MSNBC Hardball - Transcript

MSNBC  
SHOW: HARDBALL

HEADLINE: HARDBALL for September 2, 2003

BYLINE: Chris Matthews; Norah O'Donnell

GUESTS: Mitch McConnell; Rahm Emanuel; Roy Blunt; Howard Fineman; Frank Luntz; Ben Stein

HIGHLIGHT:
As Congress goes back into session after the long August recess, how prominently will Iraq's reconstruction figure in their agenda? Then, Senator John Kerry formally announces his candidacy for the presidency and takes aim at President Bush. Finally, the pulse of the California recall election.

BODY:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I'm Chris Matthews in Los Angeles. Let's play HARDBALL.

The "Big Story" tonight, as Congress goes back into session after the long August recess, how prominently will Iraq's reconstruction figure in their agenda? Senator Mitch McConnell will be here to answer that question.

Plus in the "Battle for the White House", Senator John Kerry formally announces his candidacy for the presidency and takes aim at President Bush.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will challenge George Bush for fundamentally taking our country in the wrong direction. Every piece of evidence tells us that this president has failed to make us as safe as we should be. (END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: And later, Republican pollster, Frank Luntz, will be here with a focus group of real California voters to take their pulse on the California recall race and what they think of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

But first, we begin with the latest in Iraq. In a funeral eulogy, a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi governing council, Abdul Aziz Hakim blamed the U.S. occupation for last week's bombing outside a mosque that killed his brother, Ayatollah Mohammed Hakim. He said, quote: "The occupation force is primarily responsible for the pure blood that was spilled in holy Najaf, the blood of Hakim and the faithful group that was present near the mosque. Iraq must not remain occupied and the occupation must leave so that we can build Iraq as God wants us to do."

Senator Mitch McConnell is a Republican from Kentucky. He's the Senate majority whip, the number two Republican in the Senate. Congressman Roy Blunt is a Republican from Missouri. He's a House Republican whip. And Congressman Rahm Emanuel, a former staffer of the Clinton White House is now the U.S.—United States Congressman from Illinois. Let's hear from everybody.

Let me hear from McConnell. Senator McConnell, how do we stop the blood in Iraq? How do we stop the loss of U.S. service people over there?

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY WHIP: Well, I think you could argue that Iraq is not as bloody for Iraqi citizens today as it was when Saddam was there, when he was terrorizing his own people. Look. We are going to stay the course, we're going to give the president the funds that he needs to finish the job, and I think most of the Iraqi people understand that they're a lot better off right now, even with the problems that are going on, than they were under Saddam Hussein.

MATTHEWS: How do we reduce the number of U.S. casualties? We just lost two fellows yesterday. How do we stop that, or do you think it's inevitable that that continue?

MCCONNELL: Well, you know, war is a dangerous business and being in the military is dangerous business. And while we regret every single loss of life, I think it is pretty hard to carry out a mission like this without anybody getting hurt, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Well, do you think that there should be a change in course here? We should continue as we're going?

MCCONNELL: Well, we'd be glad to have soldiers from other countries, many are sending them already, and we would be happy to have more and certainly we hope that others will help us finance what is likely to be a long-term effort there. We're in the process of turning much of the government over to Iraqi citizens. I think that's helpful as well. But we need to finish the job, you know. We need to not get faint hearted here. It's important to stay the course.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we should invite the United Nations to take over the civilian enterprise of nation building as a way of removing the targets from the backs of our G.I.'s?

MCCONNELL: Look, I think it's OK for the U.N. to be there provided that they're not in charge of American soldiers and not in charge of the overall operation. There's a role for them to play. They have been there. They have been the targets of this terrorism themselves. They understand what we're up against.

MATTHEWS: But they won't come in unless they're allowed to run the civilian operations, I understand. Isn't that correct?

MCCONNELL: Well, I think those discussions are underway. Certainly, we're not going to allow them to run the whole operation. Maybe there's a way to accommodate their interests. We're certainly interested in having help from others, even including the U.N., but we're not going to really, you know, turn the decision making over to the French or the Germans or the Russians.

MATTHEWS: You say that the price of war is casualties, and I think that's a definitional answer, of course. But, how long will this war be sustainable by the American public if it means five or 10 G.I.'s lost every week?

MCCONNELL: Well, it's hard to speculate about that. We know that military engagements can sometimes go on for a while. We've been in Bosnia for seven years, even though President Clinton said we would be out in a year.

MATTHEWS: How many men have we lost there?

MCCONNELL: We've not lost many lately because it's been a pretty safe operation, but this is not yet a safe place to be and this level of violence continues. It may take a while. And I think we ought to all counsel the American people to remember that this was a very, very important foreign policy decision supported by 77 members of the United States Senate, and we shouldn't get faint hearted and weak kneed here when the job is not yet finished.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about the problem of the governing body we put in place over there, the governing council. One of the members of the governing council I started the program with tonight, criticized the United States and said the United States, our occupation, this is one of the people we put in place, a Shiite member of that council, said that we were responsible for the death of his brother in that big explosion against the Shiite mosque the other day, that cost the lives of 100 people. What do you make of the fact that one of the people we put in, blaming us for the violence?

MCCONNELL: Look, they have free speech in Iraq now. We have things being said like that all the time routinely in this country and nobody is surprised by it. They're free to express themselves. That's not happened for at least 35 years there in Iraq, and everybody is not going to agree on every single issue.

MATTHEWS: Do you think the United States has the capability to bring together the Ba'athists, the people—the ex-Ba'athists, I would like to think and you would too, who were under Saddam Hussein. The Sunni Wahhabi types who are very anti-western. The more secular Sunni types. The Shiites who want to go along with a moderate period—a reasonable period of occupation, and those who want to destroy our occupation. How do we bring all them together.

I remember—remember George Bush, Sr., the first Bush president, he said don't go in there because we can't do that kind of thing. And Jim Baker agreed with him, and Scowcroft. Is it something we can actually think we can do is bring all these people that don't like each other into the same government? Is that reasonable?

MCCONNELL: Well, that was the first Bush's opinion before 9/11. This is all related to the war on terror. We need to track down the terrorists. It appears as if a lot of them have come to Iraq, and frankly, I would rather have them in Iraq than in Washington or New York.

MATTHEWS: Well, let's be reasonable. Outside agitators is an old excuse. But, the bottom line is the people killing our people there are Iraqis. And how do we get them all to agree on the same government? Is it any more feasible than it was before 9/11 that we do such a thing?

MCCONNELL: Well, it's not our job to get them all to agree. We're going to put them down in some kind of governing council that's beginning to evolve where they have an opportunity to express themselves and work out their differences among themselves. Our role there is the security role.

MATTHEWS: How do we get out of there alive and leave behind a moderate government that's workable.

MCCONNELL: Well, nobody said this would be easy and we're going to work on it and we're going to stay the course and it's going to take a while. I think everybody ought to just be patient.

MATTHEWS: Where are you on the question of troop levels? Would you like, Senator, would you like to see more U.S. troops on the ground or not?

MCCONNELL: Well, my title is Senator, not general. I am inclined to believe that the president of the United States and the Secretary of Defense and the military leadership can determine what the level of American troops ought to be, and I'm prepared to support that and I think most of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, would support that.

MATTHEWS: So you don't agree with Senator McCain who says we need more troops in there?

MCCONNELL: I'm going to take my lead from the Secretary of Defense about what level of American troops ought to be there. I think they're the ones in charge with the military and I'm likely to go along with their recommendations. I do think that Congress also is prepared to spend more money on this, and that will be supported on a bipartisan basis in spite of the fact that we'll have a lot of debate about it.

MATTHEWS: Even with the $480 billion deficit, we can still afford to spend more money on this enterprise?

MCCONNELL: Absolutely. It's more than an enterprise. It's directly related to the reduction of terrorist threats against the United States here at home. That's a very, very important task, and we intend to undertake it.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much. Great having on the show. Senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky. The number two Republican in the Senate.