MSNBC Hardball-Transcript

MSNBC Hardball-Transcript

MATTHEWS: In a moment, we‘ll talk about Romney‘s odds and talk about the presidency with Democratic contender Senator Chris Dodd. Plus, odd things in the Scooter Libby trial. HARDBALL‘s David Shuster has the story.

But first, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the big debate in the House. Mr. Leader, thank you for joining us. I want some solution to a problem I‘ve been trying to figure out. A lot of people, including Hillary Clinton, they‘re saying they voted for the resolution back in 2002 to allow the war in Iraq because they thought the president wouldn‘t use that power, that somehow he would use sanctions or negotiations and avoid going to war.

We‘ve just checked the polls back then. At the time the Congress including you voted to give the president that authority, 70 percent of the American people believed the war with Iraq was inevitable. Why didn‘t you think it was inevitable? Why didn‘t Hillary Clinton think it was inevitable when you gave the president the blank check to attack?

REP. STENY HOYER (D), MAJORITY LEADER: Well, I don‘t know whether we thought that war was inevitable. What I know Hillary Clinton and I did not think was that the policy would be prosecuted by Rumsfeld, by Wolfowitz, by Bremer and by the president in an incompetent fashion.

I thinks that‘s really what has so stunned me and I think stuns the American people, that the intelligence was so wrong, that the representations were so wrong, that the president‘s conclusion that the mission had been accomplished on May 1, 2003 was so wrong. And that is why in my opinion, my vote certainly was a mistake. Had I had any knowledge that the president would proceed in such a fashion that was clearly not a fashion for success, as he said, none of us voted for failure. He‘s right. It was a mistake.

MATTHEWS: Barack Obama said this Saturday when we‘re out there covering his announcement for president that he thought the war was ill conceived from the beginning, in other words, a bad idea. You don‘t agree with that, you just think it was badly handled?

HOYER: Chris, as you know, my premise for authorization was different than most. It was not on weapons of mass destruction, it was not on preventative strike.

It was on the fact that conditions had been imposed upon Saddam Hussein and the United Nations had unanimously concluded he had not complied with those conditions and he was shooting at our planes in the no-fly done.

In addition to that of course, in 1998, we voted for a law which was passed by the House and Senate overwhelmingly, signed by President Clinton which said it was the policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein, who was perceived as an international criminal.

The problem from my perspective is that we have prosecuted that effort in a way that went way beyond that objective. We removed Saddam Hussein, went way beyond that objective, and the president then came into nation building, which he had severely criticized in 2000.

MATTHEWS: But the Iraqi Liberation Act said nothing about the use of U.S. force, military force.

HOYER: No, that‘s correct. But it said it was the policy of the United States to accomplish that objective. In any event, Chris, what we‘re doing today is having a debate on whether or not we believe that the president‘s proposal to escalate, by 21,000 the troops we have present in Iraq is a policy that will bring success.

Almost all the military leaders on the Maliki government, the American public, clearly do not believe that will work. I think you are going to see on Thursday or Friday, probably when we vote on Friday, that the significant majority of the Congress does not agree either.

MATTHEWS: Well you‘ve got a majority of the people behind you, according to the latest Gallup poll. Let me ask you, why are you refusing the Republicans plea for an alternative? Usually you get a vote to recommit with instructions so that the Republican leader, the minority, who votes against passage or takes that passage can offer an alternative. Why not give the Republicans a chance for an alternative resolution?

MATTHEWS: Well, let me tell you what we did. Chris, we believe that the American public deserves a clear answer to the president‘s proposal.

The Republican president, the leader of our country, the commander in chief, has made a proposal. We decided that unlike the Senate, which got very confused, and in gridlock on the whereas and therefore classes, that we would put a very simple proposition on the floor.

And that was essentially two premises. A, we support the troops and we‘ll protect the troops. B, we do not support the escalation of the president‘s proposal and don‘t think it will work.

We want a very clear vote on that issue, unconfused by other propositions. There will be time, as I have said, in the very near future on the supplemental, on the defense appropriation bill and on the defense authorization bill, all of which are coming up in the near term to make those other views known, but on this debate, we wanted a very clear question asked and a very clear answer given.

MATTHEWS: Well, I think it‘s great that you‘re voting. I‘m just asking about the formal questions. I also wonder if Congress is ready to take a strong stand, insisting on your right as the Congress to agree whether the president attacks or takes military action against Iran. Do you think a resolution like that would be in order, should be in order?

HOYER: I think there‘s going to be action on that. I think we may well, as soon as we come back, make a statement on that legislatively that we believe that if the president is going to take action or contemplates action against Iran, he needs the authority of the Congress to do that, yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, you‘re an extremely good head counter. You won the majority leadership because you know how to count heads, I think almost to the one you got it right. So let me ask you now that you‘re in victory here as the leader, can you predict now how many Republicans will join this non-binding resolution this week?

HOYER: I like to think I‘m a pretty good head counter of the Democrats. The Republicans are more speculative. We will leave that to the vote on Friday.

MATTHEWS: Do you have a benchmark of success, sir?

HOYER: No, I don‘t have—a benchmark of success is passing this resolution, which I think we‘ll do and will be bipartisan, as you know.

Congressman Jones from North Carolina is a co-sponsor. I‘m confident we‘re going to get a number of other Republicans, some 20 Republicans, have publicly made statements in opposition to the president‘s policy.

And two members of Congress, one of whom the ranking member on the intelligence committee, indicated that if we make this argument on the escalation or on Iraq, we will lose. So I think there is a very great discomfort level on their side of the aisle about this vote. They know it is risky. They know where the American people are. They may want to side with the administration for political purposes, but for their own purposes, for the constituent purposes, I think they‘re going to have a great pull on them to vote for this resolution.

We see that in the United States Senate where you have seven Republican senators who voted to delay debate and not proceed on the Warner Amendment, who now are saying, including John Warner himself, "Gee, we really ought to go ahead on this." And as a matter of fact, Olympia Snowe saying the House is making us look bad by proceeding on a debate on the most important question concerning our country.

MATTHEWS: Well, we have a new poll that shows that seven out of 10 Americans are watching Congress to see how they vote on this and they say that they vote and they say that if they vote the wrong way, they‘re going to remember that come election time.

You know, Mr. Leader, you and I were grew up in a country where presidents were very attune to Congress and respectful of it, especially those who came out of Congress like Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy and even Richard Nixon. They watched the Congress, they paid attention to it and they cared about its legislative duties.

This president, and I know you respect him as we do, as president, but he came out and said the other day that he‘s not even going to bother watching the floor debate. He doesn‘t even want to hear about it. He‘s got other things to do. He is going to treat you, the first branch of the Constitution, as if you‘re Katrina, not to be paid attention to.

Does that bother you constitutionally that the president doesn‘t think this major debate on where war is something he‘s not going to bother to watch on television?

HOYER: It certainly does. And although he said that, I can‘t believe that the White House is not watching this very closely. My belief is that they are watching it very closely.

Furthermore, on a more humorous, but unfortunately real sense, Barney Frank made the observation the other day that some Republicans were saying this was only an advisory resolution, it was a non-binding resolution. Barney Frank made the observation, which is unfortunately too true, that even when we pass legislation, that the administration then signs a letter, and says, "Well, it‘s really non-binding."

So whether it‘s a resolution that‘s not compulsory or a statute that is, this White House has too often ignored what the constitutional branch of government which is supposed to make policy says.

MATTHEWS: Well, you know, I have to say as an American—and this is totally non-partisan—the more Congress reclaims its power over war and peace, the healthier this country‘s going to be.

Thank you very much...

HOYER: Chris, if I can add...

MATTHEWS: Sure.

HOYER: ... we‘ve had 52 hearings in the last six weeks on Iraq in the various committees in both the House and the Senate. In the last Congress, as you well know, it a complacent Congress that did not affect oversight or accountability. So there has been a really new direction in the Congress of the United States in terms of oversight on this war and other policies.

MATTHEWS: Well, I hope the blank check that was written in 2002 was the last because presidents should either have war declared or not. They shouldn‘t be allowed to declare it at their will.

Anyway, thank you very much, U.S. Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17152644/