MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews" - Transcript: Authority to Shape Military Engagement with ISIS

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Senator Angus King is an independent from Maine. Senator, can you
support the president`s call for an authorization of military force to
fight ISIS? Can you support it?

SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Yes. I want to see the final language,
Chris. There are a lot of issues. It hasn`t gone before the Foreign
Relations Committee, but I think it`s entirely appropriate that the
president has come to us for this authorizations.

And you know, you put your finger on it in the introduction. It`s a
fascinating flipping of the parties, where the Republicans are pushing for
more open-ended authority for the president to act unilaterally, and the
Democrats are calling for more controls. And I think the White House has
tried to define it down the middle with this phrase, "enduring offensive
ground combat operations."

MATTHEWS: Right.

KING: They`re trying to try to find that middle ground, but it`s a
fascinating debate.

MATTHEWS: Well, could it also be that politicians on both sides don`t
like to be tied to what could turn out to be a bloody war? They just don`t
want to have their hands on it.

KING: Well...

MATTHEWS: Isn`t it a safer position to vote against, no matter what
the war is, a safer -- let me ask you about this...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: You`re right. You`re right about that.

MATTHEWS: But do you really think the left, the Democratic, dovish
left -- there`s some right-wing left, too -- dovish side, too, like Rand
Paul. But they really think that Obama is a secret hawk, that he`s going
to take this authority and run with it and start a major land war against
ISIS? Do they really believe that Barack Obama is a secret hawk?

KING: I don`t know...

MATTHEWS: I don`t buy that. I don`t believe they think that.

KING: Listen, within an hour yesterday, I heard both sides of that
debate. I heard Democrats saying the authority he was asking for was too
broad, and a half hour later, Republicans saying it was too narrow. It was
like going down the rabbit hole.

But I think maybe you`re right, Chris, on one point, and that is I
think Congress is much more adept at criticizing and second-guessing than
it is for taking responsibility. And that`s why guys like Tim Kaine and I
have been pushing since last August that this is a constitutional
responsibility. We`re supposed to take this responsibility. The framers
of the Constitution did not want...

MATTHEWS: OK...

KING: ... presidents to unilaterally have the power to take us into
war.

MATTHEWS: What word do you want changed, "enduring," "combat," what?
Which words? Because that seems to be where it`s hitting (ph), that
phrase. What don`t you like about the word "enduring"? And it seems to be
the problem of the Democrats.

KING: Well, "enduring" -- you know, is it enduring for a week, two
weeks or six months? I`m not necessarily uncomfortable with the phrase,
but it needs to be defined. Usually, when terms are used in statutory
language, there`s a history of court cases or prior statutes. This is a
brand-new phrase...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

KING: ... and I think it`s got to be defined through legislative
history and the committee process.

MATTHEWS: Well, here`s the conundrum. The last time the president
was in a situation, he wanted or troops out of Afghanistan by a date
certain, out of Iraq, and he was beat to hell for saying a date. You`re
telling the enemy what day we`re leaving! Now the Congress is saying...

KING: No.

MATTHEWS: ... tell us when we`re going in, when we`re coming out. We
don`t like the word "enduring." We want a date.

KING: Yes, no, and I agree with you. I...

MATTHEWS: Isn`t that an irony?

KING: It is an irony, and I don`t think he should have put the date
on the end of the Afghanistan. I think that is a mistake. But in this
case, they`ve got a day. It says three years. But it says "unless
extended by Congress." So it`s not really a final date in that sense. If
it were, you know, we`re going to do this in three years and it`s over, I
wouldn`t -- I wouldn`t buy that for a minute.

But the fact is, it`s a renewable authorization, if you will, so
Congress has to play its constitutional, responsible role of making these
decisions.

MATTHEWS: Well, a brand-new NBC poll just out, a Marist poll, of
course, Senator, finds that 54 percent of the American people want Congress
to back President Obama`s authorization against ISIS.

What do you make -- what do you think of polls in this case on wars?
Do they endure? I wonder, do they endure?

KING: Well, they change from -- you know, there was a, I don`t know,
60, 70 percent against any involvement, and then we had the beheadings last
summer, and it jumped up to 70, 75 percent. So I think they vary from --
according to what`s going on in the field.

But I think, fundamentally, the issue here is, A, do we want to take
these guys on? I think most people agree that we should, that we have to,
that they`re a danger to us and to the entire world. Number two is, should
the president get some kind of congressional authorization to do so? The
answer is yes, in part because it makes the whole enterprise stronger if
it`s...

(CROSSTALK)

KING: ... the whole of the United States government, if it`s not just
the president acting unilaterally.

MATTHEWS: Well, the Democratic critics out there are saying they are
concerned, as you are, about the restrictions. They aren`t strong enough.
Here was Senator Joe Manchin yesterday here on HARDBALL.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: And just to showcase this, there on the right, critics
worry the language will limit the military too much in the fight against
ISIS. Here`s Orrin Hatch of Utah yesterday. Let`s listen to the senator.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, I don`t know about the language -- I don`t understand
how senators call presidents stupid now. I mean, I`m sorry, Senator Hatch.
I got no problem with you personally, but you got to stop talking about a
president like that. He`s stupid, OK?

KING: But -- but...

MATTHEWS: What -- what is this about the new way we talk about Obama
that we don`t talk about previous presidents? Your thoughts, Senator.
(INAUDIBLE) go on here. How do you get the language together, to reconcile
it? The duty of the Senate is to deliberate. How does the effort --
deliberations of the world`s greatest deliberative body achieve a
coalescing between the right concern there`s too much language restricting
in there, and the liberal concern that it better damn well be tougher?

KING: Well, I think...

MATTHEWS: More restrictive.

KING: I think what you`re going to see is a fascinating hearing and a
fascinating debate at the Foreign Affairs Committee. You`ve got people
like Bob Menendez and Bob Corker, Tim Kaine, very thoughtful people. And I
know that they`re working on that language.

And you know, I disagree a little bit -- I mean, Manchin is right, but
maybe for different reasons. I don`t think the public will support ground
troops. But the reality is, ground troops from America aren`t going to win
this war. It`s got to be Arabs and Muslims taking on Arabs and Muslims.
If we go in there, that`s exactly what ISIS wants.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

KING: In other words, it won`t be effective. But you know, I got to
say, don`t you find it ironic, Chris -- you`ve been watching this for a
long time -- to see Republicans arguing that this president should take
broader, unlimited authority? I mean, that isn`t what I`ve been hearing
around here for the last two years.

I think -- I think Congress has to take this responsibility. It`s
exactly what the framers intended for us to do. And I think we can work
out some language that`ll meet everybody`s requirements. I certainly hope
so.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you so much, Senator Angus Kaine -- King, of
course...

KING: King!

MATTHEWS: ... of Maine for coming on.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source