MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show - Transcript: "Missouri abortion clinic locked in legal battle."

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

VELSHI: If you were skeptical of the president`s claim that he learned about potential civilian casualties only minutes before a planned missile strike on Iran and then proceeded to call it off, you`re not alone. Quote: The idea that an American president didn`t bother to ask about civilian casualties before ordering a massive military strike, getting around to it only 600 seconds before the attack was to begin, is mind boggling. Don`t let this ever feel normal. Don`t let this ever feel normal. Joining me now is senator who tweeted that, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Murphy, thank you for joining us tonight. You are on the Foreign Relations Committee. Were you or your chairman briefed on the idea that we were on the brink of starting war?

SEN. CHRIS MUPRHY (D-CT): I can`t speak for the chairman of the committee, but certainly members of the committee were not briefed on this. In fact, we have spent the last week pressing for a vote in the United States Senate to make it very clear that the president of the United States does not possess the legal ability to preemptively strike Iran without congressional authorization. The Constitution is pretty darn clear on that count. And while it is unbelievable to think that the president didn`t ask about casualties until ten minutes before, it frankly isn`t surprising to those of us who, you know, have listened to how totally uncurious this president is about the national security briefings that he is supposed to being reading, how he asks very few questions about the policy proposals that are being put in front of him. And it just makes us all shudder to think about what comes after the strike if we do actually get into a long-term war with Iran. If the president isn`t asking about casualties, is he really asking about what the effects are when it comes to American troops that are being put in harm by his recklessness?

VELSHI: Senator, let`s talk about the authorization to use military force. As Senator Schumer said today, as you just articulated that you are looking for an action in Congress for this. There`s been some chatter that this administration is prepared to use the authorization of military force that was authorized for 9/11 to go ahead with this.

MURPHY: Yes, that`s been asked. I mean, the authorization that was passed in 2001 was an authorization to root out al Qaeda primarily in Afghanistan. If you use the 2001 AUMF to suggest that anywhere any member of al Qaeda has ever been or transited through, then that is a permanent authorization for war without any congressional check in almost every single country in the Middle East and Africa. The fact of the matter is, I don`t think there`s a lawyer worth his salt who would tell the president that you can pervert the 2001 AUMF to invade Iran over a dispute that has nothing to do with their support for al Qaeda, by the way. I mean, we`re talking about invading or a at that being Iran because of their nuclear ambitions or because of provocations that have happened in the last few weeks. So we are all very worried about the president`s potential reliance on an outdated authorization or his just willingness to ignore the entire issue of authorization. He may just say that he has Article 2 authority to protect the United States and the Congress be dammed. That`s why we have to pass this legislation hopefully next week.

VELSHI: Now, we had heard perhaps it was the people at the Pentagon who cautioned against doing this. Maybe it was someone from the Joint Chiefs. We also have heard that -- we know John Bolton is hawkish on Iran. We know that Secretary of State Pompeo is. We`ve heard that Gina Haspel of the CIA was arguing for military action. Now, in the past hour, you notice I didn`t mention a defense secretary. In the past hour the president has nominated the secretary of the army, Mark Esper, to be the secretary of defense. How do you foresee this nomination process going? We`ve not had a permanent secretary of defense in sometime.

MURPHY: No, we haven`t and it`s actually tragic that it`s taken six months for the president to put this name forward. We were all bewildered as to why it took so long to put Shanahan`s name for it. Esper has much more practical experience than Shanahan. Yes, he does come from the defense industrial sector, but he also has history in policy and in military. So, I`ll be willing to take a look at his nomination. I`m glad the president has put it quickly before the Congress. His Twitter feed exposed to the entire world how absolutely out of control the decision-making process is inside the White House. Frankly, a new secretary of defense is not going to change that reality. The president does not consider facts. He makes it up as he goes along. This campaign of mindless escalation with Iran has had no end game behind it and I`m not sure that a new secretary of defense is going to cure those ails.

VELSHI: Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, thank you for joining us

tonight.

MURPHY: Thanks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source