| | Chris Matthews: Victory means 'Americans get to come home'
Over the weekend, the American toll in Iraq reached the sad milestone of 4000 military deaths. Pat Buchanan, appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, asked "Where does it all end?" He noted that two-thirds of Americans now want to get out of Iraq, but "they don't want a defeat, and they don't want a disaster."
Chris Matthews, who joined the program from Washington, pointed out that Vice President Cheney recently replied "So?" when asked about popular opinion being against the war. "That is their attitude towards the public," Matthews stated. "A decent respect for the opinions of mankind? Forget it." He emphasized, however, that "at some point, the opinion of the American people matters."
Buchanan commented that the Democrats in Congress were elected in 2006 to bring an end to the war but have failed to do so. He asked whether Barack Obama might also conclude by next fall "that we can't really do it because we don't want to risk a disaster."
Matthews, however, did not see that sort of backtracking as an option. "You have to make it clear to the Iraqi government ... eventually Americans come home," he stated. "They're going to have to get that message clear as heck from the voters."
Matthews went on to criticize Republican presidential candidate John McCain for not presenting that kind of clear message to the Iraqi government. "The message from McCain is 'we'll stay as long as you folks make it necessary,'" Matthews said. "I think McCain ... has left it up to the Iraqi politicians how long we stay. ... It's not their call!"
"We should reestablish control of our own foreign policy," insisted Matthews. "The American people should decide ... not the Iraqi politicians. ... If we're winning, we ought to be able to come home. The definition of victory is Americans get to come home! It's not that you get to stay longer!"
Matthews finished by discussing the way in which the administration has constantly redefined its goals to justify staying in Iraq. "It is an invasion and an occupying force," he stated. "It's not a regime change. It's not a neat taking out of some bad guy. The language has been scary!"
"This administration has used language to justify a policy ... which wouldn't have been able to be sold under the old language," Matthews concluded. "Unfortunately, the media has bought into it."
This video is from MSNBC's Morning Joe, broadcast March 24, 2008.
Transcript via closed captions
:: let's get to our top story. hold up that heed line, if you could.
:: "new york daily news," mika.
:: i thought this would happen next week, but a terrible situation over the weekend, willie, which put the number of casualties in iraq to 4,000.
:: four servicemen killed by a roadside bomb. pat, it's 4,000. we've heard 2,000 and 3,000 were going to be great milestones. we were going to revisit what we're doing over there. was this significant? will it last? will it make us think about what we're doing?
:: i think it will make us think about what we're doing, the fact we passed the five-year mark and 4,000. the question is when does it all end? we've got two-thirds of the country wishes we had not gone in and wants to get oust of iraq. but they do not want to come out the way we came out of vietnam, the skids and coming off the roof of the embassy. but they do not want defeat and disaster. that's really going to affect the election. mccain's argument will be the democrats will lose in iraq because they'll bring them out too soon. and the democrats' argument says mccain says we're going to be there 100 years. no, we're not. we're coming home.
:: i have someone perfect on hand to ask a question about that. chris matthews joins us from washington for the next couple of hours as well. chris, good morning. thanks for joining us on "morning joe."
:: good morning, chris.
:: good morning, pat. good morning -- who else is there? willie geist.
:: we've got the party except for joe. he's got the day off. chris, talk to us about this milestone in iraq and how it affects the candidates' plans when they deal with iraq. john mccain, of course, and hillary clinton and barack obama looking toward withdrawal. does this milestone braps reenergize the conversation?
:: i think probably the most staggering statement made by this administration since it took office was a two-letter word with a question mark at the end of it. when dick cheney answered martha rad ich, when she talked about popular opinion being against this war and dramatically, and he said so? as far as dick cheney is concerned, and he does speak for the administration's policy better than anyone perhaps, that is their attitude towards the public. a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, forget it. and i think that this statement that we can pursue a war without the public support runs against the pal doctrine. it runs against common sense. it runs against our history. at some point, the opinion of the american people matters. they may have made a judgment very narrowly back in 2002 and '3 to go to war. by the way, if you go back and look at the opinion polling back then, the question was asked, do you support the war in iraq? they said yes. do you still support it if there are significant casualties to come? and they said no. and so the idea that this was a popular war from day one, i think, is misconstrued. and now that we face the reality of 4,000 dead, i think this statement as to whether there are significant casualties or not has been made as well by events, sad events, tragic events. i'm not sure this was ever a popular war. i think the fact that it wasn't is something this administration has been a bit arrogant to ignore.
:: chris, clearly, this was a war of choice, not a war of necessity for the united states. and the democrats were elected in 2006 fundamentally to bring it to a swift conclusion. i think that's a fair assessment of the election of 2006. yet they have failed to do so. they have failed to impose a deadline. they have failed to cut off funding. they have sort of given up on it. do you think their failure of the democratic party on capitol hill, that will be reflected this fall? and in the election, when barack obama, who basically is recommending the same course, that he comes to the same conclusion that, just as the democrats have on the hill, that we can't really do it because we don't want to risk a disaster. will he come to the same conclusion, or do you think he'll push in the fall for the 16 months and everybody home?
:: i think the real choice -- and you and i agree very much on this situation, pat -- is that you have to make it clear to the iraqi government that our decision to go in there was short term, it was hesitant. we decided to go in there because the president and the vice president and his people wanted to go in, but it was a close call. and we did our job, and the time will come swiftly when we'll have to come home to our country. iraq is their country. america is our country. and eventually americans come home. we're not a colonial power. we're not happy to be an occupying force in a war zone. we haven't been really. and they're going to have to get that message clear as heck from the voters. it seems to me, if the voters vote democrat for president, the message will be sent that our time in that country is very short. the politicians will have to make the best arrangements they can. it seems to me, pat, the only humane thing to do is to send a message to the iraqis that we're not iraqi. we're coming home to america. it will take maybe 6 months or 12 months, but we're come home. the message from mccain is we'll stay as long as you folks make it necessary. i think mccain, although we all agree he's a good man, has left it up to the iraqi politicians how long we stay. it's not their call. it's our foreign policy. and we should re-establish control of our own foreign policy. the american people should decide on american foreign policy and war policy, not the iraqi politicians. i don't know why the vice president is able to get away with saying our opinion doesn't matter, but iraqi politicians' misbehavior matters. we have to reassert our control over our forces, i think.
:: john mccain was in iraq last week. i do have some information that we may be hearing from him specifically on iraq later this week, and it will be interesting to see if the other candidates chime in as well, especially given this grim milestone. we'll get a sense, and we'll talk more about what the candidates can and should be doing on this issue coming up. first, let's get a sense of how things are being felt on the ground in iraq, specifically in baghdad, where nbc's ned colt is standing by as well. ned, can you hear me?
:: reporter: yes, i do. good morning wk mika.
:: ned quarterback give us a sense. this milestone, is it being discussed in iraq. what are you hearing from u.s. troops, u.s. service members, as well as people across iraq in terms of the iraqi people?
:: reporter: in terms of u.s. troops, this is a milestone. i think it's clearly being played that way in the states. on the part of u.s. troops, we're not hearing they're paying any close attention to this. this is another tragic fatality, four of them last night in southern baghdad when this ied, this roadside bomb exploded alongside this vehicle on patrol. another soldier was injured in that attack. but the american troops, the american officials here, officers and so on, are not playing this up by any stretch. they're just saying it's going to be another day, another day to try to keep those death tolls down, to try to continue to bring some semblance of peace here to the region. again, we're hearing that is continuing. it was a very difficult weekend here with close to 60 killed in various attacks, a very bad one up in mosul. but by and charge, we're hearing a 60% to 70% drop in baghdad at least in terms of attacks since the surge last summer. so there has been progress. but since november, we're hearing that it is more of a stalemate, that we're not seeing a continued reduction in those attacks.
:: all right. nbc's ned colt in baghdad. thanks very much. chris, he brings up a good point. you have to look at the effects since the surge began. and you could definitely spin that there is positive developments in iraq, at least since the surge began.
:: well, it depends how you look at it. you know, our soldiers are still facing death every day. they're getting hit by these ieds. it's not about being a good soldier when you're riding down a road and your car blows up. that's just the enemy striking when it wills. i don't think that's a war exactly. it's an occupying situation. it's a horrifying situation. our soldiers have to go into fire fights, but so often the deaths are brought by the ieds along the roadside where someone's got a garage door opener and pushes the button. it's horrible. if we're winning, we ought to be able to come home. the definition of victory is americans get to come home. it's not that you get to stay longer. the way they've misconstrued this war from the beginning. the terminology they used. you know, regime change, not invasion. these terms are clever. preemptive war, not war. it is a war. it's not a preemption. it's a war. it is an invasion examine an okay pigs force by our people. it's not a regime change. it's not some is neat taking out of some bad guy. the language has been scary. and the use of the word surge, by the way, surge by any common use means a surge of electricity. it stops. a surge ends. an escalation is when you increase your troop forces in the field. this is an escalation. so the language is the first problem. and this administration has used language to justify a policy and very effectively so, to the point where journalists used the new language to justify a policy which wouldn't have been able to be sold under the old language. pat and i agree on this. the old language is pretty good. aggression, nonaggression. these are good words. they mean you trust a sovereignty, even of a despicable government, rather than your own right to invade that country. you can't get into the new lingo without falling into this trap of a new attitude about war and sovereignty. our american role in the world. why do we have this new role of changing regimes? because there's new language? i think it is a bit scary. unfortunately, the media has bought into it. pat, you know i'm right on this.
|
