MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews - Transcript
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
The Iraqi prime minister is scheduled to speak to Congress tomorrow in a joint meeting, but some Democrats want House Speak Hastert to cancel him. They say the prime minister and members of the Iraqi leadership, the freely-elected Iraqi leadership, are on the wrong side of the Israeli conflict. Because of that, Representative Janice Schakowsky of Illinois says the Iraqi P.M. should not address Congress. Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina disagrees.
You first with the proposal. Congresswoman, why shouldnt a leader of a country were allied in a war speak to us?
REP. JANICE SCHAKOWSKY (D), ILLINOIS: A hundred and two people, heads of states, have spoken before the Congress. This is real privilege. We have now the leader of Iraq, whos reflecting views that are closer to those of Iran than to the United States of America, in singularly condemning Israel as opposed to even mentioning Hezbollah, who was the aggressor in this attack.
And weve also had now the speaker of the Parliament in Iraq using blatantly anti-Semitic remarks, saying the Jews and sons of Jews are the problem of all the violence thats in Iraq. I think he should come here, I think we should have conversations, but addressing a joint session of Congress, no, I dont think that he should be offered that honored position.
MATTHEWS: Congressman McHenry, your view?
REP. PATRICK MCHENRY r, NORTH CAROLINA: Well Ill tell you, I completely disagree with what the prime minister said. I think it was wrong, horribly wrong, but having said that, we have 130,000 fighting men and women from the United States in Iraq today. If he shouldnt address the House of Representatives in a joint session, I dont know who should. But let me tell you, Chris, what the prime minister should have said, that we in the United States as well as Israel and as well as Iraqi people, have the same common enemy and those are Islamic extremists and thats what he should have said, rather than blaming Israel for this.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Congresswoman Schakowsky. Thanks for joining us. You havent been on before. Do you think the Iraq war was a smart move for us or for Israel? One at a time. Was it smart for us to topple Saddam and allow the Shia-led government take office thats in office now, led by Maliki.
SCHAKOWSKY: Well, I was a very strong opponent of the war, in fact, one of those who went door to door to my colleagues and thus achieved 60 percent of the Democrats voting no against this war.
One of the rationales for this war-and Dick Cheney expressed it very clearly-was that regime change would empower the moderate forces, would work against the Jihad forces and, in fact, would help to establish Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. It couldnt be further from the truth, and I think ...
MATTHEWS: Why was he wrong? Why was Wolfowitz and the other smart guys, well educated, highly experienced foreign policy analysts and advocates, why were they dead wrong do you think?
SCHAKOWSKY: For some reason, they had this ideological view that we had the power-it was so arrogant-that we could somehow reshape the Middle East and its politics. In fact, now were seeing the results of that. I think those who are saying what have we wrought, thats an appropriate question. Now were seeing that the prime minister has condemned Israel, is tacitly, in some ways, supporting Hezbollah as a consequence, and expressing anti-Semitic remarks. Its completely unacceptable. Why is he coming tomorrow? Are we supposed to hear now the good news about Iraq.
MATTHEWS: Well, did you ever seen the movie "Frankenstein"?
SCHAKOWSKY: I have.
MATTHEWS: This guy was man-made. We created-you know, you talked right there about the old neoconservative argument that the road to Jerusalem ran through Baghdad, that this was the way it had to be to bring out all those parties to the table.
But what has happened is weve given Hezbollah basically a Shia crescent right across Iraq, and now they have got Hezbollah unleashed. Theyre a powerful country now and they have tentacles.
Let me ask Congressman McHenry your view. Has the Iraq war been good for the United States? Pause. Has it been good for Israel?
MCHENRY: Ill tell you, the Iraq war, when we succeed, will be a positive, a net plus for our foreign policy. Right now, its not an easy war. This is not peaches and cream and the whole idea we could win this war overnight is a faulty premise, but it is a tough war that we have to win and when we win, it will be far better for the Middle East and for our internal security. Let me just add this, Chris ...
MATTHEWS: But you have to admit that it was premised upon a cake walk, a slam-dunk with regard to WMD being found there, the Iraqis would pay for the war according to the chairman of the economic advisors and that oil flowing into the United States cheaply. All those promises were made. None of them came true. This is the gang that couldnt shoot straight in this regard. Do you admit that?
MCHENRY: Look, Chris, I wasnt here for that in Congress, but let me tell you, there have been mistakes made, and I said that in the newspaper just last week. I think there have been mistakes made by the administration. However, were there, we have to succeed, we have to win and the best way to do it is to have security on the ground.
Its a matter of choices, Chris. Thats what this is all about. In a perfect world, the prime minister would not be my choice. However, Im not a voter of Iraq. Let me tell you, beyond that ...
MATTHEWS: But you did know that the Shia control had the most numbers of people in Iraq and that if there was going to be an election, a Shia would win. And if you look at the Shias in the Middle East and the way theyve behaved towards us and the West, running Hezbollah against us, having Iran as their capital, you must have expected if you studied this issue that we would face a very hostile country eventually if it was going to be led by the Iranian-led Shia, didnt you?
MCHENRY: Who is more hostile, though? Who is more hostile, Saddam Hussein or Maliki? I would tell you, a democratic government ...
MATTHEWS: I would argue that anybody in that region would say the Iranians are far greater of a threat to everyone in that region than that crazy Saddam was.
MCHENRY: But, Chris, what were saying-what were saying, Chris, is its a choice.
MATTHEWS: And that is a judgment you have to make, and you made it. You thought Saddam was more of a threat. I think you were wrong. MCHENRY: Well, let me tell you this, Chris. Let me tell you this, Chris. Look, that was not my decision here, but let me tell you first of all, its a choice. Who would you rather have, Saddam Hussein or a Democratically-elected government? What would be better for Israel, Malikis horrible words or Saddam lobbing scuds at them, which they did during the Gulf War? MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Congresswoman.
SCHAKOWSKY: That was never the choice. It wasnt do nothing about Saddam Hussein or go in there and invade and overthrow his regime. There actually was an international protocol in place that actually could have isolated and defanged Saddam Hussein.
This has-now we dont know who the enemy is and now we dont even know who the good guy is, the head of the country taking a position very differently from the United States, and attacking-at least verbally-the only democracy really in the Middle East.
MCHENRY: Chris, let me just add one thing. This is a matter of ... MATTHEWS: You know, excuse me. I have got to break, Congressman. We have to break. I want to tell you, I want to salute you both. This is the kind of debate that America could have had in 2001 and 2002 and did not. I think its the medias fault we didnt force this debate on the American people. I appreciate greatly your thoughts. They are both very clear and I appreciate both points of view. Thank you Congresswoman Schakowsky of Illinois ...
SCHAKOWSKY: Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14042012/