MSNBC "The Ed Show" - Transcript: Syria

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SCHULTZ: Under the War Powers Act of the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Question? Is this a new war or a big counterterrorism exercise? The 2001 loophole has members of Congress and the American people divided on whether the President is within his legal authority to wage a long-term air campaign in Iraq and Syria. Clearly, lawmakers, they must not think it`s a crisis.

Congress is not going to be in session until after the election.

Get your cellphones out. I want to know what you think. Tonight`s question, should the President have asked Congress for authorization for military action in Syria? Text A for yes and text B for no to 67622.

Leave a comment on our blog at ed.msnbc.com. We`ll bring you the results later on in the show.

For more, let me bring in Senator Barbara Boxer of California who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator, good to have you with us tonight. This is a...

SEN. BARBARA BOXER, (D) CALIFORNIA: Thank you.

SCHULTZ: ... This is almost round the clock operations in Syria and moments ago, Reuters reported that the new airstrikes will target oil facilities controlled by ISIS. What`s your reaction and is this what your expectation was?

BOXER: My reaction is the President is taking the fight to ISIL and I`m really glad he`s doing it. And the age-old debate about, you know, Congress` role versus the President, that will go on. And I think it`s very important we write a new resolution and I`m working with my chairman, Chairman Menendez, to do just that because it will come out of our Foreign Relations Committee.

But Ed, you know, if your house was on fire and you and your wife were home, you`d run outside, you get the hose, you put out the fire. You wouldn`t discuss your insurance policy and how much it covers, either the loss that you`re going to anticipate, you`ll do that later. It`s very important.

But I respect those who are -- I think saying the President should do nothing but I couldn`t disagree with them more than I do. They are wrong. This is a threat.

My goodness, I`ve seen intelligence, yes. But the American people have seen the videos of the beheading of two innocent American freelance journalists. So we know what we`re up against.

SCHULTZ: OK. So you want a new resolution and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is working on that?

BOXER: Yes.

SCHULTZ: Are you OK with the President...

BOXER: We are.

SCHULTZ: ... OK. All right. Are you OK or satisfied with the President waging a multi-year air campaign in this counterterrorism effort alone or is this a new war?

BOXER: I looked at this counterterrorism Ed and I voted for that, you know, resolution back in `01. There were two resolutions, one go after al- Qaeda and any affiliate. ISIL is an affiliate. This new group is an affiliate and the other was boots on the ground, war in Iraq, I voted against that but the one the President is relying on is the one I voted for.

Would I like to see it looked at again and we`re fine? Of course I do. But it seems to me to get off into some kind of debate while we are under threat, and we are. Let`s be clear about that.

And, you know, I said to John Kerry when he came before our committee, you know, and he said, "Well, we would love to have a resolution." I said, "I agree with you but knowing how things go here, you can`t even pass a resolution saying Happy Mother`s Day without a big fight, without a filibuster, without politics." So I said, "I hope you will move forward to protect the American people."

You know, that is in the constitution, that the President has that right and he is doing it. And I just wonder sometimes about my friends in the Congress who say, "Look at me, look at me, I`m more important" -- and let`s, you know, focus it back on the Congress. We have a war resolution that talks about going after terrorist. We are working on another one and in the meantime, the President has set for us a strategy, a new paradigm. He talked about it in a speech which I thought was brilliant.

One, we`re not going to allow a safe haven for terrorist who threaten us and the world but we are not going to occupy anymore. We`re not going to occupy land and we`re going to do it with the world. Good for him and good for us if we back him. And if we don`t back him, I think that would be dangerous for the American people.

SCHULTZ: Senator, if you`re OK with the resolution and law that passed in -- after 9/11, why do you need a new one?

BOXER: Well, I think the President had said also. It`s 11-years old, approximately. We`ve got to take a look at this and we can make it better but I`m not -- but what I am saying is while we`re working on a new resolution I don`t think the Commander-in-Chief can sit back while we have an offshoot of al-Qaeda planning to take out the Dornier aircraft. You can just imagine all of the pundits and all of the President`s enemies saying, "Oh my God, he sat back and waited for them to write a resolution and they went after one of our planes".

Ed, you know, the President is doing it right. He is using the authority he has. I think he`s on strong grounds to use it. He is seeking from the Congress new authority and I believe he is doing it the right way. He`s not putting American boots on the ground, and by the way, you asked a good question.

What would I like to put in that new resolution? I would say, I would like to take the President`s strategy and put it into the resolution where we will not allow safe havens for terrorist to threaten us but we are not going to be occupiers and put our combat boots on the ground and we`re going to do this with the world. That`s the kind of thing I`d like to shape.

SCHULTZ: Senator, finally tonight and I appreciate how candid you are in all of this and on point, and I agree. I think the President -- there are no easy options here.

BOXER: No.

SCHULTZ: Unfortunately, there are going to be innocent people who are going to be killed. Is that just war? I mean when innocent people start getting killed, how do we know that isn`t going to come back and bite the United States or any coalition in the opposition rendering judgment or inflaming the Middle East?

I thought the President`s speech today was very important. It was a generational pitch to young people explaining to the Muslim world...

BOXER: Yes.

SCHULTZ: ... the younger demographic that this is not who we are. We`re going after criminals. We`re not going after the Muslim faith. But when innocent people get killed, that jades the opinion of a lot of people, are you nervous about that?

BOXER: Well, of course we are all nervous about that. But I can say, that`s why what the President is doing, for the first time with the Arab nations, these Sunni nations are standing with us on this because this threat, you know, cannot go and we cannot sit idly by while this threats moves ahead. And it`s tragic when you have any collateral damage, and so that`s why we try so hard to pinpoint of what we`re doing. But we know that these terrorist will hide among the populace. Yes, it`s very dangerous and that`s what you need the whole world and what the U.N. said today was so critical taking a stand against terrorism.

I want to say this. Ed, I watched the President and I read his speech, every line of it. I hope all Americans will read that speech. It just shows that the world has changed and we`ve got to look at it in a very different way and the United States needs partners and that`s what this President stands for and I think it did take him time to come up with a strategy but I see it as a long-term strategy.

SCHULTZ: OK. Senator Barbara Boxer, great to have you with us tonight. I appreciate your time so much. Thanks so much and obviously we`ll come back to you for your opinion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source