MSNBC "The Rachel Maddow Show" - Transcript: Iraq Deployment

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Joining us now is Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut. Senator Murphy, it`s nice to have you here. Thanks for your time tonight.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D), CONNECTICUT: Yes. Thanks for having me.

MADDOW: So, you have said clearly that you want Congress to have a debate and hold a vote on military action against ISIS. Do you think that will happen though?

MURPHY: I think it has to happen. And I think there`s a growing recognition on both sides of the aisle that it must happen. In the lame duck session. Mainly for two reasons. One, it`s impossible at this point to ignore the constitutional imperative. The constitution in article one grants war-making power to the United States Congress and the United States Congress only. There is no existing authorization that permits this president to essentially deploy another several thousand troops to fight an enemy that has not been named yet by the United States Congress. And, so, we have a constitutional responsibility. But, second, Secretary Hagel referenced, it is incumbent upon us as a nation to make sure that we do not go into war, that we never go into war divided. We have a responsibility as Congress to debate this. And to authorize it so that we`re standing together. Now, I may not in the invoke for this authorization if it`s open ended.

But if the executive is been holding off on bringing an authorization to Congress because it`s hard, because it might not pass, then actually that`s the reason why it must come before Congress. Because the worst thing to have happen is for the President to authorize a major new deployment of troops without the support of the Congress, which is representing American people. I think we`re going to vote on this. I think we`re going to start taking up on the Foreign Relations Committee this week. And I agree with you, that I think there`s more that we could do, but this is pretty important.

MADDOW: The point that you just raise there about how people might vote on it, indeed how you might vote on it, depending on how it`s phrased and what`s specifically is been authorized or funded, I feel like that`s this really important black hole in this argument because the assumption is that Congress is unwilling particularly before an election to take any hard vote that might have partisan consequences. That might somehow divide people in a way that made one party look bad or one party uncomfortably look good or that might split a party. It`s not clear to me, at all, somebody who watches these things pretty closely, that there is any expected contour of how this vote would go. If I had to predict how this vote would go, either in numbers or attaching votes to personnel, specific personnel, I couldn`t do it. Does it seem clear to you that you would know how the vote would go?

MURPHY: No, I don`t. In part because we don`t know what the vote language of the authorization would be. But, listen, this is part of a large-scale, long term abdication of foreign policymaking by the Congress to the President. Foreign policy is hard deciding when to go into war. Especially in this new global order where there aren`t well defined enemies, it`s hard. And so, it`s easy for Congress just to punt and say, well, the President will take care of it. And if it goes wrong, we`ll criticize. I think, that`s largely why Congress didn`t weigh in on Libya, because it wasn`t an easy call when we wanted to have our hands clean, if it didn`t go well. But that`s not actually how the constitution says it`s supposed to work. You know, what the President is likely going to ask for is an open ended authorization. He`s only the president for two more years. I largely trust President Obama when it comes to setting policy in confronting ISIS. But I`m not sure who the next president is going to be - - that maybe more than anything, is the reason why democrats should step up and put some constraints on this authorization. Because this is a war that is likely going to outlast this particular president and we don`t know who comes next.

MADDOW: Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, your comments on this are both news making and also very clarifying in terms of what the stakes are. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it.

MURPHY: Thanks, Rachel.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source