MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews" - Transcript: Islamic State

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEWS: I agree with you completely. Let me go to Congressman Meeks on that same question. The president says no boots on the ground, but special forces are boots on the ground. They may not be marching along in a parade fashion, like a front line in a trench warfare situation or marching across Europe to get Hitler, but you start putting men on the ground there, special ops units, they could be captured. They will be killed. Do you think we should be doing that?

REP. GREGORY MEEKS (D), NEW YORK: I think Jim is basically right. You`ve got to have an overall coalition. And that`s why I think that the president has taken his time. You know, some were criticizing him, thinking that he should act in a knee-jerk way. No, he`s not doing that. He`s trying to make sure that we have our allies on board. It`s going to be the -- you know, a coalition of allies who also have things at stake, like the -- like those -- the Kurds and like those in -- in Iraq and Turkey and Saudi Arabia. They need to be all part of this.

Now, you do these things, I think, in a coordinated manner. So if, in fact, there happens to be one or two leaders that we know how to get, the way that he coolly and calmly got Osama bin Laden, then you may do that. But overall, you have to make sure that the Free Syrian Army maybe is the one (INAUDIBLE) we got to know who we -- who we are arming and training, that we have those kinds of troops on the ground to do the ground work.

But you coordinate it all, so that you can make sure that you can cut off the leadership, as well as get the people on the ground, but do it with other Sunni Muslims and other allied states, countries, so that we can make sure there`s a comprehensive approach to getting this done.

MATTHEWS: OK, let me go back to you with the same question I put to Mr. McDermott. Would you support a resolution giving the president authority to put special forces into Syria to fight ISIS?

MEEKS: Again --

MATTHEWS: Special forces.

MEEKS: Again, if the president --

MATTHEWS: Would you do that?

MEEKS: Yes, if the president lays out his case and talks about that we are having this overall coalition and that there`s going to be roles that each of us play, you know, as he did, you know, even when we went into Libya -- he said what the specific role that the United States would play, and he told the truth. And that`s what`s important, the president telling us the truth as to what his plans are and why he`s doing what he`s doing.

MATTHEWS: Well, it makes me think this is going to be a fraternity prank and we`re the only ones doing it.

Anyway, the president ran on his opposition to the Iraq war. He`s withdrawing troops from both Iraq and Afghanistan. He`s even won the Nobel Peace Prize.

But now he`s repositioning his presidency, after amping up surveillance, killing bin Laden, to helping to topple Gadhafi in Libya, and wanting to strike Syria. He will address the country about a prolonged conflict against ISIS.

Yesterday, the president warned about the dangers facing America if nothing is done. Let`s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want everybody to understand that we have not seen any immediate intelligence about threats to the homeland from ISIL.

That`s not what this is about. What it`s about is an organization that, if allowed to control significant amounts of territory, to amass more resources, more arms, to attract more foreign fighters, including from areas like Europe, who have Europeans who have visas and then can travel to the United States unimpeded, that over time that can be a serious threat to the homeland.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Let me go to Mr. McDermott.

I`m very uncomfortable with the phrase homeland. It strikes me as totalitarian. It`s a term used by the neocons. They love it. It suggests something strange to me. Like, who else are we defending, except America? Why don`t you just say America?

Why doesn`t he say, we defend against attacks against this country, as if we`re facing some existential Armageddon threat from these people? Do you buy the phrase homeland as a reference to America? I never heard it growing up, never heard it in my adulthood. It`s a new word. Why are we using it? Is there some other place we`re defending?

What are we talking about when we say homeland? What`s about it, this new lingo, WMD, homeland? It`s the language of the neocons. It`s a language to get us further into wars. Your thoughts, though. I want yours, not mine.

REP. JIM MCDERMOTT (D), WASHINGTON: Well, from my point of view, Chris, it`s more of the war-mongering that George Bush used to get us in, in the first place.

We started out hearing it was about weapons of mass destruction. That was untrue, absolutely untrue. And he knew it. But he took us into this war. And then it was about getting Osama bin Laden. And after that, it was a democracy, and after that, it was the awakening of the people out in the Anbar province.

And they have been shifting, but it`s all about war-mongering, trying to make people at home afraid, because they know that if you can make people afraid, you can make them do anything. And they have to keep the American people afraid for him to carry on this kind of stuff.

And I don`t like the term homeland and all this, because it`s really war- mongering.

MATTHEWS: Let me go to David --

MCDERMOTT: The ISIS right now is stuck trying to deal with Iraq. They got dams and they got all kinds of things they`re working with. They`re not coming to the United States.

MATTHEWS: Let me go to David on this, because you and I talk about the ideology involved in this. I do fear the president, although he may be doing what he knows or thinks he has to do, but he`s buying into the lingo. He is. Dempsey starts talking like this, then he starts talking like it.

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID CORN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: This is the challenge he has.

If you go back to the Bush years -- and they have portrayed Saddam Hussein as an existential threat. It was zero or 10. You either wanted to get rid of him --

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: There`s not going to be a U.S. anymore.

CORN: Right. Exactly. It would be a mushroom cloud.

The president has the challenge here of trying to talk about ISIS in a realistic way. It`s not a direct threat to us now. It`s a threat to the region. It could be a threat to us down the road, in a way that sort of still gets some political support to take step-by-step action.

So what he wants to have is to have a somewhat nuanced conversation. Now, you know, when it comes to the neocons and people and the hawks, they don`t like that. And on the -- his -- his supporters on the left sometimes are uncomfortable if you talk in those terms like homeland.

So if he can come before the public and sort of talk honestly about why ISIS is a problem, without it being an existential dramatic problem, that`s what he has to do.

MATTHEWS: The people who pushed us into Iraq, gentlemen, are the same people pushing right now, Robert Kagan, the ultimate neo con, on "The Wall Street Journal" page, review page, this weekend, a whole page about how this is all about fighting Hitler. This is just like fighting Hitler.

This is just Munich.

What are they, nuts?

Anyway, late today, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about building a global coalition to destroy ISIS. Let`s hear him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: Tomorrow, I will travel to the Middle East to continue to build the broadest possible coalition of partners around the globe to confront, degrade, and ultimately defeat ISIL.As we build this coalition, I want to underscore that almost every single country on earth has a role to play in eliminating the ISIL threat. We are clear that President Obama and I and the entire team absolutely understand this is something we must achieve and we will be successful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Congressman Meeks, last question to you.

Would you support the president if he said, we have got to go in there, the Americans have got to go in there and do it, just us?

MEEKS: No, I think the president has said, he`s not going to do that.

The president has been very clear. I think it would have been easy for him to say something that would make people fearful. I agree with Jim that`s what was done before. What he said here and the reason why I think he utilized the term homeland is to distinguish from the immediate attack here in the United States, as opposed to what is taking place in Syria and Iraq now, so that -- and he`s been clear.

He`s saying -- others, I think the ones that are really wanting war, they`re trying to make it seem like it`s an imminent threat on the United States. He`s clearly said, it`s not. He said it could be in the future if they were left unchecked. But by putting this coalition together and dealing not on the homeland, but dealing there and to do what we have to do there, then we won`t have to work -- worry about the homeland, we will keep the homeland safe in that regard.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source