Congress, was held up between the State Department and the Department of Defense, and the effects were immediate.
The commanders had to prioritize how they would use the money in order to fight the counterinsurgent fight. And if you remember back then, it really wasn`t as serious as it is now and as serious as it got in the end of 2004.
And my argument is that, because commanders had to prioritize and truncate some of the monies that were going towards fighting the counterinsurgents just to keep going, that the Iraqi population, in many parts of Baghdad where we were at, they started to turn more to the terrorists who were using intimidation, attacks, rapes, murders, all sorts of those despicable tactics.
In addition, they were using our information against us, saying, look, the Americans, they aren`t protecting you. They`re not even sending their money to us.
BECK: You know, the amazing thing is that there are some members in Congress now that are saying, “Oh, we`ve got the money to last through July. All they have to do is just redistribute the money, and they`ve got it until July.” Any truth to that? I mean, you`ve got money, but this is — it will be a disaster, wouldn`t it?
SCHROEDER: Well, that`s not the members of Congress that are saying that, Glenn. That came from the Department of Defense.
BECK: No, but it was the Department of Defense, but then they added that that means, at the end, we won`t have troops that have been trained properly, we won`t have the things that they need to be able to send the next one into combat. It means the guys who are living there on the ground are living this nightmare right now are going to have to stay longer.
But the Democrats in Congress and the members of Congress left that part of that Department of Defense memo out.
SCHROEDER: Some may have, but, you know, it`s really like you said before. It`s not a political argument; it really isn`t, whichever side of the war you`re on. But the impact is going to be, and it`s probably already started, is that the terrorists can use information operations on their side to influence the population, and they couple that with the brutal tactics that they use. And they have quite a powerful tool.
And, you know, General Petraeus was very clear when he wrote the counterinsurgency manual. And the best ammunition that the counterinsurgent has — and that`s us — is money, and when, you know, those things don`t go to humanitarian aid, and to rebuilding projects, and to the Iraqi security forces, and to maintaining our operation, our maintenance, the vacuum is filled by somebody. Unfortunately, the somebody that fills that vacuum, they`re pretty bad people.
BECK: You know, it`s amazing. I don`t know why people don`t understand it happening in the Middle East this way. It`s exactly what happened to New Orleans, when the government wasn`t there on time and didn`t do what they needed to do. Major, thank you very much.
That is “The Real Story” tonight. And if you`d like to read more about this or if you`ve found a real story of your own, please tell us about it. Visit glennbeck.com and click on “The Real Story” button. Back in a minute.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: You were watching me last night?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. I was at home last night, so I watched your show. Scares the hell out of you sometimes.
BECK: What, me or the show? People think I`m nuts. The hair just went up on the back of my neck, and I`m like, “That`s not good.”
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some of the stuff you talk about on the show just really scares the heck…
BECK: Yes, you know, let me tell you something, Gordon. I`m going to let you in on a little secret: We make most of that stuff up.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don`t think so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BECK: I tried to be honest with you. I tried.
Rosie O`Donnell has been making lots of waves lately on ABC`s “The View,” especially due to her unique points of view, like her nearly daily allegations that it was the United States behind the 9/11 attacks. Really? What`s life like in Crazy Town, Mayor Rosie?
Here she is. The more she talks, the more people watch. The more people watch, equals more ratings. Ratings equals money. And as a capitalist, I say, amen, sister, go for it. So, yes, Rosie`s ultraliberal rhetoric that is in Crazy Town is selling.
The question is, not whether she should be censored or thrown off the air, but how long and at what cost to “The View” and the ABC network, if any?
First, let`s crunch the numbers with John Rash. He`s an advertising executive and columnist for AdAge.com.
John, talk specifically about the ratings for a second. What has she done with the ratings?
JOHN RASH, RASHREPORT.COM: Well, Glenn, Rosie joined “The View” on September 5th. And while any given week you may have a bump up or bump down, in general they`re about up 16 percent, particularly in their desired demographic of women 25 to 54. So regardless of how anyone feels about her, she certainly has gotten people to pay attention to this program more than they were before, and so ABC at least has to be pleased with the audience performance.
BECK: OK. So the audience is up. But it doesn`t always mean — I mean, really, in many cases, the key is the advertiser. I mean, you can have huge numbers. There are shows that have huge numbers that can`t get advertising. You know, there are shows that have huge numbers but they`re all in the wrong demographics, and so you can`t sell them. Is she helping or hurting with the sponsors?
RASH: Well, in general, any time you have such a significant surge in a daytime audience — and, remember, it`s very difficult to get that many more viewers during daytime, because the audience itself in general is so limited, with most people in their demographic already working, so there hasn`t necessarily been a significant backlash amongst any advertisers.
There may be a few who are at least a little bit concerned over some of the comments, but, in general, ABC has been quite successful in selling the show. And any time there`s a rise in ratings, while it`s not immediately commensurate, there can be a rise in revenue.
BECK: OK, great. John, thanks a lot.
Now joining me now is Howard Kurtz. He is the host of CNN`s “Reliable Sources” and media reporter for the “Washington Post.”
Howard, I know you disagree with me on this, but there`s a double- standard in the media. Liberals like Rosie can say anything, including that we blew the World Trade Center up, World Trade Center number seven, but conservatives, you ain`t going — they would be hung from the public square if they said anything like that.
HOWARD KURTZ, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, first of all, Rosie O`Donnell is getting a lot of heat, including from me, for her wacky conspiracy theory about the World Trade Center and the explosives and all of that, but it doesn`t mean that she doesn`t have a right to say it. You say a lot of things that people disagree with. You`re on the air.
BECK: Howard, I`m not saying that she doesn`t have a right. In fact, I don`t know, because I don`t watch O`Reilly, but I think O`Reilly is saying that she should be censored or thrown off the air.
I completely disagree with that. You don`t have a right to censor anybody. The problem that I have is that the double standard comes in where you don`t have these conservatives that have a right to say that on television. They don`t have a right to say those things.
KURTZ: The only way somebody gets knocked off a network show, if the ratings are good, as we`ve just established — “The View`s” ratings have been up under Rosie O`Donnell — is if they become so radioactive that the corporation that owns the television station says, “We simply don`t want to be associated with this person.”
I wonder what Barbara Walters thinks. She founded this program nine or 10 years ago. And she has a long journalistic career, and now we`re all debating, you know, whether Rosie O`Donnell is into conspiracy theories, so there`s a price to be paid in terms of reputation. But I don`t know that – – you know, it takes a lot to get the hook on television.
BECK: See, I will tell you — especially if you`re successful — I will tell you that, you know, part of the problem — and it`s a self- corrected itself in news to some degree. And I hate to say this, because news and what I do, they`re not the same thing. And I hate it when people say, “You know, well, you`re a journalist.” No, I`m not. I`m nothing like a journalist.
BECK: You`re a journalist, I`m not. But when you watch television now, you`ll get my point of view, and you`ll get somebody else who`s, you know, completely to the left, and you`ll get their point of view, and that, I think, is healthy to have that debate back and forth.
But it took, well, honestly what it took was a guy from, where is he, Australia, to put another network on before people finally said, “Oh, gee, maybe there is something to this other point of view; maybe we should expose that.”
KURTZ: Well, I would agree that, 20 years ago, you know, television in particular was dominated by people with at least a left-of-center orientation, but now, in the age of FOX News and talk radio and Glenn Beck and all of that, I don`t think the imbalance is as great as conservatives might want to argue, because it makes a good talking point.
BECK: But here is the difference. You can`t say the same thing in entertainment.
As a conservative, if you watch entertainment — and I think that`s what Rosie is. And, again, she has every right to say what she`s saying. But when it comes to entertainment, that`s where it`s really insidious, because I`ll come out and I`ll tell you, I`m a conservative. I`m spoon- feeding you this information, and it`s coming through my prism.
When the journalists put information in that is opinion, that`s dangerous, and entertainment is constantly putting an anti-conservative message in. Do you disagree with that?
KURTZ: I mean, entertainment, sure, Hollywood obviously leans far to the left. But as far as Rosie O`Donnell, I don`t think she makes any bones about the fact that she is a proud left-winger.
BECK: I agree with you. I was just talking about the balance in entertainment.
KURTZ: And I think, you know, people can spew their opinions on the air, from the left and the right, that`s fine, but it is be nice if they were tethered to reality in some way, and this World Trade Center conspiracy theory just isn`t.
BECK: Thank you, Howard. We`ll be back in just a minute.
BECK: All right. Baseball opening week, and, of course, I was aware of that, because I`m sports fan. You know, people used to actually laugh at my lack of sports knowledge, but when I picked my fantasy baseball team, oh, they stopped right away.
Now, look, and they went, “You`re kidding me,” and I said, yes. I mean, you try to compete with a lineup featuring Pete Rose, Peyton Manning, Shaq and the one and only Jerry Maguire. People aren`t laughing now.
But while my sports knowledge is vast, not exactly the greatest athlete of all time. However, no matter how horrible you are, in America, there`s always hope that there`s someone worse than you are, as we find on our “Greatest Throwing Arms of History” segment.
Yes, we start with the first pitch, my first pitch last year at an Angels game. Here it is. This is a clip that my producers have aired more than any piece of video in the history of Headline News, with an exception of that one where Anna Nicole Smith walks on the red carpet and just grabs her books for no reason. That and I believe the Danny Bonaduce episode of this show.
But not exactly a stellar performance, but not even close to the worst of all time. Look at the throwing arm of this Iranian protester who is now throwing a rock at the British embassy. I mean, they might want to take over our nation, but I think the national pastime is pretty safe for the time being at least.
But the worst of the worst has to come from Cincinnati`s mayor Mark Mallory. This happened Monday at their home opener. The ball barely stays on the screen. That is either the worst pitch ever thrown or a dose of athletic Prozac for people like me.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, sincerely. Thank you for making me feel better about myself.
By the way, we`re collecting plastic grocery bags for another mayor, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, as part of our Bags for the Bay program. As you may know, San Francisco is banning plastic bags from grocery stores, and now all of us can come together and help the Earth by sending all of our plastic grocery bags to San Francisco, because obviously they`re the only ones smart enough to know what to do with them.
Bags have been pouring into our offices at Radio City, and luckily nobody in our building is annoyed at us at all, really. Here are a couple pictures from the first patch of mail. There`s, you know, the big stack of boxes filled with plastic bags for San Francisco. And here`s a big mail cart full of them. That`s one of many, by the way.
And here`s Adam Clark (ph), who we have to work with, and we`ve tortured, quite honestly, by having every single box addressed to him. Sorry about that, Adam. We won`t solicit for any more bags on the air. We promise. Oh, now, see, that`s unfortunate. Well, Adam, at least it`s for Mother Earth, right? Doing our part.