Just because YOU say Scarborough

hasn't always supported Bush doesn't make it true. In fact, if people like you (Bush groupies) say it, it probably isn't true at all.

I watch Scarborough's show every night. Do you? Scarborough has always supported Bush. But he doesn't follow him blindly like some people, and when Bush does lies or spits on the Constitution, Scarborough calls him on it. Of course, to you, I guess if someone believes in defending the Constitution, that's a direct insult to your president. What kind of values do you have?

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The transcript is copied below. If you read it, you might find that Bush didn't even lift a finger to try to get this terrorist, and you might walk away with a slightly different take on the situation. Believe me, If Scarborough is upset with Bush, there's a reason. He's always supported Bush. Even the family of the Mr. Stethem is basically pro Bush.

'Scarborough Country' for December 27
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guest: Erich Ritter, Tyson Slocum, Joseph Bruno, Ric Robinson, Clinton

Suggs, Ken Stethem

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, a terrorist is set free. Will our government now stand up and finally do the right thing? This terrorist hijacked a TWA plane and murdered a U.S. Navy diver. And the German government let him out of prison, and our government didn't do much to stop them. Tonight, the diver's brother and a close Navy friend who was also on that plane and beaten on that plane, they both come to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY to say what our government must now do and how we can all help get justice for Robert Stethem.

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, no passport required, and only common sense allowed.

ANNOUNCER: From the press room, to the courtroom, to the halls of Congress, Joe Scarborough has seen it all. Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY.

SCARBOROUGH: Hey, thanks so much for being with me tonight. I hope you and your family had a very merry Christmas.

Tonight on the show, we are going to be also talking about a quick-thinking surfer who fought off a great white shark and lived to tell about it. Now, wait until you hear where he says he learned the skills that saved his life, and should you try this at home?

Plus, blonde bombshell Anna Nicole Smith back in the news. So, why exactly is the Bush administration hooking up with the former �Playboy� centerfold in court? We will tell you the full story later in the show.

But, first, let's start with the outrage over why a terrorist is out of jail tonight, even though he was convicted of killing a U.S. Navy diver. Now, this is a story we first brought you last week, after this man, Hamadi, walked free from a German prison. Now, this thug hijacked a TWA jet in 1985. You remember these scenes? And he brutally beat and tortured 23-year-old Robert Stethem, Robert obviously in the Navy, and Stethem was so severely beaten that his body was unrecognizable when they finally dumped him onto the runway in Beirut.

And now, for reasons we talk about, Hamadi is walking free in the Middle East.

With me to talk about this outrage, and it is an outrage, friends, and our government needs to hear about it, we have got Ken Stethem with us. He's a brother of that murdered Navy diver, and also Clinton Suggs. He was sitting next to Robert on that hijacked flight, and he was also beaten by the terrorist who was set free.

Ken, let's start with you.

What did the American government do once you and your family started notifying them back in the spring that you were afraid that this terrorist thug, who murdered your brother, might walk free?

KEN STETHEM, BROTHER OF MURDERED NAVY DIVER: Well, Joe, the simple answer is nothing.

Our family had asked for meetings through the Justice Department, and to the State Department for meetings, because of concerns we had over this possibility and some other points that we wanted to bring up. And we never once were given a response even as to why no meetings would be able to take place.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, Wait a second, Ken. Did you try to get in touch with Condoleezza Rice or anybody? Who did you try to get in touch with at the State Department?

STETHEM: My parents were going through an intermediary through the Justice Department, and we absolutely tried to get ahold of Condoleezza Rice to get a meeting with her, and this is one of the few times since my brother was murdered that we have not been able to get access to the secretary of state.

SCARBOROUGH: You know, Ken, this is the thing that I don't understand. Obviously the Bush administration has been waging a fierce war on terror over the past four or five years since 9/11, and yet in this case, here you have a terrorist thug with connections�his whole family has had connections to Hezbollah for some time�murdered an American, not only any American, but a guy that served in the United States Navy.

The murder was broadcast across the Arab world, and America, and everywhere else, and when you find out that he may be released, you try to contact this government, this president, this secretary of state, and they give you absolutely no assurances that they are going to work to try to keep him in jail?

STETHEM: We never heard word one back from them, Joe, and when you look at the timing, what is not just shameful but absolutely disgraceful is that the same time Bush was and the administration was preparing the speech that went public to the public, asking for continued support on the war on terrorism last week, at the same time he was planning and giving that speech, the administration knew that Germany was about to release Hamadi, and they did nothing.

SCARBOROUGH: You know, Ken�and the thing is, it's very interesting that despite the fact that you couldn't get the Bush administration, you couldn't get the secretary of state, you couldn't get anybody to call your family when this terrorist, who murdered your brother in cold blood on the international stage 20 years ago was about to set free, they finally did call your parents Christmas Eve.

Talk about the president's chief of staff, Andy Card, calling your parents on Christmas Eve, and talk about that discussion. What went on?

STETHEM: Andrew Card called my parents, and my parents�our family was appreciative at the gesture, but he basically called to pass along the president's condolences, to pass along the fact that he was not satisfied with any answer that he got within the administration as to why the family hadn't been contacted, either before or after, and that he wanted us to know that phone calls have been made at the highest level.

SCARBOROUGH: What did your parents say?

(CROSSTALK)

STETHEM: You know, my parents, for 20 years, have supported five different administrations and have just trusted and hoped that action would be taken. And you know what, my parents understood the truth.

And the truth is the administration would have had to simply make a phone call at the presidential level, demand that Hamadi not be released or be released into U.S. custody, and pressured Germany to make that happen, and because they didn't do those three simple things, we are now supposed to believe that the administration is going to spend the time, money, effort, energy, manpower, and put the political capital at risk to go get him and bring him back? You know what?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, and, Ken, let me just say, that is what is so absurd to me tonight, listening, reading this story over the past week. Now you are hearing the administration saying that they are going to do everything they can to hunt this guy down, to track�I would say if they had a clean shot at him, they should take him out for what he did to your brother 20 years ago, send a real message to terrorists across the Middle East.

But that's not going to happen. The guy slipped into Lebanon. He's got connections. His family has connections to Hezbollah. They had a chance to keep him in custody and they wouldn't even return your phone calls. Do you think the fix was already in? Do you think the State Department knew what Germany was going to do, and so they decided not to talk to you, to let them go ahead and do it because they didn't want to offend an ally?

STETHEM: You know what, absolutely.

And whether it was apathy or indifference or ineptness, you know what, it doesn't matter. You can't say, you can't say that we are fully, totally committed to this war on terrorism and then let a convicted murderer and terrorist go.

SCARBOROUGH: And, Ken, let me just say, I mean, you have for the most part supported this president's war on terror, as have I. I mean, the guy has aggressively gone after terrorists across the globe, but they have one in custody that killed your brother 20 years ago, and they do absolutely nothing to stop the Germans from letting him go on parole.

Is that a fair characterization, that you and your family have been supporters of this president, but you just feel like it was a disgrace how this administration let you all down?

STETHEM: That's right, Joe, and I will tell you, nobody can accuse the Stethem family or myself for not supporting, absolutely supporting this war on terrorism.

We absolutely recognize the president and his administration and the fact that he has done more in this presidency than all the other presidents, the last four or five, six combined, against terrorism. But you know what, I think the obvious mistake that is being made is this. Too much, too much of the burden for this war on terrorism is being placed on the military and the military actions, and really the military actions are only as good as the policies that they support.

And we do not have the clear, concise, and deliberate policy that we need on terrorism yet, because if we did, this wouldn't have happened.

SCARBOROUGH: This would have never happened, and again, to put a proper perspective on this, there is no doubt, I agree with you, this administration has done more to fight terrorism.

STETHEM: Absolutely.

SCARBOROUGH: Obviously, part that is just the times�than the past four or five combined. I think they are doing a great job in a lot of areas, but here, again, a shameful lapse.

Clinton, let me bring you in here. Talk about Robert. Talk about the situation when you knew that this terrorist had killed your friend.

CLINTON SUGGS, TWA FLIGHT 817 SURVIVOR: Well, right from the beginning, when they singled out Robert and myself as being in the military, they started with Robert, and they brutally beat him, and they executed him, Hamadi did. And he was brought to justice, and now he is released, and, you know...

SCARBOROUGH: And, Clinton, he was killed, right�he was killed and you were tied up and beaten. Why? Because you all were in the military, right?

SUGGS: Correct.

SCARBOROUGH: How did they find that out?

SUGGS: We were traveling with military documents and military I.D. cards. And...

SCARBOROUGH: And the second you handed those over, you said you knew you made a big mistake, right?

SUGGS: Well, it wasn't a big mistake.

It was to surrender our I.D. cards to not bring as much attention to ourselves for not having passports at the time, so it seemed better to surrender than to make a fuss and then really become noticeable.

SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Right.

And you also�you were blindfolded, along with Mr. Stethem, and both of you were beaten very badly, weren't you?

SUGGS: That is correct. Robert was beaten several times, from the beginning of the flight, within 20 minutes, and then he was severely beaten in Beirut, the first trip.

And the second trip, it was just�it's when they killed Bob. It was

� he had no way to defend himself. He was tied with his hands behind his back, blindfolded, and there was nothing he could do. And, you know, that's terrorism, and that's what terrorism is, and our government went out as steaming to bring terrorism to justice. And then when it was brought to justice, the ball was dropped several administrations ago, and then now, we have come back to make a full force, like we are going to do something.

But when it comes to making sure these people are convicted and spend their time for the crimes they commit, they just walk, and now they are back home. And he's a hero, and he has slipped away, and he is probably back up to where he started.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I will tell you what, Ken, let me bring you back in here and ask you a question.

Just I got to believe�and I know, Clinton, you have got to be completely disgusted by this, as much as, Ken, you and your family are�but what do you think our government should do? What do you think the Israelis should do? If they have a clean shot of this guy, you think they should take him out?

STETHEM: I think the Israelis should do what they know they can do and what the right thing to do is. I think Israelis do real well on their own. I will tell you, Joe, I will tell you what I would like to see.

SCARBOROUGH: But you think�you think the right thing, though, is to shoot him, kill him, like kill him the way he killed your brother?

STETHEM: You know what, Mohammed Ali Hamadi is running around free to commit more acts of terrorism, and my brother's wasn't the only case. He was actually arrested bringing in liquid explosives into Germany. He needs to be taken out, whether it's with a bullet or with a sentence, and in jail to stay. He needs to be taken out.

SCARBOROUGH: You know, we are in a war on terror, and this thug is one of the key players in the war now, as far as I am concerned.

Ken, final question. And, again, I have supported the Bush administration. I will continue to support them in the war on terror. They have got guts. The president has got a lot of guts that all of his adversaries don't have, and I salute him for that.

But, tonight, they have screwed this up badly, Ken. Tonight, what can you and what can me, what can our viewers in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY do to help your family out?

STETHEM: I will tell you what, Joe. I would like the American people to pick up the phone and call the White House and call the State Department.

I would like them to do that on January 3, between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. East Coast time. I would like them to tell the president and the elected representatives, their elected representatives, we expect the same courage, commitment, and devotion to duty from there that we all expect of our men and women in uniform.

SCARBOROUGH: All right.

STETHEM: We expect�Joe, if I could.

SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Go ahead.

(CROSSTALK)

STETHEM: We expect them to develop a clear, concise, and deliberate policy against terrorism that includes identifying Lebanon for what it is, which is a terrorist nation. They give safe harbor to 25 percent of the terrorists on the top 23 terrorists of the FBI's list, and one of them was more responsible�was responsible for killing more Americans than anyone else before bin Laden.

SCARBOROUGH: All right.

Ken, we got to go. Thank you, Ken.

Thank you, Clinton.

We are going to be following this story.

SCARBOROUGH: Now, today, President Bush again refused to answer questions about the White House CIA leak case. But he did have this to say.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don�t know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for facts to be done is by somebody who is spending time investigating it.

I would like this to end as quickly as possible, so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

SCARBOROUGH: Ah, nuance. I love nuance. Before, it was, if somebody leaked this information, they are not going to work in the administration. Now it has been elevated to, if somebody committed a crime, they are not going to work in our administration.

Now, a far cry, obviously, from what the White House had to say back in September 2003. Listen to what White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had to say back then.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

With me now to talk about this boiling Washington summer scandal are Peter Beinart�he�s the editor of �The New Republic��and also Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway.

You know, I have been saying all along that somebody lied to George Bush, because George Bush would not have gone out a year ago and said, hey, if somebody was involved in this leak, they wouldn�t work in my administration, if he knew that Karl Rove was involved. Now we�re talking about obviously an indictment. Does this mean the White House now understands they are going to have to backtrack?

PETER BEINART, EDITOR, �THE NEW REPUBLIC�: They have already started backtracking.

I mean, Scott McClellan said the idea that Karl Rove was involved with this was�quote, unquote��ridiculous.� Now, of course, it is undisputed that Karl Rove was involved in this. That alone seems to me is reason for Scott McClellan, if he has any dignity at all left, to resign.

BEINART: Because once a press secretary loses all credibility by being lied to by his bosses and then lying to the press as a result, the only honorable thing to do is resign. It�s pretty well�it�s pretty�because has no credibility left. He is now basically a walking pinata.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Peter, let�s talk about what we know. Let�s talk about what we do know, Peter.

SCARBOROUGH: We know that either Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or the president or somebody in the Cheney-wing of the White House lied to Scott McClellan. Is that safe to say? Somebody is lying here.

BEINART: Yes. Someone lied to him, because he would not have gone out and said it was ridiculous that Karl Rove was involved without someone telling him that.

There is no way this guy would have gone out and made the statement that he made last year had he not been lied to, right?

CONWAY: There is no evidence that anybody lied to Scott. And there is certainly no evidence that Karl Rove was a producer of any information.

If anything, the two most recent news accounts about this issue suggest that Karl was the recipient of the information from a media source, not the producer of that information. And, look...

SCARBOROUGH: Well, he produced�he produced it to �TIME� magazine and Cooper, didn�t he?

CONWAY: No. There is no evidence of that. In fact, when Joe Wilson himself testified before the..

SCARBOROUGH: Where have I been? I mean, I am sorry. I thought I read the �TIME� magazine article. I thought I saw Matt Cooper on �Meet the Press� this weekend saying that he got the information from Karl Rove.

SCARBOROUGH: I mean, was I�was it all a dream? Was it like the last season of �Dallas�?

But that�again, when you are the subject of a grand jury investigate, as it is going on now, you are not allowed to discuss it. So, Karl can�t really defend himself.

What other reports have suggested is that, perhaps, immediately, perhaps, hypothetically speaking, someone in the media called Karl and said, I have this information. I am going to do a story about it.

Now, letting it fly out there in the ether does not mean that Karl provided the information. Nor does it mean that he corroborated, verified or encouraged it. If anything, he may have tried to kill it on the�on the�with the inference that the person not go out and use inaccurate information.

Now, let�s remember what this information is about, serious stuff, that the vice president allegedly sent Joe Wilson over to Niger to check out the uranium story. And then, when Joe�when Joe Wilson, the same guy, testifies to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, he says, I may have used a little bit of literary flair, the same guy who poses in �Vanity Fair.� This is not a credible person.

SCARBOROUGH: Let me ask you this, Peter. I want to bring this up. The thing that I found very interesting�and, obviously, I respect Kellyanne and have for some time and agree with her a lot more than I disagree with her.

But it seems, in this Karl Rove case�if we want to call it a scandal, we can call it a scandal�that if every time you start talking about Karl Rove, Republicans start talking about Joe Wilson. Now, I think Joe Wilson is a liar. I think he is a joke. But it seems to me he is not relevant to this leak, is he?

What Kelly is doing is repeating exactly the same talking points that every other Republican has been repeating all week.

BEINART: And the point is, I happen to think Joe Wilson has a lot more credibility than Karl Rove. But it is totally irrelevant.

The question�even if you think that Joe Wilson is the biggest liar in Washington, it is absolutely sleazy to go after him by going after his wife. That is not...

BEINART: The people who went out and said, who said that his wife is a covert operative for the CIA, which got the CIA so upset that they asked the Justice Department to do an investigation, those people.

And is very likely those people are either Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Ari Fleischer, or all of the above.

What we do know is that�is that there was a State Department memo which had this information. We know that Fleischer was reading that memo.

And we know that this information got to Robert Novak. It is conceivable -yes, I will grant it is conceivable that, somehow, some reporter got it and spit it back to these guys in the administration. But it is more likely that they got it from the State Department memo and then they fed it to Novak in an effort to discredit Wilson.

SCARBOROUGH: Kellyanne, let me ask you a question here. I am just curious. And I have been asking my Republican friends this question for the past couple weeks. Let�s say Bill Clinton�s top political adviser had decided to reveal the identity of a CIA agent to a reporter from �TIME� magazine to get back at that person�s spouse? What would you be saying? What would Republicans be saying about Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton�s top political adviser?

SCARBOROUGH: ... that what everybody in Washington knows is actually the case, that this was passed on from Karl Rove to Matt Cooper at �TIME� magazine. What would you say if the Clinton administration had engaged in this type of activity?

CONWAY: I would say exactly what I said when the Clinton administration was engaged in far worse, something called Whitewater, which Peter was against investigating, even though people...

SCARBOROUGH: I�m talking about the outing of a CIA agent in a time of war. That is all I�m asking.

CONWAY: And my answer is what it was then, which is that I respect the rule of law enough to allow the investigatory process to work its way out.

If we all respect the law as it is written and the investigatory process that is currently undergoing, Joe, then the facts will be known. And the president will keep to his commitment that anyone who broke the law will be out of there, including�anybody.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, that is a different commitment from what we heard in the fall.

SCARBOROUGH: The commitment that was made before was anybody that revealed the identity of a CIA agent would be fired.

CONWAY: Joe, Karl beat the Democrats twice now, though, Karl has beaten the Democrats black and blue in two presidential elections.

The bottom line is that a CIA agent has been outed. I don�t care whether a Republican did it.

SCARBOROUGH: She went to �Vanity Fair.� And, again, I think Joe Wilson and his wife are shameless. But they did that after they were already revealed.

SCARBOROUGH: So, I just�again, I don�t like�I think Joe Wilson is a joke. The fact that this guy lied about just about everything involved in his African trip and then wrote a book called �The Politics of Truth� is shameless.

Now that I have preached, the question is this. Is somebody going to jail over this? Is somebody going to be indicted?

BEINART: I think it is�I would say the chances of someone being indicted are a bit better than 50-50. The chance of someone going to jail I think are relatively low. I would say less than one in four. That is my guess.