MSNBC Hardball-Transcript

Interview

MSNBC Hardball-Transcript

MATTHEWS: Thank you, David Shuster.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois is the majority whip in the U.S. Senate. He visited Iraq late last year. Senator Durbin, are we going to get anywhere with this back and forth between the Democrats in Congress and the president on the war date? Is anything going to happen here?

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: I hope we can make some progress, Chris. But I have to tell you something. I don‘t think that the Bush administration is really envisioning any change. They just want to send more troops, more American soldiers, into the midst of this civil war. We‘ve lost 3,324 American soldiers, as your lead-in said. This war has gone on longer than World War II. This president does not have a plan, and that‘s what we‘re trying to force, a new plan, a new direction in Iraq.

MATTHEWS: What would you like it to be?

DURBIN: Well, I think the president should take an honest look at it.

We‘ll use the benchmarks he‘s given us, see how Iraq is doing. If they‘re doing well, then we can start bringing our troops out slowly and turn this war over to them. If they‘re refusing to respond to their own deadlines, their own benchmarks, then I think the writing is on the wall. At some point, the Iraqis have to stand up and defend their own country, and American soldiers need to start coming home.

MATTHEWS: You just set up an option plan where both options call for removal of American troops.

DURBIN: That‘s right. That‘s right. And...

MATTHEWS: Well, then, why do conditions matter, if under any condition, you want to bring troops home? If things are going swimmingly over there, we bring the troops home. If they‘re going disastrously, bring the troops home. So why even look at conditions? Just bring them home.

DURBIN: If things are going well enough, we would continue, of course, our troops for obvious purposes, to hunt out al Qaeda terrorists, to train the Iraqis and to make sure that the force removal is safe. But honestly, if there are people within the Bush administration who now want to accept the permanent presence of 100,000 or more military troops in Iraq, I think they‘re just—in a policy or at least pushing a plan...

MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s what...

DURBIN: ... that‘s indefensible.

MATTHEWS: ... Hillary Clinton is, isn‘t she? She says she wants to keep a residual force.

DURBIN: Well, everybody‘s talking about some residual force.

MATTHEWS: But Hillary‘s talking about—your party‘s probable candidate is talking about keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely. She doesn‘t use the term "permanent basis," but she damn well says keep troops over there after this surge.

DURBIN: But the Democrats have been consistent about bringing the combat troops home, leaving behind those troops necessary to hunt out al Qaeda terrorist, train the Iraqis and to protect our troops as they‘re leaving, but not a permanent military force. I haven‘t heard her say that, nor many Democrats, if any.

MATTHEWS: Well, you ought to check her statement out because she talks about a residual force to protect U.S. vital interests in the region, including Israel. It‘s a very clear statement about enduring interest and an enduring force to meet those interests. I mean, maybe this is politics on her part, but she‘s not talking about getting out of there. She‘s talking about staying there.

DURBIN: Well, Chris, I haven‘t heard Senator Clinton‘s plan. I know Senator Obama‘s plan, and it‘s a plan that would start bringing these troops home.

MATTHEWS: Are you pro-Obama over Hillary?

DURBIN: Yes, I am.

MATTHEWS: Even though Hillary‘s promised to make her husband a roaming ambassador?

DURBIN: Listen, the Clintons...

MATTHEWS: Don‘t you like that word, "roaming" ambassador? It used to be "roving ambassador." Now she‘s going to make him a roaming ambassador. I have no idea what that means.

DURBIN: I‘m not sure, either. But the Clintons are a great family. They‘ve given a lot to this country, and Senator Clinton is a terrific colleague. I‘m supporting my colleague in Illinois for the presidency.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about a couple of little problems over in our war over there. Do you think the Kurds are going to get so excited about having their own country in Kyrgyzstan and Iraq that they‘re going to bring about a war with Turkey?

DURBIN: I hope not. Turkey has been our ally in many of the important struggles that we‘ve had in the late 20th century. And now, as we embark on the 21st century, I want to keep peace between the United States and Turkey, and I hope we can work it out for the Kurdish people. These are people who have oppressed and displaced for such a long period of time. They‘re looking for some stability in their own lives and their own future.

MATTHEWS: But this is what all the old hands predicted would happen. The Sunni and Shia would go to war, the Kurds would seek independence, the whole place would come apart. And whatever post-colonial power or do-gooding democratizing power that went in there would be stuck trying to hold it all together. And that‘s where we are now.

DURBIN: Chris...

MATTHEWS: The guys who knew the region predicted all of this, and still people like Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer and people like that voted to authorize this war. I don‘t know how you can share a caucus with these people who still support the war when you‘re so opposed to it.

DURBIN: Chris, there are 23 of us who voted against this war. I was one of them. I did it based on what I knew at the time. But I‘m not going to second guess my colleagues. You know, that‘s a hard call in terms of the war and going forward, and they made their best judgment under the circumstances.

MATTHEWS: Are they ready to join you, or are they still playing at—pussyfooting and still trying to support a residual force over there, not quite being with Harry Reid when he says the war is lost, always trying to distinguish themselves from the Democratic majority on this issue? Have you noticed even today they‘re doing that?

DURBIN: Well, I can just tell you this, Chris. The Democrats in the United States Senate are agreed that this management of the war in Iraq by this administration has been handled very poorly and that the American troops need to start coming home. There are differences of how we might achieve this, but keep in mind the Bush White House is in denial about the serious disintegration of this situation over there. It‘s grave and deteriorating, in the words of the Iraq Study Group, and that‘s a reality.

MATTHEWS: What do you think of this idea that our armies over there are building a wall like they have in Northern Ireland—you‘ve seen those terrible walls up there—or the wall they have in Israel to keep the terrorists out, between the Israelis and the Green Line? Now they‘re building a wall over in Iraq. Are we—we‘re the wall-building country. The Iraqi government over there told us to tear down the wall, like they‘re telling Gorby—we‘re telling Gorbachev to tear down the wall. How did we get in the wall-building business if the people over there who supposedly run that government don‘t want a wall?

DURBIN: And how did we get in the business of occupying a country where they basically want us to leave? You know, this has gone on too long. And in defense of what‘s been said and where I stand, our military has done a fine job. Our military has won the war, deposing Saddam Hussein, giving these people a chance for their own constitution and their own government. What‘s been botched is the occupation policy of this administration.

MATTHEWS: Right. And it‘s set by the administration, not by the generals. How can the president continue to bamboozle the public by saying it‘s the Democrats against the generals? The generals are under orders. You guys keep letting him say it‘s you against the generals. It‘s you against the president, who‘s telling the generals what to do. Do you think the generals came out with this wall idea?

DURBIN: The president is the commander-in-chief.

MATTHEWS: I know. I know.

DURBIN: Ultimate responsibility here. And I think our soldiers have done a great job. I‘ve been over there. I‘ve met with them. I have no complaints whatsoever in the fine job and bravery that they‘ve shown. But the policies of this administration—this has been the worst foreign policy mistake in our nation‘s history, and it‘s on this president‘s watch.

MATTHEWS: Is there any chance—I respect your independence, Senator. Is there any chance that this president will create a transition, a bipartisan transition, and move out Cheney, move out Condi Rice, bring in new people like he brought in Bob Gates and really create a bipartisan transition government, or is he going to stick with what he‘s got right through the end of his term?

DURBIN: Well, if history is any guide, he has such a shrinking circle of true believers, Alberto Gonzales and Cheney and Secretary Rice. I think he wants to keep them by his side to the end. And unfortunately, that means there‘s little hope for the bipartisanship you‘ve asked for.

MATTHEWS: I think the public wants bipartisanship right now. They don‘t want to lurch to the left. They don‘t necessarily want the Democrats. I think they wanted to see some bipartisan thinking and action and maybe some head-rolling, like we saw with Rumsfeld.

Anyway, thank you very much, sir, Senator Dick Durbin, majority whip of the U.S. Senate.

Source