NBC: "Meet the Press" - Transcript: The Middle East

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Joining us now is Congressman Adam Schiff of California, senior Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee.Congressman Schiff, thank you very much for being with us. I appreciate your time tonight.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: You bet.

MADDOW: So, that was a rambling rundown of a lot of different things going on. I have to ask you in your position on the intelligence committee if the way that I am explaining things is wrong in any way, if I`m explaining things in a way that you understand them to be under consideration by the U.S. government right now?

SCHIFF: I think you`re explaining them very well. I think the administration is looking at a range of possible options both in Iraq, in Syria. They`re asking the military, OK, what are the different scenarios here? What can we do? What would the effect be?

But I have to say, Rachel, I think the administration is going to conclude that military strikes, airstrikes in Syria don`t make sense at this point. I don`t think Ben Rhodes wants to rule them out indefinitely, and certainly if there was an effort, we had a good opportunity to rescue some of those other journalists or there was an imminent plot, they`re not going to want to say never.

But we don`t have the same capabilities on the ground in Syria that we do in Iraq. We don`t have our intelligence people on the ground in Syria. We don`t have a government we can work with in Syria. We don`t have a capable fighting force like the Kurds in Syria.

And as I think General Dempsey pointed out, limited air strikes, alone, aren`t going to have much effect unless they`re done in conjunction with boots on the ground and as part of a well-coordinated effort.

MADDOW: In terms of what the U.S. is doing in Syria, and making those -- well, we know that the U.S. has taken action in Syria in terms of its special operations raid that was disclosed this week by the White House. They said they wouldn`t have planned on disclosing it, but they had to. They felt they had to because media outlets were going to report on it, anyway. We know that there has been some limited action inside Syria already.

Are you saying that we shouldn`t see that as sort of the camel`s nose under the tent? That isn`t the start of anything that the U.S. feels like they`re going to continue doing or that they could continue doing in Syria? That was a one-off?

SCHIFF: Well, I think you`re right to be concerned that there`s a great potential for mission creep, but that potential exists on both sides of that nonexistent border. If you look at what the president set out as the objectives initially in Iraq just a couple weeks ago, it was protecting our personnel and avoiding genocide of the Yazidis on that mountaintop.

Well, most of the sorties lately have been around the Mosul dam, and unless you accept the argument that if the dam broke, it could flood our embassy 300 miles away, it`s a pretty slender legal read to say that`s to protect our people in Baghdad.

So, that mission has already expanded, and the risk of it expanding further when the goals are pretty broadly defined I think is very significant.

One final point, Rachel, and that is, Congress really does need to be engaged in this just as you say. The authorization to use military force that are in existence now don`t apply here. They don`t apply in Iraq. And they certainly don`t apply in Syria.

They don`t apply because ISIL is not part of al Qaeda, and they don`t apply because the terms of the Iraq authorization are completely in opposite to the current situation.

If we are going to escalate either part of a broad coalition or on our own, the Congress needs to be a part of it. The Congress needs to authorize it.

MADDOW: Why isn`t the congress doing anything on it? Obviously, Congress is on vacation right now, but that`s easily remedied.

You have said, in the past, that, and you`ve said recently repeatedly that the Congress needs to weigh in on this, that as you put it, the slender legal read for what we`re doing right now ought to be addressed, that we shouldn`t be doing this on sort of constitutional auto pilot.

Is Congress going to step up and what would make them that hasn`t made them thus far?

SCHIFF: Well, I have to say, I`m skeptical. You know, I think the vacation may be convenient right now for the administration, may be convenient for the Congress in the sense that the Congress doesn`t like to deal with the really tough problems. We haven`t wanted to deal with Guantanamo, haven`t wanted to deal with what kind of due process we should provide there. We haven`t wanted to deal with existing antiquated nature of the authorizations that the administration is already acting under even before this latest Iraq outbreak.

So, we have a history of abdicating the really tough calls and the administration knowing how dysfunctional we are isn`t necessarily eager to drag us in and await our permission.

So, right now, the vacation suits both sides, but the reality is I think from a constitutional point of view, we in the Congress are really derelict in what we should be doing and that is having a vigorous discussion with the administration right now about where they`re headed, and whether we have the votes in Congress and the support of the American people behind that effort.

MADDOW: Your lips to God`s ears, sir.

Congressman Adam Schiff of California, senior member of the Intelligence Committee, thanks for being with us on a Friday night. I appreciate it, sir.

SCHIFF: Thanks, Rachel.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source