quote:

---

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, did a Pentagon cover-up kill hundreds of Marines in Iraq? A shocking secret report from the Pentagon says that as many as 80 percent of the Marines killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have been saved if they had been wearing extra body armor. Why was a secret Pentagon study that was focused on saving lives buried for two years? We're going to get at it tonight's in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY showdown.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Then, Harry Belafonte calls the president the world's number-one terrorist. And this guy is the face of that U.N. outfit UNICEF. So why are Americans shelling out $260 million money to Belafonte's international organization? We will talk about it.

Welcome to SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, no passport required, 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. We are going to get to those stories in a minute.

Plus, new information tonight on the mystery of the groom on the cruise ship. Now two eyewitnesses say the newly married couple had an ugly public fight the night the groom vanished. Could it be significant or just a smokescreen from the cruise line?

Then, the mouse that roared, a SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY story that has a lot of people talking tonight. Did a mouse really burn down this house? It sounds like a Dr. Seuss story. We will get to it later in the show.

But first, are American troops dying in Iraq because they don't have the right body armor to protect them? That is the subject of a secret Pentagon report revealed in Saturday's “New York Times” that studied 93 Marines who died in Iraq from upper body wounds. The study found that 80 percent of those brave Marines might be alive today if they had had more body armor.

For the first two years of the war, American troops were issued only enough body armor to cover the upper chest and the back. Look at how much of the upper body is not protected. Now, in this Pentagon study, 15 percent of Marines died from lethal wounds to their shoulders; 42 percent died from wounds above, under, or next to the armor plate. And 23 percent died from wounds to the side of the torso, where there's no protection.

But now we're learning that the body armor that could protect the troops had been available for two years. A lot of people tonight are asking, why weren't they getting it and why was this study buried for at least two years?

Here to talk about that is Brian Hart. Now, Brian's son, John, was killed in Iraq in October of 2003. And he complained repeatedly to his father about the body armor he had been issued. Also with us is Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis. He's retired of the United States Army.

Mr. Hart, let me begin with you.

And I have just got ask you the tough question. Is your son dead tonight because the Pentagon didn't provide him with the type of armor that he needed?

BRIAN HART, SON KILLED IN IRAQ: Well, I think the answer is, no. He was shot in the neck. He would have benefited from an armored vehicle or a gun shield. But in his case, it's questionable whether the neck protection that was available on the body armor would have done the job.

SCARBOROUGH: Talk about the complaints he had about the body armor that was issued to him and other troop members. I understand that there were a lot of tradeoffs. They were looking for scraps. They just were not given the type of armor they needed.

HART: Well, when he went into Iraq in July 2003, with the 173rd Airborne, he was not issued plates. They had run out. He arrived in Iraq and was issued ones that were misfit.

And basically, they hot-swapped. The reason I know that he had body armor on when he was killed was because he had swapped it with someone who was not on the base.

SCARBOROUGH: And why was it necessary for him to swap it?

HART: Well, it turns out that at least a third of the soldiers in Iraq did not have the “sappy plates.”

SCARBOROUGH: Let me bring in Lieutenant Colonel Maginnis.

This report says that 80 percent of our Marines may have been saved from upper torso wounds if they had the right type of plates. What do you make of this Pentagon report? And why don't you think that those type of plates should be used?

COLONEL ROBERT MAGINNIS (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Well, the types of plates that are used, the ceramic plates, Joe, are ballistic plates. And they have different characteristics that we can't describe here.

But I looked at the study that is on the Web site at least and the 93 cases. Of course, you gave the statistics and the breakdown. Interesting that they recommend larger plates, ceramic pads for the shoulders, ceramic pads for sides. That is putting a lot more weight on the young soldiers.

And when you ask the soldiers on the ground—now, I have been there twice, Joe. I was there in 2003. They didn't issue me protective gear at that point. But, this past fall, when I was there, I did have the Kevlar, as well as the body armor. And every soldier now over there obviously has it. We have learned a lot, clearly in three years.

But the study is not, it's not done in a laboratory. The reality is that we're fighting a real war. And, unfortunately, if you burden soldiers down with every piece of protective armor that we would like to, they wouldn't be able to move in the irregular warfare that we're fighting; they would in fact probably endanger themselves based on what the soldiers are telling us far more than otherwise.

(CROSSTALK)

HART: That's not what the Marine study concluded, though.

It concluded that they needed to supplement an add to the armor. And for 260 bucks, they could have added the side plating necessary to protect 300 dead Marines. Those men needed that equipment.

(CROSSTALK)

MAGINNIS: You can put side plating on. There's no question you can put side plating on.

It limits your mobility. And that's the point. As an infantrymen, I spent 24 years as an infantryman, so I have some credibility there. And I understand how difficult it is to take a town or a house. And you are constantly moving back and forth; speed, agility, perseverance are absolutely critical here.

And unfortunately if you overburden our people with that type of equipment, often, you are going to cause them not only to get in trouble, but perhaps to getting wounded or killed even faster.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on one second. And I will let you get back in, in a second, Mr. Hart.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: But if you look at this story, if you look at what's been unfolding, it says here that Marine commanders in the field have decided after looking at the studies that they are willing to give up a little flexibility to save lives, because they have decided, these Marine commanders, again, on the ground in Iraq, have decided that they can save a lot of their comrades' lives if they give them body armor, Colonel. We can't second-guess the commanders in the field, can we?

(CROSSTALK)

MAGINNIS: Oh, I agree, Joe. Yes. And we're learning things all the time, Joe.

(CROSSTALK)

MAGINNIS: That's why we have up-armored the Humvees and the HETs and all the other vehicles over there.

We have learned as we are fighting this insurgency. They are, of course, adapting to us, too. And they are trying to find vulnerabilities. So, initially, these vulnerabilities were not there quite as prevalent.

And we learned quickly and we tried to adjust accordingly.

SCARBOROUGH: Mr. hart?

HART: Well, but here's the problem, sir.

If you have extra armor, you can take it off if you are dismounted.

But a great majority of the casualties now are occurring in vehicles. That's why shoulder protection is so important. They are being shot from the side.

And they are riding in vehicles much more than they were in, say, the Mekong Delta.

MAGINNIS: I agree.

(CROSSTALK)

HART: If I could also add, the Marines decided to add this additional armor, and they did the right thing. And I don't have a problem with them fielding imperfect armor to start with. But they sat on the results for two years and they didn't spend the stinking $107,000 to get the study published from the pathology labs to get this armor fixed.

(CROSSTALK)

HART: I mean, 300 dead Marines occurred because of this. And it needs to be fixed. These troops need the—they need the right damn equipment.

(CROSSTALK)

MAGINNIS: You're right.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second.

Colonel, listen. And I think this is the biggest problem for so many parents out there with dead Marines, dead soldiers. They are looking at it and they are saying, well, we're spending billions and billions of dollars on this war, a war that I support, a war I believe...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second.

A war that I believe is just. But at the same time, for just a small amount of money, if they had started this in 2003, 2004, they could have saved a lot of lives.

MAGINNIS: Joe, I have ridden around there in a Humvee. I know what it's like.

And I certainly want to give the commander all the discretion possible. We need to give them the side armor and so forth. I'm talking about, when you are dismounted, like a lot of infantrymen are in the Sunni Triangle and Ramadi and Al Qaim And so forth. You're going house to house; if you have all that equipment on, it really does burden you down.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: But, Colonel, give them the choice. They haven't been given the choice because they haven't had it.

MAGINNIS: Well, some of them have, Joe.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: A small amount have.

MAGINNIS: We are catching up.

I agree that perhaps we were not as aggressive early on, on this. We have learned lessons. And now the commanders are adjusting accordingly. War is, quite frankly, hell. And they are learning their lessons. It's unfortunate. I know some young people that have been killed over there as well, some friends of mine.

And, so, we have to learn as we're going along. Keep in mind, we're fighting in Afghanistan. You try to fight with all that equipment on at 10,000 feet, Joe, you are not going to do it.

SCARBOROUGH: It's all about options, though.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Obviously, in some situations, our troops should have the option of doing it. And again, the Marine—this isn't me talking. You have been there. I haven't yet. I want to get over there.

But the Marine commanders on the ground are saying, they need this body armor.

MAGINNIS: Well, they should have it then.

SCARBOROUGH: And, unfortunately, Mr. Hart, I have got to say, this is something I was complaining about a year-and-a-half ago. This is not like it snuck up on them. They have ordered 28,000 I guess new pieces of body armor, and started in September; only 2,000 have been delivered because there's such a back order. Are we going to be talking about this a year-and-a-half from now?

(CROSSTALK)

HART: Yes.

It's about priorities. It's not about the amount of money we are talking about. It's about the priorities. And the fact of the matter is, unless the public is aware of this problem and willing to do something about it, to press Congress, to press the National Guard.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: But hold on a second.

But George Bush, the president I voted for, was talking about John Kerry voting against body armor a year ago, and we still don't have the body armor over there a year later.

MAGINNIS: Joe, well, I hope you go over there in the summertime, when it's 130 degrees. You put on that 100 and so many pounds of weight.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Well, what about now? Our kids are being killed now.

(CROSSTALK)

MAGINNIS: Now is the difference.

If you are riding around on a Humvee, that's a different proposition.

And they certainly should do everything possible to give them enough armor. However, when you are on the ground like the most of those young infantrymen in the 101st or the Marine Corps—or the Marine task force out there, you have to give them the flexibility not to have to be burdened down, because you just physically can't do a lot of that.

SCARBOROUGH: And they can't have that flexibility if they don't have the protection.

Brian Hart.

HART: Exactly right.

SCARBOROUGH: I will give you the last word.

HART: Well, look, these are—these young men are not cannon fodder.

MAGINNIS: You're right.

HART: They deserve the best and they deserve it as fast as we can get it to them. Is that clear? And sitting on a study for two years is not accomplishing that objective.

MAGINNIS: It wasn't two years. It was only six months ago that study ended, the 30th of June, 2005. I have got the copy of the report.

(CROSSTALK)

HART: No. Sir, it ended that late because they didn't fund it for a year-and-a-half because they wouldn't pony up. I would have given them my death gratuity to give them the stinking $107,000...

(CROSSTALK)

HART: ... get that—that thing done.

MAGINNIS: The commanders are doing their absolute best in this environment. They are providing what they can.

(CROSSTALK)

HART: The commanders are doing a great job. It's the screw-ups at the Pentagon in procurement that are messing things up. It's procurement, sir. And you know it.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, gentlemen, thank you so much.

Brian, first of all, I want to thank you and your family for fighting the way you have. Your son, John, a great American hero. Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

Also, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis, thank you for coming here tonight and offering your side of the story. And thank you for your service to this country, too.

The bottom line is, friends, when I started writing my book back in I think it was the fall of 2003, I was complaining about misspent priorities, complaining, again, the fall of 2003, about how our troops weren't getting the type of body armor that they needed; 12 months later, the president of the United States got reelected by attacking John Kerry for voting against an $87 billion budget which included body armor.

Here we are, what, 15, 16 months later. We're still talking about how our troops are not getting the body armor that they need to protect their lives. And when you have Marines, an 80 percent figure thrown out there, that 80 percent of our Marines that have been killed over in Iraq with certain injuries would have been alive today if Congress had listened to parents and troops back in 2003, 2004, and 2005, my God, how long is it is it going to take for Washington to wake up and put our troops first?

It's unbelievable. I will tell you, we're going to stay on this. We're going to keep fighting the Pentagon and we're going to get the answers that you deserve, that our troops deserve and their families deserve.

---

quote:

---

SCARBOROUGH: He says George Bush is a terrorist. And get this. Our tax dollars are supporting his organization. Just what is the real deal with Harry Belafonte? We will have that story when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SCARBOROUGH: Entertainer Harry Belafonte is known for his “Banana Boat” song and for being the face of UNICEF. But is this man himself going bananas? Listen to what he had to say about President Bush this weekend in Venezuela.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARRY BELAFONTE, ENTERTAINER: And no matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush, says:

(APPLAUSE)

BELAFONTE: ... we are here to tell you, not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people, millions, support your revolution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCARBOROUGH: So, what do you think about Harry Belafonte standing next to that guy and calling—in Venezuela, in Venezuela, calling our president a terrorist, a tyrant? Oh, by the way, Belafonte represents UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund. He's an ambassador there and American taxpayers gives that organization, you, that's you, by the way, more than $260 million each year going to Belafonte's organization.

Your congressmen and your senators give your money to Belafonte's organization, UNICEF. But here he is, going out of the country, attacking our commander in chief in a way that I think is despicable.

With us now to talk about Belafonte's words and what it means for his role at UNICEF, Michael Rectenwald, from citizens for a responsible government.

Michael, do you agree with Harry Belafonte that George W. Bush is a terrorist?

MICHAEL RECTENWALD, CITIZENS FOR LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT: Well, Joe, Harry Belafonte is merely echoing what numerous leaders around the world have been saying about Bush.

SCARBOROUGH: What do you think?

RECTENWALD: What do I think?

SCARBOROUGH: Is he—is George Bush a terrorist?

RECTENWALD: Well, let's define terrorism.

If terrorism means unjustified aggression, illegal wars and torture, international torture, yes, then indeed George Bush is a terrorist.

SCARBOROUGH: I'm sorry. This is an illegal war. Why is this an illegal war?

RECTENWALD: Well, because it was not sanctioned by the U.N., another organization that United States citizens support.

SCARBOROUGH: OK. So, Kosovo was an illegal war?

RECTENWALD: Kosovo? I'm not speaking about Kosovo. I'm talking about Iraq.

SCARBOROUGH: But, no, no. You are talking about wars that were not sanctioned by the United Nations. Bill Clinton's Kosovo war certainly was not sanctioned by the United Nations.

RECTENWALD: Let's talk about Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: No.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: No. It ain't that easy for you, buddy.

RECTENWALD: We have lost 2,000 troops.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Listen, if this is about you being opposed to this war because of—it's George Bush's war.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. I'm not going to let you change the subject.

RECTENWALD: I'm not. You are.

SCARBOROUGH: You said that George Bush is a terrorist because George Bush went into a war that didn't have United Nations support.

RECTENWALD: And he's torturing people, against Geneva Convention.

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second. I'm merely asking you to be consistent. If George Bush is a terrorist for going into Iraq without U.N. support, then you are saying that Bill Clinton is a terrorist for going into Kosovo without U.N. support.

(CROSSTALK)

RECTENWALD: No, absolutely not. Clinton's war was a humanitarian mission. OK? This was a war of aggression. We overthrew a legitimate government.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no. Wait.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: By using your standards that you just gave, you said the United Nations had to support a war or else the person that started it was illegal and, therefore, a terrorist. The United Nations did not sanction the Kosovo war.

(CROSSTALK)

RECTENWALD: The general-secretary of the United Nations did not say that Kosovo was an illegal war, but he did say so about Iraq. And he said it recently. And we also support that organization with our taxpayers.

SCARBOROUGH: The U.N. did not endorse the Kosovo war. So, again, I guess, by using your standards, Bill Clinton is a terrorist.

(CROSSTALK)

RECTENWALD: Did Kofi Annan or did the general-secretary say that war of Kosovo was an illegal invasion? I don't think so.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: OK. So, what you are saying is, the United Nations, as a body, doesn't have to support a war. Just, the secretary-general has to come out here and say it's illegal. OK. Great. Well, let's forget the body.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Hopefully, we will get a president there—or secretary-general. He can endorse all of our wars, despite—regardless of what the body says.

RECTENWALD: No, that's not it.

SCARBOROUGH: No, that's what you just said.

RECTENWALD: There was no U.N. sanction for that war. It was illegal.

SCARBOROUGH: So, who is George Bush terrorizing?

RECTENWALD: It was an illegal war, and, therefore, he's a terrorist.

SCARBOROUGH: It's not an illegal war.

RECTENWALD: Plus, he's torturing more people around the world than is al Qaeda, by far. That's a fact.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: So, who is...

RECTENWALD: He's killed more people than al Qaeda, by far.

SCARBOROUGH: Who is—and how...

RECTENWALD: Thirty thousand people, at his own admission, 30,000 people, he killed in Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

RECTENWALD: An illegal invasion, 220,000 troops.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: You can scream all you want to.

The problem is, the facts just don't bear it out.

RECTENWALD: You can change the subject all you want, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH: The bottom line is this. The difference between Osama bin Laden, which, of course, right now, you are saying President Bush is a greater terrorist than Osama bin Laden.

RECTENWALD: Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: I'm sure that makes everybody that you work for really proud of you.

But Osama bin Laden purposely tried to kill...

RECTENWALD: I'm not worried about that. I'm standing on principle, unlike some people.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Yes, standing on principle, where your principle...

RECTENWALD: Human rights is what I stand for, human rights.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Hey, let me talk for a second or I'm going to...

(CROSSTALK)

RECTENWALD: Not jingoism.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

RECTENWALD: I'm not a jingoist.

SCARBOROUGH: You know what your problem is?

RECTENWALD: What is that?

SCARBOROUGH: You are a blabbermouth.

You are going to keep talking, because you know I have got the facts on my side.

RECTENWALD: Look who is talking blabbermouth. You don't let a person even...

SCARBOROUGH: OK. The bottom line is this.

RECTENWALD: You come on here, talk, and you want to shout me down.

Go ahead.

SCARBOROUGH: The bottom line is this.

Osama bin Laden on September 11 purposefully targeted citizens on September 11, purposely went after civilians, trying to kill Americans. He did it, obviously, World Trade Center, did it at the Pentagon. When we went to war in Iraq, we were going after military targets. We continue to go after military targets, whereas, you take al Qaeda, you take Zarqawi, true terrorists. They are going into markets. They're setting off bombs purposefully trying to kill children, purposefully trying to kill grandmothers, purposefully trying to kill civilians.

RECTENWALD: The end does not justify the means, Joe; 30,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq by Joe—by George Bush's own counts.

SCARBOROUGH: Using that standard—OK, using that standard, then, FDR was a terrorist because of our firebombing of Dresden.

RECTENWALD: No, because this is an illegal war, Joe. That's the difference.

It's same sort of aggression that al Qaeda showed towards us. There's no difference morally or otherwise.

SCARBOROUGH: OK. OK.

So, FDR kills, God, 100, 15, 20 times as many civilians in Dresden.

RECTENWALD: No, that's entirely a different...

(CROSSTALK)

RECTENWALD: Joe, that is such a specious comparison. That's unbelievable that you would actually sit here and say that.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: No, it's not. You know why it's different for you?

It's different for you because George Bush started this war, instead of Bill Clinton starting Kosovo or FDR leading us during World War II.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: Let's bring in John Loftus. He's a former prosecutor with the Justice Department.

(CROSSTALK)

RECTENWALD: Let me ask you a question, Joe. Why was George Bush Sr. sitting with bin Laden's half-brother on 9/11? Can you answer that?

SCARBOROUGH: I'm sorry. Ask me that question again. They were talking in my ear.

RECTENWALD: Why was George Bush Sr. sitting in a meeting with bin Laden's half-brother on 9/11 itself?

SCARBOROUGH: What are you getting at?

RECTENWALD: Oh, I'm getting at—what do you think I'm getting at?

Just answer the question.

SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no, no. What...

(CROSSTALK)

RECTENWALD: There's a factual reality that took place, George Bush Sr. sitting with bin Laden's brother on 9/11, the very day.

SCARBOROUGH: You are implying that the Bushes knew what was going on.

RECTENWALD: I'm not implying anything. Just tell me what that was about.

SCARBOROUGH: I'll tell you what. You and Harry Belafonte, I think you have a lot more in common.

Let me bring in John Loftus. John is former prosecutor with the...

RECTENWALD: Harry Belafonte has five times the sense that anybody in this government seems to have.

SCARBOROUGH: Thank you very much.

RECTENWALD: Thank you.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: John, let me bring you in here.

I just—you know, I have got to apologize to my audience for even having Michael on the show.

RECTENWALD: Oh, thanks, Joe.

SCARBOROUGH: Here, we have a guy that's implying that the Bush family was somehow involved with 9/11.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: John, when you hear this, when you hear Harry Belafonte's comments, saying George Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world, why are we Americans paying $260 million to UNICEF, this organization, when this is the type of hatred that's spewed?

JOHN LOFTUS, INTELLIGENCE EXPERT: You know, if there ever comes a day that Americans just give up on UNICEF, United Nations, and we walk away from it, it is going to collapse.

And, if that day comes, blame Belafonte and blame people like your guest, because with responsibility comes accountability. It's easy to dismiss Belafonte as a guy who is pushing 80 years old. He's an old socialist. But the fact remains, he was not speaking in this country, exercising his rights. He was speaking in the capital of a foreign nation, representing a department of the United Nations.

And, drop by drop, this cancerous propaganda is eating up all the goodwill that we put in the United Nations. And people like your guest and Belafonte are using the United Nations as a propaganda base to advance their own agenda.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: First of all, John, you have absolutely no problem with Harry Belafonte going out and saying whatever he wants to say. That's his right as an American citizen. It's because he goes there as a representative of the United Nations that you have a problem, right?

LOFTUS: Absolutely.

I mean, who paid for his plane ticket? United States citizens pay, what, 26 cents out of every dollar that the U.N. spends? And these guys haven't gone on the budget diet after the oil-for-food scandal. UNICEF is bloated with administrators. The U.N. Human Rights Commission is a joke. You have got the worst oppressors in the world there.

What is happening is, the U.N. has been captured by the Non-Aligned Movement, a group about some 60 nations that are essentially dictators in the Asian and African regions. And they will go along with any nonsense to attack America, as long as it keeps the spotlight off them.

And that's what Belafonte is doing. He was praising, literally praising, the socialist revolution of Chavez? Give me a break.

SCARBOROUGH: It's unbelievable.

Final question. I'm going to ask you the same question I asked Michael Rectenwald. Is George Bush a terrorist, John?

LOFTUS: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear the question.

SCARBOROUGH: I said, is George Bush a terrorist, as Rectenwald and Mr. Belafonte says he is?

LOFTUS: Oh, that's—that's as silly as the time that he called Condoleezza Rice a black tyrant or implied that Colin Powell was a plantation slave who would do anything his master wanted to work in the big house.

Belafonte has a pension for exaggeration. Of course Bush is not a terrorist. And I'm sure I'm not going to use Kofi Annan's definition of that. I mean, to Kofi Anna, illegal is a sick bird.

SCARBOROUGH: All right. Thank you for being with us, John Loftus.

Thank you, Mr. Rectenwald.

---

quote:

---

SCARBOROUGH: I'm sorry. Ask me that question again. They were talking in my ear.

---

quote:

---

SHILL........Scumborough He sure is uncomfortable when the truth is in his face.

---

quote:

---

Comment: Despite studying September 11 for two years solid, one fact I only just discovered is that George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, on the morning of 9/11. They were on Carlyle Group business just a few miles from where hijackers supposedly acting on behalf of Osama bin Laden would fly a plane into the Pentagon.

Recall that the chief financier of the so-called hijackers, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11. He also met with Bob Graham and Porter Goss on the morning of the attacks, who would later go on to head the first 9/11 investigative committee.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/new_revelations_on_911

The Bush senior/bin Laden meeting was reported on by CBC. See http://www.propagandamatrix.com/021103fifthestate.html

This was also reported by the London Observer. See the last paragraph at http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,738196,00.html

"On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama."

---

quote:

---

Let's see how long it takes for Keith O to goose-step with the rest of the crowd.So far he's heads above the rest of these other guys.That could be because of all the years doing sports reporting and not be in the pigstye.

---

quote:

---

JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: And right now in SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY, another deadly mining accident today, just days after tragedy struck in West Virginia. Is the federal government letting big coal companies get away with murder? A new study suggests it may....

---

quote:

---

...But first, 12 coal miners buried in West Virginia. And now a troubling report raises questions about whether the coal industry is given a free ride when it comes to miners‘ safety. We are going to have that in a minute....

---

quote:

---

...The question is, are they being protected by their government? You know, the investigation into the West Virginia tragedy is stalled right now. But this headline in “USA Today” this morning says since 1999 the coal mining industry has paid only 28 percent of over $9 million in fines resulting from safety violations following mine fatalities.
With me now to talk about that shocking report and what it means for mine safety and you is attorney Tim Biddle. He defends the mining companies. And also Judy Rivlin, associate general counsel for the United Mine Workers of America.
Judy, let me begin with you.
You look at some of these numbers and look how these huge fines that are eventually levied are whittled down, some say to 25, 26, 27 percent on the dollar. It leads some people to think that mine companies have nothing to worry about. What do you say?
JUDY RIVLIN, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA: I think that‘s true.
The Mine Act has a lot of strong enforcement tools built into it, but the agency has got to be there to enforce it. It‘s got to go into the mines and issue citations when they find violations. And the support needs to come all the way up the chain.
And that‘s where the problem is. We have a lot of really good inspectors who go in and have been writing citations when they find violations. But they end up getting compromised at conferences and through the process. And that kind of settlement is not acceptable.
We need to have real teeth, and the agency has the power and ability to issue meaningful citations and orders, and it needs to do that, needs to do that consistently. When it writes citations, it needs to go back and make sure that they have been abated, to make sure that the mine is as safe as it can be. And that just hasn‘t been happening.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: You know, Tim, these people that go into these mines, they have a terrible, difficult job. You and I can‘t even begin to imagine what they go through day in and day out. And yet it‘s just not safe down there in some of these mines. And it seems that when people die down there, the government allows these fines to be whittled away, to be lawyered away. Why is that?
TIM BIDDLE, ATTORNEY FOR COAL COMPANIES: Joe, the American coal mining industry is the most pervasively regulated industry in America, and has been for many, many years, in fact, 30 years.
And during that 30 years, fatalities have dropped 90 percent, which is a very substantial reduction from where it was back in 1970 and in the early ‘70s.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Tim—they may be regulate it, Tim, but they don‘t enforce it, if you have this “USA Today” study that says, yes, there were $9.1 million worth of fines levied over the past five, six years, but the government only made them pay about 25 percent. What good are regulations if you don‘t enforce them?
(CROSSTALK)
RIVLIN: A lot of the decrease in the mining fatalities is also there are many, many fewer people working in the mines. Productivity has stayed the same, but there are a lot fewer miners producing just as much coal.
So, when you look at the reduction in the number of fatalities, you still have to look at the reduction in the percentage compared to the number of people mining.
SCARBOROUGH: Tim.
RIVLIN: We do have the ability to mine safely, but only when everything is put into place and enforced properly. And that‘s just not happening.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Let Tim respond to what I asked him about the 25 percent.
BIDDLE: All right, Joe.
The reason for that is very simple. The penalty assessment process under the Mine Act is a two-step process. If a violation is issued, if an inspector believes a violation exists in the mine, there will be a civil penalty assessed by the Mine Safety and Health Administration based on six statutory factors.
SCARBOROUGH: OK, and we don‘t have time to go into those factors, but...
(CROSSTALK)
BIDDLE: I know. But what I‘m telling you is that that reduction you‘re talking about is, you‘re starting with a number that was at step one, and you‘re ending with a number at the end of step two.
SCARBOROUGH: But the number always seems to get whittled down.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Let‘s talk about the 2001 Alabama mine incident that you
you helped defend the company. And I guess they were socked with like a $430,000 fine for these 12 miners that died -- 13 miners who died in Alabama. You got that knocked down to what, $2,000, $3,000?
BIDDLE: Three thousand dollars, Joe. And you know why?
SCARBOROUGH: For 13 miners.
BIDDLE: That‘s right.
And the difference between the starting number and that ending number is one simple word, evidence. Evidence.
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Well, so, somebody just decided to throw a $435,000 figure at the beginning, without looking at evidence?
BIDDLE: That‘s exactly right.
RIVLIN: No, that‘s not the case.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, that‘s your opinion.
But, Judy, why is it that it always seems to get whittled down? In this case, Alabama, 2001, 13 miners died. A $435,000 fine is assessed. And it‘s cut all the way down to $3,000 for 13 dead miners.
(CROSSTALK)
RIVLIN: Frankly, we think the citation should have been and the penalty should have been higher to begin with.
But, notwithstanding that, the judge didn‘t—this was thrown out by an administrative law judge. And it is on appeal at this point. But the...
BIDDLE: The evidence was not there, and Judy knows that.
RIVLIN: No, it‘s not that the evidence was not there.
The judge found not that the company wasn‘t guilty. He found that MSHA didn‘t prove its case. And it‘s a problem with MSHA not having enough resources, enough support to do its job properly.
(CROSSTALK)
RIVLIN: But, Tim, we‘re talking about a bigger issue than just this case, where 13 miners die in Alabama and it‘s a $3,000 fine. A lot of people, “USA Today,” “The Washington Post,” a lot of newspapers are looking closely at the mine industry, and they think they‘re getting away with murder.
Tell me this. Are these fines being cut because the Bush administration is allowing people that used to work in the mine industry to now regulate the mine industry?
BIDDLE: Well, I can tell you that that is just not correct. In fact, the Bush administration is one of the only administrations in the last 30 years that has brought experienced safety professionals into the agency.
SCARBOROUGH: People who work in the industry?
RIVLIN: That‘s not true.
BIDDLE: Well, they came from the industry.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes.
BIDDLE: But they have also had—they have also had some United Mine Worker people and other people in the industry in the last, say, eight years—excuse me—in the—at the Mine Safety and Health Administration in the last eight years who are very experienced.
And I‘m not saying that the inspectors who work for the Mine Safety and Health Administration aren‘t experienced. They are. But the management part of that agency has had a long history of having top people put in who are not experienced in mining.
SCARBOROUGH: All right. All right.
Thank you, Tim Biddle. Thank you, Judy Rivlin.
I have just got to say this, friends. I have heard—and I have heard this from Republicans. I‘m a Republican. I‘m a conservative guy. I‘m pro-business. But I have heard that, in this industry, like many other industries, the Bush administration has put people in to regulate these energy industries, especially who actually worked in the industries.
Now, that‘s not all bad. Bring a little bit of business experience in. But if you put too many of those type of people in there, then it‘s like foxes guarding the henhouse. And I think as we see these mining tragedies continue to pile up one after another, there‘s going to be an outcry from Americans, especially in West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, and in mining communities, for our federal government to step up and do what‘s right and protect these miners.

---