MSNBC "Hardball With Chris Matthews" - Transcript

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Let‘s start with today‘s talks with Iran. Democratic congresswoman Loretta Sanchez of California is a member of the Armed Services Committee. She joins us. Republican congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan is member of the Intelligence Committee, as well.

Congressman Rogers, you first, this question. Has the president moved ahead today by staking out a rule, two weeks from now, if Iran has not given the international inspectors unfettered access to the facility we‘ve discovered at Qom, we‘re going into action ourselves, it‘s going to get tough for them? What do you think of today‘s developments?

REP. MIKE ROGERS ®, MICHIGAN: Well, unfortunately, it‘s just a little bit more of the same. And you remember that September was the deadline where they were supposed to give all on their nuclear program. Well, we haven‘t quite gotten there yet. We‘re getting close to being in October here. It‘s created a real problem.

And here‘s the other thing, Chris. The president knew this when he gave his speech in Cairo. He knew it when he was talking to the United Nations last week, and it was just very, very tepid. And it‘s created a whole bunch of problems in this one sense. Iran knows if they just stall a little bit, they can continue to continue to build and enrich uranium, and that‘s what they‘ve done all along.

MATTHEWS: And you believe the president‘s not going to do anything about it?

ROGERS: Well, he hasn‘t shown me anything yet, even though he knew about this second facility a long time ago. And that‘s what I‘m concerned about. As a matter of fact, they told the French they didn‘t want to get into all that ugly Iran stuff because they wanted to make sure that his, quote, "image of success" was protected. That is the wrong way to deal with a country like Iran, who is determined to get a nuclear weapon.

MATTHEWS: OK, let‘s talk about that. Let‘s go to Congresswoman Sanchez. Your thoughts about the president‘s performance today, where he said two weeks‘ notice. He also wants the Iranians to ship their nuclear material to a third country for conversion for peaceful uses. He wants hard evidence now, starting today, that they‘re going peaceful, that they‘re not going nuclear weapons.

REP. LORETTA SANCHEZ (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, Chris, first of all, I would have to agree that we can‘t trust Iran, and they have certainly shown it at this point. And the problem is that we‘ve been working in a coalition trying to get all the important countries that in some ways have been helping Iran maybe to get to this technology or who have not put sanctions in the way that we need to, to be able to force some very strong sanctions against them.

So discussing this and telling Iran, OK, now we know that you have it, we need to see it, and by the way, we need to see everything, we want to see everything--and yes, I think he‘s right when he says that he wants that uranium moved to a third country. That‘s very important with respect to what he‘s put forth.

MATTHEWS: OK, I‘m skeptical about a lot of this talk. Let me go to Congressman Rogers, and then Loretta Sanchez, Congresswoman, you can jump in here, as well. The question is, do we really have the clout to stop Iran from doing what it‘s doing? You know, you can talk about sanctions. I‘m a very skeptical person about sanctions. I watched them for years against South Africa. It wasn‘t until we really got tough that anything happened over there. Sanctions--we wouldn‘t eat Polish ham for about 40 years. That didn‘t do much good. I‘m not a big believer.

Do you really believe there‘s any way we can get the Chinese and the Russians on our side and really cut them off to the point where they‘re bleeding?

ROGERS: I do. And as a matter of fact, I argue if you can continue to go through the United Nations alone for this, we won‘t be successful because the Chinese and the Russians have watered down every resolution. They‘ve stalled. They‘ve vetoed. They‘ve threatened to veto.

What we need to do is get our European allies--and by the way, when

the French are saying we‘re not tough on Iran, that tells you we got some

work to do here--and get those European allies, who I think are eager for

U.S. leadership on this, to do very tough U.S./European sanctions, we can -

· especially with refined gasoline. Remember, they can‘t refine enough gasoline. They have to import refined gasoline.

You start attacking the things that will impact their economy right now, you‘ll bring them to their knees. And more importantly, you‘ll send a message to all those Iranians who protested in the street and said, Hey, this is ridiculous, that, You know what? The world is watching. The world is with you. And you don‘t want a nuclear Iran. We don‘t want a nuclear Iran. Maybe we can work something out.

MATTHEWS: Who doesn‘t want a nuclear Iran? You think the people in the streets don‘t want a nuclear Iran?

ROGERS: I think what they don‘t want to be is isolated from the rest of the international community.

MATTHEWS: No, no, no. Wait a minute. You think they don‘t want a nuclear Iran, the people in the streets, the so-called reformers don‘t want it?

ROGERS: I think they don‘t want to be isolated from the international community, and any issue that gets us to that point with that particular group, we ought to be with them. They don‘t want to be isolated.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Look, Congresspeople...

ROGERS: This is an opportunity not to be isolated.

MATTHEWS: ... there‘s a huge "if" here. That is, when we start getting tough with Iran, their nationalist hackles don‘t come up and they don‘t rally around the flag. That‘s what I‘m always afraid of with these countries. But I know it‘s a Catch-22. And my question is, what are we really threatening them with, in the end? Do they really think we‘ll ever attack them? Congresswoman Sanchez, do you think you would ever support an attack on Iran?

SANCHEZ: I think it would depend on what we have in our hands to do that with. Obviously, we‘re engaged in two different wars right now, so the reality is that it‘s not just about an attack, it‘s about how can you sustain something, because obviously, they‘ll hit back. And who else will be with you?

So I think one of the reasons why we‘re looking at dialogue, why we are looking at diplomacy and we‘re hoping that works, and if it doesn‘t, why we have been talking to our allies--and you know, I think Mike believes that sanctions will work. I believe that sanctions can work also, but only if these allies are with us. And they haven‘t been in the past. Now, we‘ve been talking to Russia. They‘re just as worried about this nuclear issue with Iran as we are, so that‘s a positive.

But yes, there are some wild cards out there. China, for example. We really don‘t know whether they‘re going to be with us if we put sanctions because in order to put sanctions, it‘s not just the European allies. And by the way, that (INAUDIBLE) things went through them over to Iran. We need to make sure that we have everybody lined up and that we can put sanctions on.

ROGERS: That‘s right.

SANCHEZ: And that takes time.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you, Congressman Rogers...

ROGERS: Well, I don‘t think...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Now, you say--I understand your thinking here. You want to get us together and lead the Europeans, the French, the British, et cetera, the Germans. But isn‘t sitting down with them and making this last college try with the Iranians one way to get them to join our team, so they can keep their left-wing allies quiet in their own countries by saying, We tried the peaceful route? Isn‘t this a way to get to where you want to go?

ROGERS: Think about all this big hubbub with the announcement, the disclosure of the second facility. And what happened today? We agreed to have more talks. And oh, by the way, they‘ve said, Listen...

MATTHEWS: No.

ROGERS: ... we‘re not talking about...

MATTHEWS: He gave them...

ROGERS: ... our nuclear program...

MATTHEWS: Why are you so tough on the president?

ROGERS: But every--every time...

MATTHEWS: He‘s doing what you want him to do.

ROGERS: But every--listen, no, I‘m not touch on the president, I‘m tough...

MATTHEWS: He gave them two weeks‘ notice.

ROGERS: ... on Iran, and I think the president is not being tough enough on Iran. And he needs to step it up. Listen, this thing is happening, you know? This is what worries me most, Chris. It‘s not about the image of success for President Obama. If Iran gets...

MATTHEWS: I‘m not talking about that.

ROGERS: If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that means Turkey gets a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia gets a nuclear weapon, Egypt gets a nuclear weapon. And the danger and destabilizing factor of that is terrifying to me. And what we need to do is say, Listen, that is a non-starter. So what are we going to do today?

MATTHEWS: OK. You know...

ROGERS: You want bring the Russians and the Chinese on board? Then go tough sanctions with our European allies. We can‘t wait for the U.N. They haven‘t...

MATTHEWS: And you believe...

ROGERS: ... been able to pull it off.

MATTHEWS: You believe it‘s wrong of the president to try to bring our allies aboard by meeting with them today. You think there‘s some other way he could have gotten them to join him in tough sanctions than meeting?

ROGERS: Absolutely.

SANCHEZ: It‘s important...

ROGERS: The French president said that this president isn‘t being tough enough on Iran. That‘s a clear...

MATTHEWS: You guys...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... so Franco-phobic! Every time you have to make a joke, a cheap shot, you bring in the French in some kind of xenophobic stupidity...

ROGERS: Last I checked...

MATTHEWS: ... to play to the yahoos.

ROGERS: ... France is part of the European union.

MATTHEWS: You‘re laughing. It‘s not funny. I know what you‘re doing here. Every time you guys make a point, it‘s with this--using the French to jump off from. It‘s not about a joke. It‘s about getting serious allies who are conservative governments...

ROGERS: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: ... in Europe--how many conservative governments you got there? You got Merkel...

ROGERS: Chris--Chris...

MATTHEWS: ... you got Sarkozy, you got Berlusconi...

ROGERS: ... you‘re right, but when Sarkozy...

MATTHEWS: ... and you‘re probably going to have...

ROGERS: ... comes out and says they‘re not...

MATTHEWS: ... Cameron soon.

ROGERS: ... tough enough, that‘s a problem. I mean, listen, when the French are saying it‘s not--we‘re not tough enough, and it‘s a problem, you‘re right, it‘s not a joke. It means that we ought to be concerned that our position in the world is degrading. We want to be leading. We need to be leading on this issue. There is so much at stake, and a nuclear Iran is dangerous for the world and it‘s dangerous for us...

MATTHEWS: I know, I know, I know, I know.

ROGERS: ... and it‘s dangerous for the Europeans.

MATTHEWS: I know that.

SANCHEZ: Mike, you know...

MATTHEWS: The problem is--look, I‘ve been hearing talk about sanctions against the Iranians for years now, and I always hear sanctions against somebody. All I know is we ended up going to war with Iraq after all the sanctions. Sanctions didn‘t stop two wars with Iran--with Iraq, rather. We went to war with Afghanistan. We go to war.

SANCHEZ: Chris?

MATTHEWS: And it seems like, in the end, that‘s what everybody‘s talking.

SANCHEZ: Chris, the worst part...

MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Are you for war with Iran?

SANCHEZ: Chris?

MATTHEWS: I‘m just asking both of you.

SANCHEZ: Chris...

MATTHEWS: Would you ever support an American strike on Iran?

Congressman Rogers first. Would you ever support one?

ROGERS: Well, I mean, you don‘t ever say ever. You should never take it off the table. I think there are a lot of great things we can do before that‘s an option, but you can‘t take it off the table or you stop them from coming to the negotiations.

MATTHEWS: So you‘re using war as a threat.

ROGERS: No, no. I‘m using sanctions as a threat. You‘re using war as a threat. But I think you have to...

MATTHEWS: No, I‘m asking you.

ROGERS: ... leave it on the table. No, no. I‘m just saying there‘s a whole panoply of things you have put on the table.
MATTHEWS: OK.

ROGERS: A military strike has to be one that you would consider.

Doesn‘t mean that‘s what we‘re advocating for.
MATTHEWS: OK.

ROGERS: I don‘t think either Ms. Sanchez or myself would say that.

MATTHEWS: Well, I‘m trying to put this--I don‘t think there‘s a real fight here. It seems like the issue of two weeks is a stupid thing to argue about. Let me go to you, Congresswoman. If the president gives two weeks‘ notice to the Iranians, and then he sounds like he should get on the track that Congressman Rogers says to get on, which is to get the Europeans together, our easier allies, then go to a larger alliance and try to really do a suffocating sanctions regime that really, really squeezes them on petroleum--not petroleum, on gasoline, on refinement, so they can‘t even move their cars over there. Is that where you‘re at?

SANCHEZ: Well, we certainly have been talking to our allies. We‘ve been talking to Russia. We‘ve been talking to China, to India. It‘s going to require the entire world if we‘re going to be doing sanctions.

But I just want to go back to something that my colleague said. I mean, way back when, we were deciding whether to go to war with Iraq, the fact of the matter is, many of us thought Iran was a bigger problem. And unfortunately, by now having used our resources in Iraq, we‘re not in a position to use military force in Iran, not for the long run. You can do a strike, but then what?

So the answer is, we have to work on bringing the rest of the people of the world together with us to do sanctions. But more importantly, we should try and we should give two weeks to the President Barack Obama to try to get--to try to get our investigators in there...

MATTHEWS: OK, Congresswoman...

SANCHEZ: ... and our inspectors in there.

MATTHEWS: ... there‘s one little problem with your argument, OK? And you ought to take it to heart. Your leaders in the Democratic Party rolled in 2002 and went with the president‘s war with Iraq for political reasons. They all did. John Kerry did. Hillary Clinton did. Chris Dodd did. They all did. Except for the president. They rolled. Most of your leadership rolled for political reasons because it was easier to support the war than to fight it. You know why? Because they‘re afraid they‘d be blamed if they didn‘t support the war. They chickened out.

SANCHEZ: And Chris...

MATTHEWS: That‘s why you can‘t make that case anymore...

SANCHEZ: I certainly--Chris...

MATTHEWS: ... because too many big shots in your party...

SANCHEZ: Chris, I certainly...

MATTHEWS: ... supported the war.

SANCHEZ: ... can make the case because I voted against that war.

MATTHEWS: But you‘re not a leader.

SANCHEZ: And my number one reason was because...

MATTHEWS: But you‘re not a leader.

SANCHEZ: ... I worried about what was going on with Iran.
MATTHEWS: OK...

SANCHEZ: Well, we just have to stand up and we have to tell people what we believe...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... and we have to vote against it when it comes forward.

MATTHEWS: Well, you got too many softies in the leadership of your party that just want to get on deck with every war that starts. Anyway, thank you, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. Congressman Rogers...

ROGERS: Hey, Chris, I loved it...

(CROSSTALK)

ROGERS: ... beating up on the Democrats!

MATTHEWS: I don‘t know--OK, OK. Let‘s do the same old French jokes again. The fact of the matter is that Europe is moving to the right. We‘ve got a lot of allies over there. Let‘s get together. Two weeks is hardly worth arguing about. Why don‘t we come back in two weeks and see what the president‘s got, what he‘s going to do here or just more talk.

Coming up: President Obama‘s heading to Copenhagen, hoping to win the 2016 Olympics for his Chicago hometown. Is this smart politics, or is this hometown politics, or is he doing it because the mayor told him to? Let‘s find out when we come back.

You‘re watching HARDBALL.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source