Transcript of Hardball with Chris Matthews, May 1, 2007, 7 PM

Guests Paul Eaton, Steve McMahon join host Chris Matthews

Transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Roger and I are back.

The president is going to be speaking. He‘s going to be speaking from what is called the Cross Hall in the U.S.—in the White House, actually. It‘s a long hallway you see oftentimes in the backdrop of a presidential press conference, when you look at it from the point of the view of the East Room, looking down towards the state dining room. That‘s the hallway that connects the main part of the White House.

I‘m not sure why that spot has been chosen. I imagine he will have his back to the doorway that opens in to the very historic East Room.

Roger, what do you think of this setting? The president really is setting up a very historic occasion to explain his veto late this afternoon of the war spending bill.

ROGER SIMON, CHIEF POLITICAL COLUMNIST, THEPOLITICO.COM: He wants this to be momentous. He wants this to be a defining moment of his presidency and a defining moment for the Republican party.

He is saying he is standing up to a party of defeat. He is standing up to Democrats, who, as John McCain said, you know, are celebrating defeat, who want to wave the white flag. And this is where he draws his line in the sand, between the Republican Party, who supports this war, and the Democratic Party, who is against this war.

MATTHEWS: That was a strong political position several months ago. But the latest NBC/”Wall Street Journal” poll shows that the public, by 2-1, is more nervous about the president being stubborn than they are about the Congress overreaching.

SIMON: I think it‘s a real concern. I think his veto will be upheld this time. But this is a clash, an issue the Democrats are going to revisit time and time again.

And barring some momentous change on the ground in Iraq, a great disaster on the one hand, a great victory on the other, it‘s hard to believe—it‘s hard to see how the president‘s position doesn‘t erode over time, and how, eventually, he doesn‘t give ground to Democrats and to Republicans.

As November of next year draws closer, Republicans are going to get very, very nervous about this war...

(CROSSTALK)

SIMON: ... and more and more of them are going to slide over.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: The position of the American Indian, the Native American, in fighting the settlers eroded over time, of course, but they won the Battle of the Little Bighorn. And they beat Custer.

Could it be that we‘re looking at a rerun of the old Newt Gingrich mistake? Which is, yes, the country wanted less government; they supported the conservatives when they came in ‘74 -- or ‘94 and ‘95, when they won that big Gingrich revolution, the Contract with America, until it reached the point where the Republicans in Congress challenged the executive authority of the president with the government shutdown.

And, all of a sudden, the country shifted and said, wait a minute. Whatever problems we have with Bill Clinton, he is the only president we have got. Could that happen here, where the issue shifts from, should there be a deadline for the war, which the public supports now, to, are we funding the troops or not?

SIMON: Well, it‘s possible. I think part of the Bill Clinton victory was that he was a far more likable candidate and better salesman than Newt Gingrich was in selling his positions.

But you‘re right. He spoke with one clear voice, and the Republicans had scattered voices. On this issue, the hope of George Bush and the Republican Party is to sell two things. One, we are protecting the troops by providing these funds, and the Democrats are turning their back on the troop.

And, two, by fighting this war, by fighting terror in Iraq, we keep the terrorists from coming home and killing Americans in their beds as they sleep or as they go to work.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: And this is the horrible conundrum we face, because, when you talk to people who support the war heartily with the president, all the way with him, like Ken Blackwell a few moments ago, the former secretary of state from Ohio, they admit—well, it‘s not a matter of admitting.

They point out, as everybody does, that a lot of the people we‘re killing are coming in from out of Iraq, from other countries. They‘re suicide terrorists being recruited out of that sea of hostility against us over in that part of the world.

And how do you stop that recruitment? It‘s almost like, you know, the

the NFL draft. They just keep recruiting these people to commit suicide. And it‘s very hard to stop a person by killing them if being killed is what they are seeking to get done. It‘s a real conundrum, isn‘t it, to win a war against people who are running at you to get—to blow themselves up?

SIMON: It‘s extremely difficult when these insurgencies are based in

on religious grounds.

Classically, you end insurgencies not by defeating them militarily, but by making them part of the process. Take a look at Ireland.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

SIMON: You power-share. You make them part of the mainstream. When the mainstream turns against the insurgents, the insurgents can‘t exist anymore. They are not enough insurgents...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, unfortunately, that is not happening, because, just today, we are looking at the possible resignation from the Maliki government...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... of a good number of Sunnis. And they‘re the only people that can represent their people, that minority of 20 percent who are waging this war against the majority Shia.

Most Americans don‘t want to deal with this—these issues of these sectarian groups over there. But we have got to deal with the fact this is the war we‘re fighting.

Let‘s bring in Pat Buchanan and Steve McMahon.

Pat, I want to ask you to try to analyze this—it‘s a horrible word for it, but game that is going on. It is heavy stakes, 100 Americans killed this month. More will be killed in the future as this war goes on. But this political back-and-forth—the president vetoes the bill this time. Two weeks from now, they get another bill back at the president, perhaps, and then the president has to veto it again.

At what point does he say, wait a minute, you are cutting off funds for the troops?

PAT BUCHANAN, NBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I think he‘s going to say tonight that this bill is basically a formula for an American defeat in Iraq by an immediate withdrawal, or withdrawal beginning in October, that this cuts off the troops, that it gives the enemy a message.

Look, I think the president of the United States is deadly sincere. I agree with Roger. This is historic. The president is saying, you stand with us or you stand with them, and they are the party of defeat here, all those who voted for this. I want no deadlines.

And I think, in the short term, Chris, the president of the United States will, as you suggest, win this battle. I think the Democratic Congress will split inside its caucuses. They will give him the money. There will be some deadlines. But I doubt that they will binding, in the sense, if something really terrible happens, if they‘re not met—I think he wins in the short term. I believe this, though.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No. Let me—no, don‘t agree with me too quickly.

I think the Democrats win tonight. I believe, when it gets down to the short hairs, when it gets down to the question, are we actually cutting off vital funding of our soldiers in the field, their reinforcements, their fighting ability, when is that going to happen?

Let me bring in Steve McMahon here.

Steve, it seems to me the president has mentioned the date May 15 a couple weeks ago. When that happens, when he says, at this point forward, not enough training, not enough equipment is going to the troops, what do the Democrats say then about getting a bill to him that is clean?

STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think the Democrats are going to get funding—going to get a bill that is going to provide funding for the troops, but they are going to do it incrementally.

And this is going to—this is going to all come home to roost on the president when the Republicans cave in on him. And you now have Congressman Blunt and Congressman Boehner talking about specific benchmarks that the Iraqi government will have to meet. And the conditions that they‘re placing on the benchmarks if they‘re not met are things like where the troops can be positioned inside the country.

So, this is a situation that is coming to a head partly because the Democrats won Congress and are forcing it, but also partly because the Republicans in Congress are reading the same polls, Chris, that you and I are.

They know. Anybody who has to stand for election in November of ‘08 knows that this is going to be the issue against which they are measured. And, if they don‘t heed the call of the American people to find a way out of this conflict, everybody on that ballot is going to be in trouble.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I agree with that.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I think being a Republican now, in this war fever right now, it‘s almost impossible to get victory east of the Mississippi. And that measure, Pat, that may be moving further west as this war goes on...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... where it becomes almost impossible to win.

BUCHANAN: Chris...

MATTHEWS: Yes, sir.

BUCHANAN: ... you look at the debaters Thursday night, when you are talking to them. Almost all will support the president, because I will tell you what is going on here.

This is even larger. This is Bush‘s war. It‘s Cheney‘s war. It‘s Rumsfeld‘s war. It‘s the neocons‘ war. What is being set up now is that these guys who voted us into the war in the Congress turned around and took a walk and cut off the troops when we were late in the battle. That‘s right. And he‘s setting it up for the Democrats‘ defeat: They lost the war.

MATTHEWS: Right.

BUCHANAN: That is what is being set up here. And that is why the president—his cards—he‘s only got so many cards. And they‘re not that high. And, in the long run, the country, I think, is turning against the war. But that is what he is setting up for the future debate on who lost Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Are you saying that he is willing to throw the game?

BUCHANAN: Oh, no, I think he wants to win it. But he does believe, if this goes through, we are going to lose it. And he‘s going to say so.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Steve, do you think that is true? Does anybody—let me go—let‘s bring in General Paul Eaton just for a second.

Major General, you have written a letter to the president, questioning his claim that he is speaking for the troops.

MAJOR GENERAL PAUL EATON (RET.), U.S. ARMY: I have, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Well, make your case, General.

EATON: This—this bill, and, when you attach a timeline to it, the audience is not the American people. The audience is not the—our enemy. The audience is really the al-Maliki government.

And, throughout my career and throughout most soldiers‘ career, there is a timeline discipline. You attach a timeline to discipline the process. And, right now, we have got an open-ended situation. The Iraqis are playing us along, the Iraqi government. And they are not pursuing the benchmarks that they agreed to and the timelines that they agreed to.

We‘re talking about the reinstatement of the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: OK.

General—hold on, General.

We have the president coming right now to the lectern.

Here is, the president of the United States.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave young men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed the bill.

Tonight, I will explain the reasons for this veto and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.

Here‘s why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill

the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1, and it would have to start no later than October 1, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you plan to start withdrawing. All the terrorists would have to do is mark their calendars and gather their strength and begin plotting how to overthrow the government and take control of the country of Iraq.

I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments. Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure. And that would be irresponsible.

Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means America‘s commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion. And we must not impose it on our troops.

Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits, and not as a part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach and that there are not enough votes to override the veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They have sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need.

Our troops are carrying out a new strategy with a new commander, General David Petraeus. The goal of this new strategy is to help the Iraqis secure their capital, so they can make progress toward reconciliation and build a free nation that respects the rights of its people, upholds the rule of law, and fights extremists and radicals and killers alongside the United States in this war on terror.

In January, General Petraeus was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate. In February, we began sending the first of the reinforcements he requested. Not all these reinforcements have arrived in Baghdad. And, as General Petraeus has said, it will be the end of the summer before we can assess the impact of this operation.

Congress ought to give General Petraeus‘ plan a chance to work. In the month since our military has been implementing this plan, we have begun to see some important results. For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car bomb network. They have captured a Shia militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers. They have broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood.

Last week, General Petraeus was in Washington to brief me. And he briefed members of Congress on how the operation is unfolding. He noted that one of the most important indicators of progress is the level of sectarian violence in Baghdad. And he reported that, since January, the number of sectarian murders has dropped substantially.

Even as sectarian attacks have declined, we continue to see spectacular suicide attacks that have caused great suffering. These attacks are largely the work of al Qaeda, the enemy that everyone agrees we should be fighting.

The objective of these al Qaeda attacks is to subvert our efforts by reigniting the sectarian violence in Baghdad and breaking support for the war here at home. In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all al Qaeda‘s global campaign.

Al Qaeda—al Qaeda‘s role makes the conflict in Iraq far more complex than a simple fight between Iraqis. It‘s true that not everyone taking innocent life in Iraq wants to attack America here at home. But many do. Many also belong to the same terrorist network that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, and wants to attack us here at home again.

We saw the death and destruction al Qaeda inflicted on our people when they were permitted a safe haven in Afghanistan. For the security of the American people, we must not allow al Qaeda to establish a new safe haven in Iraq.

We need to give our troops all the equipment and the training and protection they need to prevail. That means that Congress needs to pass an emergency war-spending bill quickly.

I have invited leaders of both parties to come to the White House tomorrow and to discuss how we can get these vital funds to our troops. I‘m confident that, with goodwill on both sides, we can agree on a bill that gets our troops the money and flexibility they need, as soon as possible.

The need to act is urgent. Without a war-funding bill, the military has to take money from some other account or training program, so the troops in combat have what they need. Without a war-funding bill, the armed forces will have to consider cutting back on buying new equipment or repairing existing equipment.

Without a war-funding bill, we add to the uncertainty felt by our military families. Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better.

Here in Washington, we have our differences on the way forward in Iraq, and we will debate them openly. Yet, whatever our differences, surely we can agree that our troops are worthy of this funding, and that we have a responsibility to get it to them without further delay.

Thank you for listening.

May God bless our troops.

MATTHEWS: That was the president of the United States laying it on the line there. He has vetoed the bill, which would have required a timetable for the removal of U.S. forces over six months from Iraq.

Let me bring in General Paul Eaton again. We‘re going to also have Pat Buchanan joining us, Roger Simon, and Steve McMahon.

But, first of all, General Eaton, once again, the president said it‘s a battle between the Democrats on Capitol Hill, the congressional leadership, that wants to substitute, as he put it, the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military leaders.

What is he saying there that make sense to do? Or how do you disagree with him?

EATON: Chris, I come at it from a perspective, this bill puts discipline in a process that has demanded discipline for the last three-and-a-half years.

The—the real intent is to get after the al-Maliki government and to get them to start the settling of the benchmarks that they agreed to, the reinstatement of Baath leadership, as—as we vet them and bring them in, the distribution of mineral resources, to do those things that they have agreed to, to begin a legitimate government, to reestablish a legitimate government in Iraq that the Iraqi security forces can look to for legitimacy.

Right now, that is absent. And what we are seeing right now, the—the withdrawal—the—he has stood down some very successful Sunni generals and a couple of Shia generals who are having marked success working in the arena of—with—of drawing down the sectarian violence.

And you are going to have a continued defection of Sunni leaders from his parliament with—without a sense of inclusion and bringing the Sunnis in there in a vital context.

MATTHEWS: Yes, especially if they keep arresting them, these generals.

Let me bring in Pat Buchanan here.

Pat, one of the problems over there is that this political goal we have of a unified government doesn‘t seem to be working. You see people—the Maliki—rather, the Muqtada al-Sadr crowd, where they withdrew from the government. They‘re still in parliament, I believe. You—you see now the threatened removal of several Sunni members of the government.

You wonder. And then you see they are arresting Sunni military people who are acting against the Shia militia. It doesn‘t look like any steps are being taken to build this unity that we are having our guys killed for.

BUCHANAN: Yes, that‘s exactly right, Chris.

And there‘s a real sense of frustration on the part of everybody with the Maliki government and its seeming inability to be broad-minded and bring in the Sunnis and share the oil revenues.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: But the key question here is what the president did just now. He called this a date for failure. That‘s what this bill set.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

BUCHANAN: He almost went to say it was a date for defeat. So, he is framing this argument. And this bill is dead. I do believe the next bill is coming down. The Democratic Party, or a significant slice of it, will vote to give the president of the United States the $100 dollars. I think it would be a mistake for them to parcel it out every two months.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

BUCHANAN: And I think there will be some benchmarks, but they will not be linked to any withdrawal. And this is going to be an immediate victory for the president. And it‘s going to divide the Democratic Party.

MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask Steve McMahon.

Steve, are you—are you sensing any defections? As these two trucks get close to bashing into each other, do you sense any defections on the Democrat side, where they are saying: “Wait a minute, we have made our case. Let‘s stop it here. We don‘t have to keep going back to the president. We made our case. He vetoed the bill. Everybody knows where the Democrats stand. They know where the president stands, but we only have one commander in chief”?

Why do they keep going back into the pit against the president at this point?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I guess I don‘t know the answer to that. Why do they want to do it again? They made their point. He‘s going to veto. Nobody thinks the Democrats have enough votes to override. Leave it at that. Let him feed the troops.

MCMAHON: Because that is what the American people elected the Democrats to do, to hold this president accountable and to change direction in Iraq.

You know, it‘s ironic Chris. As we sit here today, it‘s the fourth anniversary of the president landing on the aircraft carrier, announcing mission accomplished. And now he is saying, we need more time. We need a blank check. We don‘t want any benchmarks. We want don‘t any timetables.

And, frankly, I just think the American people are tired of it. And you talked about defections. And I think the interesting defections are not going to be on the Democratic side. I have mentioned this before. They‘re going to be the Republican side.

It‘s people like Boehner and Blunt, and Inglis from South Carolina, the people who are openly talking about benchmarks, the very benchmarks the president doesn‘t want.

But—but he‘s going to have benchmarks. The only question is, what is the nature of the benchmarks? What is the nature of the accountability? This Congress is tired of the blank check. And the American people are forcing, frankly, not just the Democrats, but the Republicans, to take some action to find a new way in Iraq.

And the Republicans are getting the message, just as the Democrats have.

MATTHEWS: We have got NBC‘s Chip Reid joining us from Congress.

Chip, it‘s amazing to watch the president. They set up the shot tonight so that the—the Jefferson Memorial could appear in the back of the president as he was speaking from the Cross Hall at the White House.

And, yet, I have to ask myself, wasn‘t Jefferson the one who believed that Congress should have the major authority in making war or making peace?

CHIP REID, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, that‘s certainly true, Chris.

And let me add something to what you were talking about just now, the question, why are the Democrats pushing this so hard? Why not just leave it there?

MATTHEWS: Yes.

C. REID: They believe you have to just push it for every inch that you can get all the way, partly because they believe—take, for example, a lot of people said they were not going to be able to pass timelines in the first place, because they knew it would be filibustered or they knew it would be vetoed. So, why bother?

Well, they believe that, by passing it, even though they know it can‘t become law, by having this unified Democratic position, they have really made clear to the nation that they are making progress.

And the reason—I think one reason they are going ahead with the veto vote—override vote, even though they know it is going to fail, in the House tomorrow is because Democrats, especially on the House side, have been just—been getting hammered by the left wing of their party, saying, you have got to do more. You have got to bring the troops home. So, they have got to show them they are doing everything that they possibly can.

MATTHEWS: What happens when the point comes where the president goes on television, and says, it‘s May 15, or whatever date; we will now be unable to provide the full training and resources our troops get normally because of what Congress is doing to me?

What happens, then, to that Democrat solidarity?

C. REID: Boy.

Well, I think you‘re going to still going to—I think you‘re going to still going to have—they are going to find a way. They are going to find a way to keep—we saw this time—I mean, Democratic solidarity a number of weeks ago looked impossible.

They got it, because the alternative is to give the president a victory. And, so, the Democrats have managed to find ways to—to get some solidarity.

Now, I should say, on this benchmarks issue, Democrat have been telling us up here that they do understand this is going to split the Democrats, because a lot of Democrats, this next time around, are not going to vote for this thing. Even Democrats concede that, because they are not going to vote for something that doesn‘t have some form of timeline in it. They say it just gives too much.

MATTHEWS: Oh.

C. REID: So, Democrats realize they have to get Republicans votes here. They‘re going to have to get people from both sides.

MATTHEWS: So, in other words, the Democrats—the Democrats have to thread the needle here.

C. REID: Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: They have to have a bill that somewhat—puts up benchmarks for the president to achieve with regard to the Maliki government. But, if they give it too easy, then they lose their—their real anti-war base.

C. REID: That‘s right. Exactly.

And they are going to lose some of that base on this one, some Democrats have predicted to us, Democrats in a position to know. And they have got make up for that by getting Blunt and people like that on—and Inglis and people like that, people who are willing to do something on benchmarks that may even have a little bit of teeth.

MATTHEWS: Do you think Nancy Pelosi can fine-tune this?

C. REID: Fine-tune, fine-tune...

MATTHEWS: Fine-tune a bill that requires some action by the president, but also keeps aboard enough Democrats and wins enough Republican support to get the 218 in the House she needs.

C. REID: It‘s possible, but she can‘t do it with a magic wand herself. It‘s got to something that people like Blunt and some other Republicans are willing to do, that they want to—they realize moderate Republicans are in a real fix here. And they have got to give them something to vote for that isn‘t just red meat from the Republican side, some kind of benchmarks.

I mean, everybody, from the president all the way to the left side, everybody has supported, in concept, the idea of benchmarks for a long time now.

MATTHEWS: Right.

C. REID: So, a lot of Republicans, moderates in particular, are saying, well, then, let‘s do some serious benchmarks. Let‘s not just have talk.

And people like Blunt understand, you have got to give those moderate Republicans something to vote for here.

MATTHEWS: Well, we‘re watching history in the making, as Pat Buchanan said, Chip.

Let‘s go back to Pat on this point now, where we‘re—obviously, what we say on television, we are stretching a bit here, waiting to hear the two top leaders. Harry Reid of the Senate, the Democratic majority leader, and the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, are about to come on and tell us exactly what their next move is.

It‘s going to—here they come. It‘s going to be, apparently, another attempt—or an attempt to override, followed by perhaps another bill with some new strings attached.

Pat, again, I recall that Thomas Jefferson played a role in creating the Congress as the first branch of government with regard to war-making powers. Is this a challenge to that? Is the end of that, or what?

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: Well, Jefferson was in Paris when they wrote the Constitution. And he himself violated the Constitution when he grabbed the Louisiana Purchase he had no right to do. And, of course, he overthrew the Alien and Sedition Acts on is own volition. He was a very strong president when he got in here.

The Democratic problem, Chris, is threading the needle between taking a principled stand with the country and setting benchmarks or guidelines to get out, and appearing to obstruct the American forces in battle in Iraq. If they are perceived as the latter, with two months of spending and so much here, and the troops have got to do this, they are setting themselves up to be held accountable for what is going to happen at the end game, which does not look good right now.

MATTHEWS: Well, I wonder, Steve, whether you can put an ankle bracelet on the president. I mean, how much can you hobble the president as commander in chief and not look like you‘re—you‘re hurting his ability to win the war he is trying to win?

MCMAHON: Well, there is a legitimate question, Chris, about whether or not the conditions on the ground are going to significantly improve, regardless of how much time the president has.

Remember, four years ago, mission accomplished, and, today, he is asking for more time. The American people have said clearly that they expect some accountability, some standards, some benchmarks, benchmarks that the president himself said the Maliki government was willing to meet. And now the president doesn‘t want to ask the government to meet it.

I just think that the American people have spoken. The Congress is tired of being ignored. The voters are tired of being ignored. They want to apply some pressure. And the Democrats and moderate Republicans now are going to start to apply pressure every way they can.

It‘s not an effort to necessarily hamstring the president. It‘s an effort to change direction in Iraq, to let the president recognize that there is a co-equal branch of government involved here, and that the voters have spoken, and they are looking something different. And, as long as...

(CROSSTALK)

MCMAHON: ... as long as...

(CROSSTALK)

MCMAHON: ... elections, there‘s going to be pressure.

MATTHEWS: Let me read you a poll fact that we just got from the NBC/”Wall Street Journal” poll.

This is what public opinion is right now, and reflected—it‘s being reflected in what we‘re watching here politically between this back-and-forth between the Republican president, George Bush, and, of course, the Democratic leadership in Congress.

What concerns you more, the poll question was, that Congress will go too far in pressing the president to reduce troop levels in Iraq, or that President Bush will not make enough changes in his Iraq policy?

Well, guess what the results are? Congress will go too far, 31 percent. Something less than a third of the people are worried Congress will go too far in hobbling the president here. President Bush will not make enough changes, 61 percent.

Pat, that is shifting toward the Democratic or anti-war position.

BUCHANAN: A snapshot will say that is exactly correct. I don‘t dispute the poll.

But what the Democrats know is that this is early May of 2007. And, if American withdrawal, let‘s say, had completely happened by next April, my prediction would be, by June and July, the Iraqis who supported us there will be suffering the fate of the Cambodians and the Vietnamese and the Harkis in Algeria.

And, at that point, a snapshot might say, especially if the president of the United States is saying, these guys lost this war, would be dramatically different. The Democrats know this. That‘s why they‘re deeply apprehensive, even though they‘re sitting there with what looks like...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: That argument did not help Jerry Ford in 1976, Pat.

Here is Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House. And there‘s Harry Reid, the majority leader, the Democratic leader of the Senate, coming in, with Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and some others, and Jim Clyburn.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), MAJORITY LEADER: ... mired in the middle of an open-ended civil war. But we‘re not. And neither are most Americans.

A bipartisan majority of Congress sent the president a bill to fully fund our troops and change the mission in Iraq. The president refused to sign this bill. That‘s his right, but now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war.

In the coming days, we will continue to reach out to the president, and we hope congressional Republicans who remained silent—congressional Republicans through this whole debate—will work with us as well.

But, if the president thinks, by vetoing this bill, he will stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Thank you, Mr. Leader.

Earlier today, the leader and I sent to the president a bill that made a strong commitment to support our men and women in uniform and a strong commitment to honor our promises to our veterans. This is a bill that was worthy of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform.

It was a bill that honored and respected the wishes of the American people to have benchmarks, to have guidelines, to have standards for what is happening in Iraq, again, out of respect for the wishes of the American people.

We had hoped that the president would have treated it with the respect that a bipartisan—bipartisan legislation, supported overwhelmingly by the American people, deserved.

Instead, the president vetoed the bill outright, and, frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does. This bill supports the troops. In fact, it gives the president more than he asked for, for our troops.

And well they deserve it. They have done their duties excellently. They have done everything that has been asked of them, all of this without, in some cases, the training, the equipment, and a plan for success for them.

The president wants a blank check. The Congress is not going to give it to him. The president said in his comments that he did not believe in timelines, and he spoke out very forcefully against them.

Yet, in 1999, on June 5, then-Governor Bush said, about President Clinton, “I think it‘s important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they would be withdrawn.”

Despite his past statements, President Bush refuses to apply the same standards to his own activities.

Standards, that‘s the issue. If the president thinks that what is happening on the ground in Iraq now is progress, as he said in his comments tonight, then, it is clear to see why we have a disagreement on policy with him.

I agree with Leader Reid. We look forward to working with the president to find common ground. But there is great distance between us right now.

Thank you.

QUESTION: Senator Reid, would you be willing to consider...

MATTHEWS: OK. Well, they are not taking questions. That‘s Harry Reid, had a statement. And then he was followed by the speaker of the House.

Pat Buchanan, your thoughts on the way they handled it, the Democratic leadership?

BUCHANAN: That did not sound like to me Alamo defiance, Chris.

I mean, I thought Harry Reid...

(LAUGHTER)

BUCHANAN: ... was very abbreviated, and, frankly, fairly weak. And she into a long, elaborate explanation: We‘re going to work together. We‘re not going to give him a blank check.

I didn‘t get any sense here that they have a clear-cut strategy or that they have made a hard decision—“We‘re going to defy this president, no matter what it takes, to make sure we get deadlines in there”—at all.

I think the president—if you looked at simply the body language and the tone of the two sides tonight, this looks to me like the president feels that he is the one that has got the winning hand in this short-term battle.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me to go Steve.

I think the Democrats have the winning hand, but I think it may well turn about in the near future, once the funding runs out.

I go back to my question, Steve. Once the president can come to the country and say, I need funding for my troops, give me a clean bill, or else they will be short, I don‘t see how the Democrats can say to him, no, we are not going to give you what you need to feed the troops.

I don‘t see how you win that. We have been through this so many times. It is like a game of chicken, where the two trucks are coming at each other. And the Democrats look great, until they hit the other truck. And then, I think...

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: ... one side gets blamed. And that is the guys who started this fight.

MCMAHON: Well, Chris, I think...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I guess I‘m not going to convince you.

MCMAHON: Well, no, but...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... because it‘s not your job to agree with me.

MCMAHON: I think...

MATTHEWS: But I just that the timing—it‘s like a guy sits down at the blackjack table in Vegas, and he‘s winning three or four hands in a row. Get out of there. You won. Leave.

(CROSSTALK)

MCMAHON: But, Chris, hold on a second...

MATTHEWS: Go ahead.

MCMAHON: ... because there is another—there is another path. And, if the president wants his funding, he can sign the bill. The Democrats sent him a bill that gave him the money that he asked for.

MATTHEWS: No, he can‘t, because that ties his hands.

MCMAHON: No, no, no. Because he is being stubborn and obstinate—that‘s why. And it‘s exactly what the American people have figured out.

There‘s a lot of ways for the Congress to apply pressure. One way to announce a hard deadline for the troops to be removed from Iraq. Another way is for the Congress to impose some accountability on the Maliki government, benchmarks that the Maliki agreed to, and start to apply the pressure to the—to moderate Republicans in the middle, who are worried about their reelection prospects.

MATTHEWS: OK.

MCMAHON: And those people are going to come...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: That is different than what they are doing.

Steve, you‘re prospecting here on what—what the Democrats might do.

What they are doing now is saying, the president doesn‘t get his funding unless he agrees to sort of a six-month timetable for removing our troops from Iraq. That‘s what they have done.

Now, you‘re speculating that, somewhere down the road, they‘re going to be smart to say, OK, you can have the funding for our troops, Mr. President, if you simply tell the Maliki government, you don‘t get any money for ship-building—I‘m sorry—for building projects over there, no more sewer construction, no electric grids anymore, none of the money, unless you agree to do certain things in terms of building a unity government, right? That is what you are saying?

MCMAHON: Yes.

I‘m saying that this the first step in applying pressure to change direction in Iraq. It‘s just the first step. There will be more. There will be more pressure. And there will be more Republicans who are applying it. It‘s not just going to be the Democrats alone. The American people want a new course. The Republicans know it. The Democrats know of it. Everybody knows it but George Bush. And this Congress is going to make sure that, at—in one way or another, he figures it out.

BUCHANAN: But, Chris, exactly when you get the benchmarks—and let‘s say they withhold $5 billion in foreign aid if the benchmarks are not met.

MATTHEWS: Right.

BUCHANAN: One hundred billion dollars is voted by the Congress to continue the war, and every hard-core liberal in the Democratic Party—and it‘s an anti-war party—they say, the Congress we elected to defund the war has refunded the war, to a tune of $100 billion, given the president what we wanted. And what we got are a couple of benchmarks and maybe a reduction in foreign aid, and the war goes on.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

BUCHANAN: So, the division moves into the Democratic Party.

MATTHEWS: So, you say the Democrats are trapped?

BUCHANAN: Yes.

MCMAHON: Well, Pat is a Republican. Of course he‘s going to say that.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: I was against the war.

MCMAHON: I would say the Republicans are trapped.

And the American people did not vote the Democrats into Congress to defund the war. The American people voted the Democrats into Congress to find a new direction and to find a way out of the war. That‘s what the Democratic Congress is going to do.

MATTHEWS: OK.

MCMAHON: And I suspect it‘s going to do it with a lot of Republican support.

MATTHEWS: Let‘s go to Chip Reid.

Chip, are you still with us? Chip Reid?

Not still with us.

Roger—oh, there is Chip.

Chip, what do you hear, in terms of hard reporting, as for the Democrats‘ next move, after the—they fail to override, fail to get the two-thirds in both houses?

OK. We are not going to hear from him.

Roger Simon, do you have any reporting on that? What will the Democrats do once they fail to override tomorrow?

SIMON: I think this is going to be short-term defeat for the Democrats. The president will get his funding. But, in the end, it‘s probably a long-term victory for the Democrats.

I have to disagree with Pat when he says—I think he said that the issue is going to get to, in the end, who lost Iraq? I don‘t think that is the issue for the American people. The issue is going to be that, when this war ends—and we all know it‘s going to come to end—mothers and fathers and husbands and wives and children are going to be very happy that those troops are home.

And that is going to be the dominant force in American politics, getting the troops home, and being happy once they are here. And, if the Maliki government fails to want a secular, democratic government more than we do—right now, we want this more than the Iraqi people want it. If they fail at it, it‘s going to be their failure. This has got to be a Iraqi success or an Iraqi failure, not an American-imposed one.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: General Eaton—General Eaton—let‘s go to General Eaton, a man who is a military expert.

General, the troops in the field, men and women, are they rooting for the president in this battle when they read the paper, when they read “Stars and Stripes” or they check with Armed Services Radio? Are they checking in on this dispute back here, or are they just fighting the war?

EATON: Chris, they are just fighting the war. They—the effort at squad level is very focused on getting the mission done.

But I will tell you that Secretary of Defense Gates has extended tour lengths from 12 to 15 months. We have not yet increased the recruiting goals for United States Army Recruiting Command to grow the force to meet the foreign policy demands of this country.

We have a timeline on the table. It‘s January 2009. It is coming. And what the American people did last November was vote to accelerate that timeline. That is what we need to do, in order to discipline this war and put spine in the foreign policy in the State Department to get after a diplomatic solution, to get this al-Maliki government to produce.

MATTHEWS: Do the—does the Maliki government in Iraq that we up put there and are helping to stay up, do they have a calendar? Do they know that this president leaves office in January 2009, and he is their last committed friend?

EATON: The country of Iraq is a country that has had 1,000 years of eternal Muslim domination and 30 years of Saddam brutality.

They don‘t think like we do. And they have got to be absolutely disciplined. This bill helps do that. They have got to put markers on the ground to meet in order to—to survive as a nation in its concept.

MATTHEWS: Well, what makes you think that they want to do what we want them to do, that Maliki wants to put together a government which shares the oil revenues among the three groups, that gives the Sunnis, who were running the show for all those 30 years, a piece of the power, that tells the Shia they can‘t have a mullah-led government, that it‘s going to be something of a secular state in the middle of Arabia? All those conditions are American goals. Who says they are Iraqi goals?

EATON: Chris, you have defined the problem.

The whole issue is the performance of the al-Maliki government that is

not deemed legitimate by the Kurds in the north or the Sunnis in the

center. And, until you get a legitimate government operating—and that

legitimate government could be something on the line of Peter Galbraith‘s

book “The end of Iraq,” or it could be Senator Biden‘s plan of a

tripartition—this—victory, as defined by President Bush, is not out -

it is not possible with this current government.

MATTHEWS: OK. Let me—thank you very much, General Paul Eaton.

And let‘s bring in—Major General.

Let me bring in right now Pat Buchanan, and then Steve McMahon, in order.

Quickly, your assessment of where this heads in the future?

Pat first.

BUCHANAN: In the future, I think, Chris, we are headed down the road.

We are coming out of Iraq. We‘re at the beginning of the end of America‘s involvement in Iraq. But that is not the end of the war in Iraq.

I believe the war is going to turn into a disaster. I think it could spread down the peninsula. And it‘s at that point that I disagree with Roger. I agree with him. The American people want their guys home. They have had enough of this. That‘s going to get stronger and stronger.

But, at the end of this, if there is the gathering disaster in the—in Saudi Arabia, in Jordan, and the Sunni-Shia war in Iran, and all the rest of it, people are then going to say, who was responsible for the disaster?

MATTHEWS: OK.

Your assessment, Steve.

MCMAHON: I think Pat is right. People are going to say, who was responsible for the disaster? This is George Bush‘s war. This is George Bush‘s puppet government in Iraq. And it‘s George Bush...

MATTHEWS: OK.

MCMAHON: ... who is responsible for the disaster. And the American people have already reached that judgment.

MATTHEWS: OK.

The only problem is, the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton may have had her fingerprints on this.

We are going to be right back.

In fact, we are going right now to Tucker. And we‘re going to catch him in progress.

Transcript of Hardball with Chris Matthews, May 1, 2007, 5 PM

Guests Rep. Tom Tancredo, Rep. John Murtha, Bill Maher, Steve McMahon, Ken Blackwell, Paul Rieckhoff, and Roger Simon join host Chris Matthews

Transcript:
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: President Bush vetoes the anti-Iraq war bill, but can he veto the opposition?

Let‘s play HARDBALL.

Well, in just two days, the 10 Republican candidates for president, the active candidates, are going to meet out here in California, not far from where I‘m at in Los Angeles, at the Reagan Library, the Reagan Presidential Library. You‘re looking at those candidates right now. They‘re going to be debating for an hour-and-a-half on Thursday night. In a couple of minutes, we‘re going to have one of those candidate join us.

Also tonight, President Bush is making good on his long-standing threat to veto the Democrats‘ war funding bill, which sets a timeline to start bringing home the troops. The veto, only the second of his presidency, it comes on the fourth anniversary of the president‘s “Mission Accomplished” speech, when he declared on board an aircraft carrier that America had prevailed in Iraq. We‘ll talk to one of the staunchest critics of the war right now, U.S. Congressman Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. Plus, Bill Maher‘s also going to be joining us tonight.

But we began with the Reagan Presidential Library debate just two days away right now. MSNBC‘s Mike Barnicle has some background on this beautiful library overlooking the Pacific.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE BARNICLE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR (voice-over): Surrounded by majestic mountains, with a view of the Pacific, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is perched on a 100-acre site halfway between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, California. For the president who wanted America to be a “shining city on a hill, it‘s a hilltop monument of living history that he helped design.

DUKE BLACKWOOD, REAGAN LIBRARY EXECUTIVE DIR.: He was involved from the very beginning, starting with the Santa Barbara mission-style architecture. He didn‘t want a monolith. He didn‘t want this—you know, this Washingtonian feeling.

BARNICLE (on camera): Ronald Reagan certainly understood the importance of visual cues, both in the movies and in politics, and he played an important role in designing his library on the hill and the role that this library plays in presenting his legacy to future generations.

(voice-over): Here in the museum, a popular area is Ronald and Nancy Reagan‘s early years together.

BLACKWOOD: It‘s fascinating. This is the booth from Chassen‘s (ph) restaurant. Ronald Reagan proposes to starlet Nancy Davis. So when Chassen‘s closed, they gave us the booth.

BARNICLE: Duke Blackwood is the executive director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

BLACKWOOD: You come here, this is the actual wedding outfit that Mrs.

Reagan wore at the wedding at the little brown church in Studio City.

BARNICLE: These museum pieces are just one small portion of what visitors from around the world come to see.

BLACKWOOD: Ever since the president passed away almost three years ago, one of the most important sites is the gravesite. People come and pay their respects. There‘s tears shed. There‘s American flags. It‘s an emotional experience.

The second is the Oval Office. We have an exact replica of the Oval Office as it was when President Reagan -- 99 percent of the visitors come here. Never will get a chance to go in, much less to see the Oval Office, so when they come here, there‘s a sense of awe about it.

But the most dramatic is what you see over my shoulder, and that‘s SAM-27,000 (ph), Air Force One 707 that flew seven residents around the world. Again, as you look at it, it sits up here. You‘ve got this magnificent glass window, a third of an acre of glass. And she‘s just at about a 2 percent tilt, so it looks like she‘s taking off, she‘s going on one last mission of freedom and democracy.

BARNICLE: The library is also the repository of Reagan‘s eight years of presidential papers, photos and video. Here the National Archives controls some 55 million of documents, much of which the public will never see.

BLACKWOOD: There‘s a process through the National Archives that we must go through, and that is they‘ve got to be reviewed before they can be released. So we‘ve only got about 10 percent of our holdings, so there‘s some 40 million documents downstairs, 45 million documents downstairs that still haven‘t—the public is not allowed to see.

BARNICLE: One popular document many visitors request to see is the president‘s emotional letter revealing to the world that he has Alzheimer‘s disease. Only a copy is on display. The original rarely sees the light of day.

(on camera): How do you preserve a letter like this?

MIKE DUGGAN, REAGAN LIBRARY ARCHIVIST: Well, first of all, we have it in this mylar sleeve, so that, you know, it doesn‘t get any fingerprints or anything on it. And then we preserve it in—all of our storage areas are temperature and humidity-controlled. It‘s kept in an area that‘s dark. It‘s kept in an acid-free folder, an acid-free box. And all those together will help to preserve this, hopefully, for at least a couple of hundred years.

BLACKWOOD (voice-over): And then there are the presidential gifts.

BLACKWOOD: Everybody wants to give you something, OK? And there‘s some 100,000 pieces downstairs that come from the White House gift unit, so those the general public doesn‘t get to see, but we try and rotate that stuff up.

BARNICLE: Whether studying important presidential papers or viewing personal artifacts, presidential libraries connect both scholars and tourists alike through the lives of our nation‘s leaders.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: That‘s what libraries can do. They really can bring these past leaders back to life in a way that the written word alone cannot, through the combination of pictures, sound, music, and the whole ambiance of the place.

BARNICLE: I‘m Mike Barnicle reporting for HARDBALL at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: And that‘s where all the Republican candidates, all 10 of them right now, the active candidates, are going to be Thursday night, when we have that big Republican debate, the first one of the campaign, out at the Reagan library. Right—by the way, we‘re going to have it right next to Air Force One right there. It‘s going to be like having a debate at the Smithsonian Institute. Of course, anybody who‘s ever been on Air Force One knows it‘s an exciting place just to be near again.

Let me bring in now one of the candidates who‘s going to be debating on Thursday night, Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Congressman, thank you for joining us. You know, looking at the new NBC poll, and it looks to me like is winning your argument for you, here‘s the question NBC and “The Wall Street Journal” put to the American people in a brand-new poll. “As you may know, President Bush has proposed to allow foreigners who have jobs but are staying illegally in the United States to apply for legal temporary worker status. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose?” Fifty-one percent opposed.

Does that surprise you?

REP. TOM TANCREDO ®, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: No, it doesn‘t. And if it were worded even a little more correctly, it would be—the numbers would go sky high. If it said, The president of the United States, along with, of course, Ted Kennedy, are proposing an amnesty for the people who are living here illegally, you‘d see what happened to the numbers because that‘s what‘s really happening.

MATTHEWS: What‘s that mean? Give us the definition of the word amnesty. How‘s that different than letting them stay here as temporary workers?

TANCREDO: Very simple. If you‘re in this country illegally, and if we tell you you can stay, even though the law says you can‘t, that‘s amnesty. Pretty simple.

MATTHEWS: Well, what about the fact that people who were supportive of this program, like McCain, who‘s going to be one of your debaters Thursday night—they say that it makes the people learn English. It makes them pay a fine. It makes them go through some of these obstacles. And it makes them get in line behind people who are waiting in line, say, from Europe to get here.

TANCREDO: Hello? Everybody has to get in line. If you want to come here into this country and you want to come legally, you go to the back of the line. That is not a penalty. If you want to become a citizen, you‘re supposed to learn English. That is not a penalty. Nothing—I mean, frankly, we know, everybody knows that what they‘re trying desperately to do is to figure out a way to say, You can stay here, but they don‘t want to use the word amnesty. It‘s getting harder and harder for them, Chris, because they‘re trying their best to finesse this and wordsmith it. But you know what it comes down to? Amnesty. And they‘re going to have to address it, at least, if I have anything to do with it.

MATTHEWS: Let‘s talk about the future, tomorrow night, when they put NBC cameras or someone else‘s cameras on the southern border, the Mexican border, and you see people racing through those fields, those field with the bush and everything, and they catch them in the dark, and they‘re racing to get away from whoever—is there any way to stop that?

TANCREDO: Yes.

MATTHEWS: How do you stop that, tomorrow night‘s illegal immigration, not the last 20 years but tomorrow night? How do you stop that?

TANCREDO: Here‘s what you do. Of course, you first build a barrier on that border to make—that makes it more difficult to cross. Then and simultaneously, really, not then meaning the next thing you do, but simultaneously, you have to go after employers. You have to break the magnet. Employers...

MATTHEWS: But Republicans don‘t like to do that.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Democrats look out for ethnic groups, Republicans look out for businessmen...

TANCREDO: Democrats look out for...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: And you have an interesting combination there, that nothing gets done, right?

TANCREDO: Democrats look out for votes. Ethnic groups? Don‘t give me that! Democrats are looking for votes!

MATTHEWS: OK. All right.

TANCREDO: They want the votes...

MATTHEWS: Well, that‘s your way of putting it. Let me put it my way...

(CROSSTALK)

TANCREDO: Am I being—in any way, am I being untruthful about saying that one of the reasons why Democrats want to keep those borders open is because they see the folks coming as potential voters for the Democratic Party?

MATTHEWS: And the unions—and the unions see them as members probably.

TANCREDO: That‘s exactly right. And the Republicans see them as cheap laborers. That‘s why we have not been able to do anything about this. But Americans—Americans are getting sick and tired of it, and I‘m telling you, somebody‘s going to have to do something, and it‘s probably going to have to be the president of the United States because I don‘t know if this group up here has got the guts to actually address this forthrightly.

MATTHEWS: I saw an ad in “The Washington Post” yesterday, I think it was, that had an African-American guy, a middle-aged guy, saying that illegal immigration hurts African-American opportunities to get jobs. Is that—who‘s pushing that campaign? And is that a true case? Is that historically the case?

TANCREDO: I don‘t know who‘s pushing it. All I can tell you is it‘s absolutely accurate that African-Americans—I saw a great story in—I believe (INAUDIBLE) it was “The Wall Street Journal” a while back. You may have seen it. A chicken processing plant in Georgia is hiring all illegal aliens. ICE comes in, raids the place. About 90 percent of their employees are gone. They‘re thinking, Oh, my goodness. What am I going to do? They figured they were going to be out of business. But they weren‘t. They went into the community next to the plant. They went to the—and they—they—they were able to hire enough people to keep that plant open and going. You know who they hired?

MATTHEWS: Americans.

TANCREDO: African-Americans, black Americans who had been unemployed for years. Here‘s what they had to do, Chris. They had to go from $7 to $9 an hour. Oh, my gosh. They had to actually provide transportation from the community to the—to the factory because a lot these folks didn‘t have cars.

MATTHEWS: Congressman...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: You make a good case. I‘ll be watching to see you make as good a case Thursday night...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: There‘ll be people disagreeing with you, and I‘m letting you talk here...

TANCREDO: No doubt.

MATTHEWS: ... but you‘re going to have some fight on Thursday night, sir, and I look forward to seeing you at the Reagan library.

TANCREDO: Sounds great, buddy.

MATTHEWS: Tom Tancredo of Colorado, U.S. congressman.

We‘ll be right back with Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania, who has some interesting thoughts about the future of George W. Bush. Be right back with HARDBALL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NE), MAJORITY LEADER: We renew our call to President Bush. There‘s still time to listen to the American people. There‘s still time to sign this bill and change course in Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Congressman Jack Murtha from Pennsylvania joins us right now. He‘s been talking about what we should do, what the country should do, with George W. Bush. Congressman Murtha, do you think impeachment is really one of the options that Congress is looking at?

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D), PENNSYLVANIA: No, Chris. What I said was that‘s one of the options. But the power of the purse is the option that‘s going to be the most significant this year. What we‘re talking about is by the end of the year, we‘ll have the appropriations bill, the big bill. Then we‘ll have the authorization bill, one right after the other. By that time, we‘ll know what‘s going to happen in Iraq.

You know, they keep painting this rosy picture. Things haven‘t changed a bit. As a matter of fact, oil production is below pre-war level, electricity below pre-war level, incidents are up. We lost more people in four months this year than we lost all the rest of the war, 50 percent more than we lost four months- the first four months of last year.

So you know, 40 percent unemployment, 50 percent inflation—I mean, they just go on and on with trying to spin this thing. You got to quit spinning it. We gave him $4 billion, Chris, more than he asked for in this bill. We put everything you could possibly want in this bill. We put the vehicles that resist IEDs. We put the money for health care, everything he wanted. He ought to sign the bill.

Now, I‘m recommending we go to two months. I recommend that we do it every two months and fight it out with him. But the big bills will be the answer...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Do you think he‘d sign a continuing—Congressman, would he sign a two-month continuing? Would he say two months is OK? Do you think he‘d actually sign that bill, or he would consider that hobbling him?

MURTHA: Well, I am not sure. He made up his mind so early, I‘m not sure he even read the bill. I mean, this is the problem with this spinning that goes on. They bring Petraeus back, purely a political move. Petraeus comes back here, doesn‘t talk to any of us. He only talks to the news media, and so forth, trying to sell this program. Bush was 64 percent when his mission—mission possible, and today he‘s 34 percent, so he‘s just turned the opposite. And this bill‘s not going to make any difference, just like what we say here makes little difference. What‘s going to count is what happens on the ground. The Iraqis are going to have to decide it themselves.

MATTHEWS: You know, when you read Petraeus statements to the press corps—and I know you said he didn‘t talk to Congress, but they put out this statement. I read it in “The Weekly Standard” this week, which does have Petraeus‘s remarks in there. He does say that we‘re fighting the central front against al Qaeda in Iraq. Is that true?

MURTHA: That‘s absolutely not true. That‘s an exaggeration...

MATTHEWS: That‘s Petraeus saying that.

MURTHA: That‘s Petraeus saying it. I just gave those comments to General Pace. I said, General—just 5, 10 minutes ago I gave them to General Pace. I said, General, these comments that General Petraeus made are absolutely inaccurate, according to the intelligence we have. Now, that‘s the kind of stuff he‘s saying, and that‘s why I say it was purely political.

Now, when I say he didn‘t talk to Congress, he talked to a group of members. He didn‘t talk to the committees that have jurisdiction over this legislation.

MATTHEWS: Well, why wouldn‘t he tell the truth? If his troops are over there getting killed—as you point out, we lost 100 guys this month, one of the worst months—worst month of the year—getting killed by Sunni insurgents and by militia people on the Shia side—why is he blaming it on al Qaeda?

MURTHA: Chris...

MATTHEWS: The people who blew up the World Trade Center. Why‘s he doing that?

MURTHA: This whole—whole war, ever since it diverted the attention away from where al Qaeda started, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the war in Afghanistan, where we should have stayed, ever since that time, they‘ve been trying to tie this into terrorism. All of us know there‘s terrorism all over the world...

MATTHEWS: But he‘s not—but Congressman, he‘s not a PR man. He‘s not a flack for the White House. He‘s a general in the field. Why would he be...

MURTHA: Hey, wait a minute.

MATTHEWS: You‘re saying he‘s singing the song of the ideologues.

MURTHA: I‘m saying—I‘m saying he came back here at the White House‘s request to purely make political statements. That‘s what I‘m saying. There‘s no question in my mind about it.

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about the problem of the politics. It seems to me, if you look at the latest NBC poll, that Congress is winning. People have—are more concerned that the president will keep the war going than they are about the Congress setting a deadline. They‘re worried 2-to-1 more about the president.

But what happens when the president comes on television in a couple of months and says, Time‘s run out. The uniforms won‘t be there. The training won‘t be there. The food won‘t be there. The K-rations won‘t be there. Our troops are going to be starving, without uniforms if you guys don‘t give them the money. What happens when he says that?

MURTHA: When a minute, Chris. He‘s the one that vetoed the bill. We passed the legislation. We sent it to the president. If that were to happen—now, you know, we‘re going to work something out.

But here‘s what worries me as much as anything. These troops are burned out. I went down to Fort Bragg, and they told me the children are not achieving as much in the school. The children are more truant. They‘re so worried about their parents. They need counseling in the schools. One of the soldiers told me, I hate to tell my kids I have to go back for the fourth time. I mean, a very small proportion of people bearing the burden, and the families and—I‘m inspired by these troops. These trips are dedicated. They‘re going to do their duty. But I‘m going to tell you something, Chris. It is hard on them.

MATTHEWS: I‘ll be. Jack, you‘re a soldier yourself. Thank you, sir, for coming on tonight, Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania.

MURTHA: Good to be with you, Chris.

MATTHEWS: We‘ll be right back with Bill Maher with a little lighter touch on the whole thing that‘s going on with the Republicans. I want Bill Maher to give us a pre-game look at the Republican debate Thursday night. Bill Maher coming on—real time for us is coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Well, joining us right now is one of our favorite guests on

HARDBALL, Bill Maher of “Bill Maher”—actually, “Real Time With Bill

Maher” on HBO every Friday night at 11:00, who is going to be appearing at

The Joint at the Hard Rock in Vegas—that‘s Las Vegas—on May 4 and 5 -

that‘s this weekend—Friday and Saturday night, and then again in mid-June, the 15th and 16th. That‘s at The Joint at the Hard Rock. Make your reservations now.

Bill Maher, thanks for joining us.

I am out here in Los Angeles. You are somewhere around here, aren‘t you?

BILL MAHER, HOST, “REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER”: Yes, I am in Los Angeles.

(CROSSTALK)

MAHER: And you thought you had to...

(LAUGHTER)

MAHER: ... make sure people knew it was Las Vegas?

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Well, I always try to inform.

You know, we have got a Republican debate coming up on Thursday night.

And I just wondered if you wanted to give...

MAHER: Yes.

MATTHEWS: ... us a heads-up.

You know, we have got Rudy, Rudy Giuliani. Everybody says he can‘t possibly win, because he is pro-choice and he‘s open to gay rights, generally, at least, and he is too liberal. And, yet, every time people—and he put up Bernie Kerik for Homeland Security, and that turned out to be a bust, in more ways than one.

And these things keep going wrong. He has been married three times. And that‘s supposedly turns off Republicans. And, yet, every time there is a poll, he goes up. How do you explain it?

MAHER: It‘s early. People have not really looked at him.

I don‘t think all that is what is going to sink him. I mean, obviously, that is not going to help with the Republican primary voter. But they haven‘t gotten at his record yet. I mean, his big ace card is that he is the great terrorism fighter.

He said last week, if you vote for a Democrat, you can expect another 9/11.

This is amazing arrogance from someone who is a Republican; 9/11 happened in a Republican-led city with a Republican governor and a Republican president. So, I guess his slogan is, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, vote for Giuliani in 2008. He put the terrorism...

(CROSSTALK)

MAHER: What?

MATTHEWS: Is he supposed to have anti-aircraft guns? How‘s a mayor of New York stop the incoming airplanes that hit the World Trade Center?

MAHER: Well, he put the—the Trade Center was attacked in 1993. All of the experts told him to move the command-and-control center out of the World Trade Center. He put it in the World Trade Center.

That is where his—the reason why he was on the streets that day...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MAHER: ... is because his office was blown up, Chris. He‘s not a terrorism fighter. He has no credentials in this. In fact, he failed at the one time he had an opportunity, just like Bush.

MATTHEWS: So, why do people think he did serve well and perform well, as the leader of New York, during that crisis? Why do people think that?

MAHER: Well, he—he was a good rallier of what happened after the buildings fell down, yes. I am not saying he is an incompetent. But he made a terrible decision. And, just like Bush, he ignored terrorism, when he should have been paying attention to it.

MATTHEWS: What do you make of his style as a New Yorker? I mean, this is classic big-city style, maybe New York uniquely, when he told Yasser Arafat of the PLO he couldn‘t go to Lincoln Center one night? He told that Saudi prince that he did not want his $10 million.

Is that ethnic politics? Is that street-corner tough guy? Or is that smart diplomacy? What would you call it?

MAHER: I was a fan of both those moves. So, you know, that is the kind of Rudy Giuliani stuff I like.

He also busted up the mob pretty good before he got to be mayor, when he was the prosecutor. So, he can be a good, tough guy in certain situations. But, you know, he also is in a number of pictures wearing a dress. I don‘t how that...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MAHER: ... is going to play in the heartland.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, it plays OK—it plays OK with you and me. Why do you assume it won‘t play all right—it‘s a joke. He was wearing a dress at one of these stupid, what do you call, gridiron-type events, where everybody does something stupid.

MAHER: Well, wait a minute. But, Chris, there is a number of pictures of him in a dress. It is OK to dress up as a woman once for a charity event or something.

(LAUGHTER)

MAHER: When you do it—when you have as many pictures as we have, as I am sure your news organization has, of Rudy Giuliani in a dress, then, you have other issues...

(LAUGHTER)

MAHER: ... I think, that the voters are not aware of.

MATTHEWS: You think it‘s...

MAHER: I mean, when you know your own bra size, why don‘t you just spring for the operation?

MATTHEWS: I know. You are—that—that is what makes you different, that little touch at the end, when you know your own bra size.

Do you really think that the opponents in the race are going to show 30-second bites of Rudy in the Bloomingdale‘s perfume department doing the -- doing the dress show?

MAHER: You have got to be kidding if you don‘t think they would use everything at their disposal.

MATTHEWS: OK.

MAHER: I‘m not sure the Democrats would, but I‘m...

(LAUGHTER)

MAHER: I‘m sure his Republican opponents would.

MATTHEWS: Let‘s talk about the—the fact that everybody wants the one that got away, as they said in the movie “Hud.” Everybody wants the candidate who doesn‘t run. The press always wanted Mario Cuomo to run. He didn‘t. They wanted—and maybe I did, too—want Colin Powell to run once. They want—everybody wants Fred Thompson to run.

Is it, the second he gets in the race, he gets jumped on? What‘s the

what‘s the theater of this thing?

MAHER: Well, that‘s part of it. I mean, that‘s—amuses me so much that the Republicans now are talking about the great charisma of Fred Thompson.

(LAUGHTER)

MAHER: Basset hound-faced Fred Thompson is their great charismatic hope.

And I guess it‘s because, you know, the Republican Party has this campy fixation with all things Ronald Reagan. I mean, it is almost gay, the way they love this man, and the way they can‘t stop talking about him and obsessing about him. And they are always looking for the next Ronald Reagan.

Bush, they thought, might turn out to be that one. But, of course, that did not go too well. So, now they‘re looking for the next Ronald Reagan.

But the problem for them is that Ronald Reagan ran, of course, always on optimism and hope. And he was sunny and cheerful. But the only thing the Republicans can run on now is the opposite, fear. That is the only card they have in their deck. It is a false card, but that is the only card they can play.

They can‘t run on their record. They can‘t run on people on—on them being fiscally responsible people. They can‘t even really run...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MAHER: ... on fighting terrorism, because the public doesn‘t think they are good at that now either.

But they can run on the idea that there is a wolf at the door, and we‘re the only people who know how to kill it...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MAHER: ... even though that is wrong and crazy.

MATTHEWS: You know, the sad thing is, Bill—sad—you get a lot of truth to that, Bill, but the sad thing is, that is what Gore ran on against Bush, fear, fear of what he would do to the economy, fear of everything that would go wrong, the lockbox and all that. And it didn‘t work, didn‘t sell, did it?

MAHER: Well, fear—fear of economy is one thing. Fear of your life is...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MAHER: ... a little something different.

MATTHEWS: Hey, Bill Maher, it‘s great to have on—good luck. Your show is on—“Real Time” at HBO every Friday night at 11:00, “Real Time With Bill Maher.”

You have got these gigs coming up in Las Vegas, The Joint at the Hard Rock...

(CROSSTALK)

MAHER: Come out and see me in Vegas, Chris. We will do that town up.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: I have been out there twice lately.

Anyway, May 4 and 5, and then June 15 and 16.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Get your tickets now for Bill Maher.

We are coming right back with more HARDBALL. Coming back, we‘re going to talk about the debate that is coming up among the 10 Republicans, including the guys we just talked about, Rudy Giuliani and—well, maybe not Fred Thompson yet, but we will get him in there one of these days.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MIKE HUCKMAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I‘m Mike Huckman with your CNBC “Market Wrap.”

And another record-breaker, the Dow Jones industrial average closing at another new high of 13136, after gaining 73 points. The S&P 500 was up almost four points. And the Nasdaq gained almost 6.5 points.

A blockbuster takeover bid today first reported by CNBC‘s David Faber:

Rupert Murdoch‘s News Corp. making an unsolicited offer to buy Dow Jones Incorporated, the publisher of “The Wall Street Journal,” for $5 billion, or $60 a share. But the family that controls Dow Jones says it will oppose the deal. News of the offer, though, sent Dow Jones shares surging more than 50 percent today.

Meantime, auto sales tumbled in April. General Motors, Ford, Toyota, and Honda all reported drops in sales. However, Chrysler reported a gain.

And oil fell $1.31 in New York today, closing at $64.40 a barrel.

That is it from CNBC, America‘s business channel—now back to

HARDBALL.

MATTHEWS: Well, I don‘t know about you, but I am looking forward to Thursday night. It‘s a great opportunity for me, just as an American, to play such a big role in what is going to be part of the selection of our president next time.

The Republican candidates, all 10 of them, are going to be coming out here to California and to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, a beautiful spot, as Mike Barnicle showed us early in the program, for them to have their first big debate. They are going to have it right up against the—the Air Force One that Ronald Reagan flew as president. It‘s going to be quite a scenic spot, evocative as hell, about the American presidency.

And two people to talk about it right now are Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant, and Ken Blackwell, who was secretary of state of Ohio for a long time. He‘s now with the Family Research Council.

Ken, you are the big Republican of the two of you guys. Steve is a Democrat. So, let‘s let you start here.

Is this debate Thursday night going to be about nuances over the war in Iraq, or are we going to see a common front?

KENNETH BLACKWELL, FORMER OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE: I think, without question, the war is going to be the 500-pound canary in the room.

And I think that McCain‘s position on the war is going to be what they calibrate it against or—or for. And, so, it‘s going to be fascinating to me to see how they separate themselves from the president and McCain or how they embrace the president and McCain‘s position on the war.

Without question, all of them will probably speak to errors in prosecution of the war, but will show their—their love and support and patriotism for—for—for the troops, and will show a united front on this issue, one, that the president needs to get the resources to the troops, and the Democrats need to stop the obstruction.

MATTHEWS: Steve, your cut at it?

STEVE MCMAHON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I think—I think the secretary has laid it out pretty well.

I think John McCain has gotten himself pretty far out there on a limb. And he‘s going to be looking for some company tomorrow—or on Thursday night, so that, perhaps, they can—they can come out with him, because his vulnerability now is—ironically, after being criticized by the Republican right for not supporting the president consistently enough, his vulnerability now is that he‘s supporting the president a little too much on Iraq, when most of the country wants to go in a different direction.

I think he would like to get some of his Republican colleagues on the record in support of Bush‘s policy. I think they‘re going to be reluctant to go there, because they‘re reading the same polling data, Chris, that you were sharing with everyone earlier.

BLACKWELL: Chris, I...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you about how—how did this, Ken—how did it work out this way? How did Rudy Giuliani get to be Mr. Homeland Defense, and John McCain has to be Mr. Baghdad? It looks like Rudy got the best part of the pie here, politically.

BLACKWELL: Well, it all has to deal with legacy and imagery around September the 11th.

But I think that what you are going to see is a language shift, where we‘re not going to be talking about the war in Iraq only as backdrop. You‘re going to hear candidate after candidate talk about the war against the Islamic jihadists or radical Islam or a transnational network that is fueled by hate for America and our values and principles.

MATTHEWS: Well, how do you think, Ken, that we can reduce that hatred?

BLACKWELL: Well, the fact is, is that we, in fact, have to realize that we have been in a sustained struggle against a network of terrorists that have been fueled by radical Islam.

MATTHEWS: Yes, but I am asking you a direct question. I am asking you simple question.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: How do you reduce the hatred?

BLACKWELL: The direct question—we have to win—we have to win that confrontation, Chris. I mean, that‘s a fact.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: How does winning—wait a minute. I‘m—I‘m asking a question.

We have—we have just gotten polls, a number of polls, from the Arab world, in the moderate countries like Morocco and Jordan, and—and another Islamic country, Turkey, where, like, 10, 15 percent of people, at the most, have a positive attitude towards us. A good part of the countries hate us.

Now, that hatred becomes a sea of opportunity for recruitment of terrorists, suicide terrorists, of course. How do we change that reality? If we have that sea of hatred out there, how do we ever win this war?

(CROSSTALK)

BLACKWELL: Well—well, the—the fact is, is that we don‘t accommodate that hatred. We don‘t—we don‘t succumb to it, Chris.

Again, I think, as we—as we fight terrorists around the world, in terms of that network, we have to win. The fact is, is that one of the upsides of having concentrated and—and—and made, as General Petraeus said, the entire front being Iraq, is that we are now going to see various camps of terrorists turn on themselves. We have to fight the war against radical Islam and win it.

MATTHEWS: OK, let me go. Petraeus, I‘m just going by a guy I respect, obviously, General Petraeus, saying that a lot of these people are coming in from around the Islamic world. As long as there is a continual flow of people willing to commit suicide to kill our troops and to kill Shia or Sunni, to get involved in that civil war over there, how did we ever end the war, if there is an unlimited flow of people, from a billion people who are Islamic in this world, if they have an endless sea of people that want kill themselves to get to us? How can you, quote, win a war, Ken? I don‘t get the theory here.

BLACKWELL: Well, Chris, we do have to win the war against the terrorists, but it is not a linear approach. It is an approach that is political. It is diplomatic. And it is cultural. And I think, fighting on all of those fronts, we can do it.

MATTHEWS: I agree with you, I think, well said. Let me ask you—

Steve, let me ask you about the battle. Are the Democrats confident that if they do cut off the money, that they American people won‘t turn on them and say, you know, we did want these datelines to get out of that country, we do think we ought to end this war, but you can‘t cut off the equipment and the food and everything else going to troops.

MCMAHON: Well, I do not think there are any Democrats talking about cutting off equipment and food.

MATTHEWS: Well, if the president vetoes the bill, there isn‘t anything going to the troops.

MCMAHON: Well, there is going to be another bill. And the other bill will have a different set of benchmarks. Even the Republicans now, Congressman Boehner, Congressman Blunt, Congressman Iglesias from South Carolina, are talking about different forms of benchmarks to hold the Iraqi government accountable. However it happens, whether it is funding or whether it is some other benchmark, the American people are ready for this Congress to take a stand and say, enough is enough; no more blank checks. There has to be some accountability.

The Republicans, by the way, are reading the same polls, Chris, that you are. And the guys who have to actually run for reelection, not the president, put the people who actually put their names on the ballot, are deeply concerned about the course of this war, deeply concerned about the president‘s commitment to it, and want a way out.

MATTHEWS: I agree. I just wonder when the worm turns and it becomes not the issue of where you stand on the war, but funded the troops adequately or not, and whether the president doesn‘t have that ace in the hole to say, wait a minute; the money runs out May 15th, where‘s the bill?

MCMAHON: But Chris, there will be a series of benchmarks. The Bush administration was the administration that put forth these benchmarks for the Iraqi government. now the Congress is just saying, look, we‘re calling your bluff. You said the Iraqi government was going to meet certain benchmarks. Let‘s have them meet them meet those benchmarks. You know, the Republicans are actually talking about having conditions upon where the troops can be placed within the war zone. So they are all getting to the same place.

This president is not going to be able to ignore the Congress and the American people very much longer. And if he does not get the message, the Republicans on the Hill will.

MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much Steve McMahon. Thank you very much Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, now with the Family Research Council. It‘s great to have you back.

We are going to talk about the fourth anniversary now, if you want to call it that, of President Bush saying on that aircraft carrier, “Mission Accomplished.” Of course a war came after that, a war many thought wasn‘t going to happen. But the war has happened in the last four years. We‘re going to talk to an expert on that, Paul Rieckhoff, who is head of the Iraq and Afghan Veterans of America. We‘ll be right back with an expert on this four year war many didn‘t expect to happen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: Paul Rieckhoff is head of the Iraq and Afghan Veterans of America. Thank you Paul for joining us tonight. Let‘s talk about troops. The people care about the troops in our country a great deal, as they should. Those troops are serving us. They‘re getting killed for us. This month is the worst month in terms of KIA‘s, killed in action, this whole year. And here we are on the anniversary, if you want to call it that—it‘s probably a bad word for it—the fourth year, to the day, after the president on that aircraft carrier declared the war basically over, mission accomplished.

What do troops you meet with think about the fact that this is a war we did not think would happen, that four years ago we thought there wouldn‘t be a real battle of Baghdad like this?

PAUL RIECKHOFF, IRAQ AND AFGHAN VETERANS OF AMERICA: I think they‘re surprised, Chris, because of those of us in the military could have predicted a lot of these issues. We could have predicted the rise of the insurgency. We could have predicted that the military could have gotten bogged down. We read our military history and we learn from people like Colin Powell and others who warned against this type of quagmire.

So I don‘t think as many people are surprised in the military, quite frankly, that were surprised in the government. I think it is frustrating, at times, because it still seems like the people in the military understand a great deal more about what is happening on the ground than our representatives in Washington.

MATTHEWS: Well, do the military, the young men and women who go into services, know that in third world countries they resist occupation? They knew that?

RIECKHOFF: Sure, absolutely. I remember being in officer basic school studying prior insurgencies. And I understand that an effective counter-insurgency takes decades. And I think if you listen carefully to what General Petraeus is saying, he says that, quite frankly. But I think one of the major disconnects, and it started with the Mission Accomplished Speech, is that the president gave the American people the idea that this was going to be easy; it was going to be over quickly; and there wouldn‘t be a huge cost.

MATTHEWS: Well, that adds up then, because we did know, at least students of the region knew—I did not know personally—that there was a long-standing dispute between the Shia and the Sunni portions of Islam, and that that‘s been going on for 1,300 years. And in the country of Iraq there is a division, with about a 60-20 advantage in population to the Shia, who have always been the under people, if you will. And the people calling the shots under Saddam were always the Sunni minority.

So there is that tremendous desire to get even. Revanchism (ph) it‘s called in the third world, Getting even. We did know that people, as you say, resist occupations. We know that if you are going to fight an occupation, you have to have an insurgency, that insurgencies are fought by the occupiers with counter-insurgency, using torture, because that‘s the only way to get information on what the insurgency‘s up to. So if you put it all together, Paul, everything was predictable, except the American people were not prepared for this.

I was not prepared. The president declared victory. Here we were, ready to walk out of Iraq victors.

RIECKHOFF: I don‘t know if torture is the only way. I‘ve got to challenge you a bit on that one.

MATTHEWS: Well let me ask you this, what has been the historic colonialist effort to break an insurgency? What have they done? They‘ve gotten people, informants, OK? How else have they got it?

RIECKHOFF: That‘s the key, to cultivate that organic intelligence, that human intelligence from within the community. What you do with it is the next step and another discussion. But I think the key issue here is that those of us, especially early on, I think, in late 2003, early 2004, who were on the ground, who came home during those first few years of the war, were trying to alert the American people, and were trying to alert people in government that things were not going well, that we didn‘t have enough diplomatic and political options on the ground.

We didn‘t have enough troops. We didn‘t control the borders. These ethnic groups were starting to fight each other. And I think that is where we had a critical turning point. And that is why I think this Mission Accomplished anniversary is so important, because it was the first point where the American people realized there was a disconnect between the president and the reality on the ground. I know it‘s not something we should celebrate, but I think, if anything, it gives us a point to take stock and to think about where we are.

MATTHEWS: OK, let‘s talk about the future. There‘s two things coming about. First of all, the president is talking about, and you hear about this, our tactics. We are going to put men, mainly men, out in small units to hold these areas once we take them. Small, little fortifications, you know, like the outposts British used to have in Northern Ireland, you know, like police posts, very vulnerable to attack. Also, we‘re going to start embedding our troops in Iraqi units, which makes them susceptible to being grabbed and taken prisoner and, you know, tortured and everything else.

Doesn‘t the future look even scarier for our troops than it does in big units.

RIECKHOFF: Absolutely, and that‘s exactly the type of work that we did when I was there in 2003 and 2004. And then we had this period where we pulled back, went into these giant forward operating bases, and didn‘t mingle within the community like we had been. Now we are going back to kind of where we were in late 2003 and 2004, and for our guys and girls on the ground, it is incredibly dangerous.

You do not know who your enemies are, who your friends are. You are greatly outnumbered. You‘re already probably there for a second and third tour. It is extremely dangerous. You‘ve been bringing it up all week. And I think you have to put yourself in the shoes of those soldiers, just for a few days. Imagine how dangerous it is to be in a remote downtown outpost, where you are surrounded by Iraqis, and you do not know who is trying to kill you or not. It‘s incredibly dangerous. And that‘s one of the things that I try to do, is just try to communicate that personal experience. Think about how tough this is for our American soldiers and Marines on the ground. It‘s incredibly difficult.

MATTHEWS: This is “Beau Geste” all over again, fortresses out in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by Arabs who don‘t want you there. Anyway, thank you Paul Rieckhoff for joining us, and giving us this insight. We‘re going to come right back with the “Politico‘s” Roger Simon, one of the best columnists around. We‘ll talk about the debate coming up, also the Democrats and their big fight now with the president over the war funding issue, which is coming to a head tonight, as the president has vetoed the bill. It‘s all happening tonight, the big fight between the Democrats and the president over Iraq. We‘ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTHEWS: We have 10 Republican candidates already running for president. There may be more joining the group, but 10 of them are going to meet Thursday night at the Ronald Reagan Library, right above Los Angeles. Roger Simon is with “Politico.” “Politico” is going to be our partners in this debate.

Roger, is this going to be an attempt by the back benchers, if you will, of this campaign, people like Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, the libertarian, Duncan Hunter, to try to engage with the front runners?

ROGER SIMON, “THE POLITICO”: I think so. I think you have got a large second tier in the Republican party. All of them have the capability of being bomb throwers in this debate, just to distinguish themselves, just to gain some attention. I mean, these guys are starved of oxygen. Basically, nobody cares about their races, and they‘ve got to show Republicans why they should care about their races.

MATTHEWS: You have got some cultural nuances there, to say the least. You‘ve got Brownback, very culturally conservative from Kansas, and then you‘ve got Rudy Giuliani. Do you think that would be a point of demarcation in the Republican party over the Reagan legacy.

SIMON: I think the Reagan legacy is very important to these people, not just because it‘s at the Reagan Library, although that‘s symbolic enough. But because Ronald Reagan had an uncanny ability to connect with people, to connect with voters. There are three presidents of the modern era who could do this, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and to some extent, actually to a pretty significant extent, Bill Clinton.

All these candidates want to be Reaganesque in that way. They are all going to say they have the bonafides to be a Reagan Republican, that they are mainstream Republicans. But that‘s not what Ronald Reagan was. Ronald Reagan was more than that. And he got people to vote for him who never voted for a Republican before in their lives. We‘ll see if any of them can even get close to assuming that mantle.

MATTHEWS: You know, Reagan had a great strength, and even his critics would admit, he understood what he was doing in politics. He did not join politics because he wanted to be a politician. He went into political life so he could achieve some ambitions for the country, for example, he wanted to defeat Soviet communism. And he found a way to do it, out running them in terms of technology, innovation, that we could do things like, at least potentially, SDI, and we could beat them, in terms of our ability to pay for something like that.

And that, you might say, bluffed Gorbachev into saying uncle. And also said I‘m going to reduce the size of government by cutting taxes. He had a purpose and he had I means to do it. Do you think any of these candidates for president can find that kind of unity of purpose here?

SIMON: I think it will be tough. I‘m not sure how any of them really measure up, are going to measure up in the minds of the public when they see Ronald Reagan on one hand, and any of these on the other. I was just going over my old clips today. When Ronald Reagan won the nomination and won the presidency in 1980, when he won the nomination, it was not the cake walk that, by comparison, it is now.

We think this is the toughest election ever. When Ronald Reagan ran, he ran in 25 contested primaries. No one wanted it to be over on February 5th back then. This went all the way to the convention, where he fell short—I‘m sorry, when he ran in 1976 -- when he felt short by 100 votes to the sitting president, unelected sitting President Gerald Ford. Those were real campaigns and they brought out the best in a guy who was a natural campaigner.

Of the Republicans now, I think the best campaigner I have seen, in terms of enjoying himself, which Ronald Reagan always did, is Rudy Giuliani. He actually seems to get a charge out of the process. And I think Americans like that. They like to see happy, enthusiastic candidates.

MATTHEWS: Enthusiastic; they don‘t like people who have to be talked into running either. So I‘m wondering about Fred Thompson, where he has to sort of, you know, hang off the stage there and say, well if you really ask me nice, I might run. Anyway, we‘re going to come back, Roger and I, with live coverage of President Bush‘s remarks about vetoing that war spending bill. We‘ll be right back on MSNBC.