MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews" - Transcript

Interview

MATTHEWS: Joining me now is U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, and Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio. Both are members of the House Armed Services committee.

Congressman Sestak, make the case for why we should change the deployment from those fixed positions in the Czech Republic and Poland to the more mobile approach facing--in fact, focusing on the medium-range missiles, rather than the ICBMs.

REP. JOE SESTAK (D-PA), ARMED SERVICES COMM.: The National Intelligence Estimate that came out in June said that the long-range missile threat is some time distant in the future. But right now, there‘s a short and medium-range threat from Iran from their missiles that they are increasing in production.

So what we have is our troops in the Middle East, Israel and southeastern Europe, including Turkey, even when the Bush administration‘s plan, by 2017, to put the GBIs, ground-based interceptors, in the Czech Republic and Poland, won‘t even cover any of that threat. So by having an upgrade on our already sea-based infrastructure, Aegis ships, we will have immediately an ability to protect our troops, Israel and southeastern Europe.

As that capability of Iran potentially develops, there‘s a four-phased upgrade on the Aegis ships that gives as good a capability as the ground-based interceptors would do in Europe, around Israel, the Middle East, and almost as good back to the United States. What a smart move at less cost, more immediate capability.

And then you can pivot and say to Russia, How about helping us diplomatically and with economic sanctions on Iran that would force it not to produce a nuclear weapon?

MATTHEWS: OK...

SESTAK: What a great, great plan.

MATTHEWS: Congressman Turner, what‘s your problem with the president‘s decision to redeploy?

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH), ARMED SERVICES COMM.: Well, the problem with the president‘s decision is he‘s creating a false choice. He‘s saying that short-range and medium-range missiles must be dealt with immediately. Therefore, we can‘t address the issue of ICBMs and the continuing (ph) threat to the United States. And that just really isn‘t where we ought to be. We ought to take very seriously the threat from Iran to the United States. The plan that the Bush administration...

MATTHEWS: Do they have ICBMs?

TURNER: The plan--well, they‘re--every intelligence estimate indicates that, by 2015, that they will have the capability of ICBMs.

But, of course, that‘s the--the current intelligence estimates.

They could accomplish that much quicker.

But the plan the president has put on the table doesn‘t protect the United States until 2020. The plan he just scrapped would have protected the United States by 2013. And it was the most cost-effective plan.

In fact, my subcommittee--I‘m the ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee--just received a briefing at the beginning of this year with a classified report. This is the unclassified version.

And this report concludes, an independent assessment, that, in fact, the most cost-effective system, the one that would have protected the United States by 2013 and that was most cost-effective, compared to the Aegis ship system that Representative Sestak just had, was the one that the president just scrapped. Cost-effectiveness and protect the United States earlier, that was pretty important.

MATTHEWS: Let me get back to Congressman Sestak.

The question here is our relationship with Putin. Everybody who has told me anything who knows anything about this knows we need Putin‘s help if we‘re going to put the cap on the nuclear potential of Iran. How does this fit with that goal?

SESTAK: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: This redeployment to the mobile forces?

SESTAK: The administration has based this on the technical feasibility, having it more rapidly there.

And, in fact, the IDA study, of which I read, that Mike mentions actually won‘t be implemented until 2017, because it was based upon starting this system five years ago. That‘s why the study is actually out of date.

But we‘re now able to say to Russia that, look, no longer do you have this stick in your eye, although the United States has the same capability, putting it at sea. So, therefore, you can help us have economic sanctions, diplomatic sanctions with Iran, because they have helped them on their nuclear reactor business. And now we need them to close the land routes economically if we are to apply sanctions on Iran, if it does continue to pursue its nuclear capability.

This is the use of our military in a political, military way. And it does give us the same capability at sea actually much more immediately.

MATTHEWS: Isn‘t this a question, Congressman, of fighting the new war against Iran, rather than fighting the old war against Russia?

TURNER: Well, perhaps...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Are we in danger of being attacked by Russia in any way?

TURNER: Perhaps Representative Sestak should reread this report, because I have it in front of me. And it says the proposed European deployment is intended to be operational by 2012, 2013, and provide full-time coverage.

I have asked Secretary Gates to release the classified version of this. I have the declassified version here in front of me. It is 2013. And that‘s the real important issue, is that the president is scrapping a program that would have provided protection for the United States from ICBMs by 2013.

MATTHEWS: OK.

TURNER: The intelligence estimates currently say 2015. Iran could do it quicker -- 2015. The president comes up with a plan 2020, clearly a five-year gap...

MATTHEWS: OK.

TURNER: ... and says, I‘m going to be doing it quicker. He‘s...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: We just got a report, or I‘m just getting it right now from

Reuters, the British news service, that the Russian president, of course,

Medvedev, is pleased by Obama‘s decision--quote--"‘The fact they are

listening to us is an obvious signal that we also should--we should also

attentively listen to our partners‘"--that‘s us--"‘our American

partners," Medvedev said in an interview with the Swiss meeting ahead of a

meeting next with Obama--quote -- ‘In politics, there‘s always a

scorecard.‘"

What is wrong with getting better relations with the Soviet--with the former Soviet Union, with the Russians? What‘s wrong with that?

SESTAK: There‘s absolutely nothing with that.

TURNER: Nothing wrong with having any--there‘s nothing wrong with having good relations with Russia. The problem is, is that it shouldn‘t come at the expense of the defense of the United States.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Defense against whom.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I‘m sorry. I‘m trying to get a focus.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Who are...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let me go to Congressman Sestak.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Who are you afraid of, the Iranians or the Russians, in terms of missile attack, the Iranians or the Russians?

SESTAK: I would...

MATTHEWS: Who is our primary threat?

SESTAK: I would be much more concerned about the Iranians. That‘s why we want to get an immediate capability out there...

(CROSSTALK)

SESTAK: ... on these Aegis ships to protect against the short and long.

(CROSSTALK)

SESTAK: And, if I could, Michael--please, Mike, if I could....

(CROSSTALK)

TURNER: ... which the system that was proposed would have done.

SESTAK: ... the problem with the study is that it doesn‘t take into account that it started--this is assuming signed ratifications with the Czech Republic in Poland, a signed implementation agreements, and also a requirement that nothing can be starting to be built until the two-stage GBI is tested.

That won‘t be until 2012. That‘s why it‘s five more years after that, to 2017, before you can even get this built out there.

(CROSSTALK)

TURNER: All of this beats the president‘s plan of 2020.

You can‘t deny that the president said--it is right up on the White House Web site -- 2020.

Now, Chris, with respect to Russia, you have to understand, this is a defensive system. Russia is requesting that we abandon a defensive system. Now, why would they do that? I don‘t know. But I certainly don‘t think that them asking us to abandon a defensive system is in our best interests.

MATTHEWS: Well, why do you think they want us to do that?

TURNER: Well, one thing is for certain, is that, when they ask us to abandon a defensive system, they‘re looking to their offensive systems.

And we‘re entering--start negotiations with them by a concession by this president up front, where he has received nothing for that concession. Historically, there‘s been no indication ever that conceding to Russia early is going to get you greater concessions later.

Now, having a good relationship with Russia is important, but for what end? They certainly have not supported us with respect to Iran and sanctions to Iran to stop their nuclear program or their missiles--missile program, nor has Iran...

(CROSSTALK)

TURNER: ... nor has Iran indicated that they‘re willing to be influenced.

(CROSSTALK)

SESTAK: What is very interesting is...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I thought we needed the Russians with Iran. I guess we see things differently.

(CROSSTALK)

SESTAK: But, Chris, if you could...

(CROSSTALK)

TURNER: The Iranians have not shown that they‘re willing to be influenced. And Russia has shown no interest in influencing them.

SESTAK: But, you know...

MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Congressman Sestak.

SESTAK: Absolutely.

It is interesting. Even once the GBI system in the Czech Republic and Poland were to be established, it basically has a capability, a very de minimis capability against--against a missile or two that can‘t handle any decoys whatsoever.

That‘s why it is absolutely useless against a very sophisticated adversary, like Russia. Now...

TURNER: That‘s why it‘s so curious. Why would we abandon a defensive system?

(CROSSTALK)

SESTAK: Now, when you sit back, we can work with Russia.

(CROSSTALK)

SESTAK: And, for instance, we have worked with it very well as we influenced it to try to bring it well to work against North Korea in the past.

(CROSSTALK)

SESTAK: This is truly how--how political, military relationships should be done...

MATTHEWS: OK.

SESTAK: ... enhancing our capability by moving Russia to help with us Iran. Great move.

MATTHEWS: OK.

TURNER: Clearly, a defensive system. We should not be abandoning it.

MATTHEWS: OK.

TURNER: We should not be conceding to Russia before we even start negotiations.

MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you very much, Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio.

SESTAK: Thanks for having us.

MATTHEWS: Thank you, Congressman Joe Sestak, running for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania.

SESTAK: Enjoyed it, Mike.

Thanks, Chris.

TURNER: Thanks.

MATTHEWS: Former Admiral Sestak, I should say.

Source