MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews"-Transcript

Interview

MSNBC "Hardball with Chris Matthews"-Transcript

MR. MATTHEWS: Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania is a member of the Armed Services Committee. He's also a retired naval admiral. And Democratic Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota retired from the Army National Guard two years ago after 24 years of service. He's a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Let me go to Congressman Sestak. What did you make of the demonstrators? You were sitting up there in the committee bench. What did you make of the protesting today in the hearings?

REP. SESTAK: It's part of America. I joined the military during Vietnam. It just hearkened back to that. And they were giving their opinion. It disrupted it, but we just moved on. I don't think anyone seriously was disturbed by it.

MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, let me start with the serious questioning now. President Bush said in Australia -- he was quoted, and the White House is accepting that quote, "We're," quote, "kicking ass in Iraq." Did the testimony today by Crocker and Petraeus justify that kind of bravado?

REP. SESTAK: It did not, not at all. Look, we had a military man come in here who gave a good presentation. But just like in Vietnam, when we did body counts, today we saw violence counts. And it was quite interesting, but I can't think it's that relevant.

He said 2,500 al Qaeda had been killed. But when asked the question, "How many al Qaeda have grown since you collected that data?" he said, "I don't know." I ask different agencies and they tell me thousands have come. No, we can't even have the comprehensive debate we had because we didn't have what we needed there.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, who could tell us, is our military worldwide and here at home going to be impacted by that? Well, we already don't have any Army units (to put ?) anywhere in this world because the state of readiness here at home is so low. And then when he was asked the question, "Are you able to tell us if this is having an impact on the global on terror?" he said, "I'd have to refer you to someone else."

This isn't about Iraqi security. This is about American security. And we need to have a comprehensive debate on that. And just having General Petraeus bodes that we are now -- like Yogi Berra said, we've come to a fork in the road; we've got to take it. (Rutted ?) stalemate, or do we begin to have potentially a bipartisan approach to begin to redeploy from Iraq to salvage our army?

MR. MATTHEWS: Congressman Walz, this was "P" day, Petraeus day, but the president opened the hearings today basically by getting quoted as saying, "We're kicking ass in Iraq." Unfortunately, 64 percent of the American people say the surge hasn't worked; it hasn't had the impact. And that same percentage of Iraqis say it's made things worse. What did the testimony do to clarify the situation in Iraq?

REP. WALZ: Yeah, well, as far as the president's comments, we also heard "Mission accomplished" and "Bring it on." False bravado, unprofessional and uncalled for. General Petraeus's report, as I think Admiral Sestak said, no real surprises there.

The whole issue for many of us that's incredibly frustrating -- again, Joe hit on -- the state of readiness of our military and the president's willingness to continue down a policy that's failed. And in terms of the surge, nobody's debating whether we would get a little bit of bump in terms of security. The bump in security was meant to open up that window of opportunity for progress on the real important things that the president doesn't want to address, like the sectarian violence, the Ministry of the Interior that's nonexistent, and all the other issues.

So, yeah, I think that we heard much of the same. I believe that General Petraeus truly believes and is putting forward his beliefs on this. It doesn't change the fact that we need a broader strategy.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yeah, I was watching for the whole six hours, Congressman Walz, and I have to tell you, it's pretty frustrating to not hear the question put, at least not answered correctly. Twice congressmen tried to answer it. One time the congressman talked too much. The other time they Bogarted him; they ran the clock on him.

Simple question: How close are we getting to our goal in Iraq of a defensible, stable, democratic Iraq? They never talked about the mission today. They talked about the dangers if we leave, blah, blah, blah; no question, no information. Did you get, in watching all day, Congressman Walz, are we getting closer to our mission being accomplished?

REP. WALZ: Well, no. And that's coming not just from -- General Petraeus himself said that, that he's frustrated; very little progress towards the political solution that needs to be there. And that is the driving question.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, then, why are we there if we're not reaching the goal? I never heard of a --

REP. WALZ: That's the question. That's the question.

MR. MATTHEWS: You don't go somewhere to do something if you're not doing it. What are we doing?

REP. WALZ: You're absolutely right. And that's why we asked, Chris, for the time lines and the benchmarks, to let the Iraqis know we're serious about this. We've created a dependency and a welfare state in Iraq that they're letting kids from Minnesota do their fighting for them while they're bickering over small little turf wars. That's unacceptable, and it's weakening our national security.

MR. MATTHEWS: Let me go to Admiral Sestak. Congressman Sestak, you've been elected to Congress. Let me ask you; you've served in the military. You've got all the perspectives here. Did you notice Ryan Crocker, the ambassador, today when he was asked that question, "Why don't we stick it to these people like Maliki and tell them, 'We're out of here if you don't get your act together; we're pulling troops,'" and he said -- it was such a wussy thing to say -- he said, "Well, if we threaten to pull our troops out, they'll go to Iran for help."

Well, doesn't that tell us where they're going to end up whenever we leave, whether it's five years or 10 years from now? They're going to Iran. But that was his defense of why we don't push him a little.

REP. SESTAK: I asked a similar question of Ambassador Crocker when I was in Iraq several months ago. I actually believe the road out of Iraq is through Tehran. Everywhere I went in Iraq, and even today, you hear about this undue destructive influence of Iran.

MR. MATTHEWS: Right.

REP. SESTAK: We should be able to turn and pivot and actually have the diplomatic competence to deal with Iran. The head of the National Intelligence Council told our House Armed Services Committee if we are not there, Iran does not want an unstable Iraq or fractionalized government.

This is an opportunity to try to say, hey, if we have, first of all, more precipitous withdrawal than what General Petraeus is recommending, it will first shock the Iraqis into stepping up to the plate and no longer saying, "Inshala -- God willing, tomorrow."

Second, it then says to the Iraqis, "You have to own this. You don't want stability here." But it takes leadership to be able to deal, and deal diplomatically, with those (nations ?). And that's what's missing. And that key, the last arrow in our arsenal, diplomacy -- tough but firm -- is what we actually need.

MR. MATTHEWS: Congressman Walz, are we just the cork in the bottle over there, and that was the best case they could make today over six hours -- "If we stay there long enough, we'll avoid disaster, but the minute we leave, of course, there'll be disaster"? That's their argument for staying, the cork-in-the-bottle theory.

REP. WALZ: I find it interesting, too, is that they're arguing that we need to have this strong central government under al-Maliki, and yet the only thing they point to success on is in Al Anbar, where it's organically sprung up on its own. Many of us believe that these sheikhs and local leaders will be the ones that will have ownership in this. They will put their thumb on it, and they will suppress us like they have for centuries.

MR. MATTHEWS: Gentlemen, I'd take a look at those charts that Petraeus showed you today. I noticed they were doctored to the extent -- they run back many years. But if you look at them from the beginning of the surge in January this year to now in August, there's not a whole lot of movement positively. But they showed you the long stretch so it could make it look very positive in terms of the recent developments. Anyway, that's an outsider's view.

Thank you very much, Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania and Tim Walz of Minnesota.

Source