Reprinted with permission.
"Hardball with Chris Matthews" transcript
MSNBC
January 4, 2005
Guest: C. Boyden Gray, Ralph Neas, Tony Blankley, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Frank Gaffney, Wesley Clark
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Tsunami politics. The Bush administration is spending millions of tax dollars and a pair of big American faces to fuel the effort in Southern Asia. Will this turned-on campaign jack up our image in Islamic countries? We‘ll talk to former presidential candidate General Wesley Clark.
Plus, Thursday‘s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings to consider President Bush‘s nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be attorney general promises to be punishing, as his critics jab at his role in setting U.S. policy on torture.
Let‘s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews.
The death toll in the Asian tsunami is estimated tonight at 150,000. Secretary of State Colin Powell, touring the damage in Indonesia and Thailand, says he hopes the outpouring of American aid to tsunami victims will help Muslims countries the U.S. in a better light.
Retired General Wesley Clark is the former supreme allied commander of NATO. He‘s also a former Democratic Palestinians candidate.
General Clark, do you think the president is doing the right thing?
WESLEY CLARK (D), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think we were slow to get off the mark here. I mean, people around the world look to the president of the United States to be a world leader, not just a leader of the American people.
But I‘m really encouraged with what our military is doing over there. I‘m delighted that Secretary Powell and Governor Bush are headed over there. I‘m happy with $350 million. Now we‘ve got to follow through. Remember, in the Islamic world, as in everywhere else, it‘s not what you say. It‘s what you do. And it‘s going to think a long record of consistent and conciliatory U.S. action to bring the Muslim world back on our side.
MATTHEWS: Is this consistent with Bush policy, this big aid effort?
CLARK: Well...
MATTHEWS: In other words, reaching out to the world in a positive way, is this consistent with his track record or inconsistent?
CLARK: I think it‘s seen as inconsistent by much of the world. It‘s certainly consistent if you‘re going to say he‘s a compassionate conservative, which is the platform he ran on four years ago.
But, more importantly, this is not partisan. This is an issue that represents all Americans.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CLARK: Every American is disadvantaged by the negative image that President Bush has conveyed to the rest of the world.
MATTHEWS: By what?
CLARK: By his statements and by the other things that have come out over the administration‘s record. So, this is a chance to try to turn that around. It‘s in every American‘s interest for the president and for the United States to be perceived in a more positive fashion. I sure hope this works.
MATTHEWS: What do you think he made his brother, who may be a presidential candidate down the road, the carrier of this great message to the rest of the world?
CLARK: Well, I think it‘s a personal attachment. And I think the president must know...
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: Is this to polish him up for a run as V.P. next time or president next time?
CLARK: Can‘t rule that out, Chris.
But, to me, I think it‘s the same way that John Kennedy would have used Robert Kennedy. It‘s just someone who is part of the family, to say, I can‘t do it, but I want to show you that I have a personal touch on this. I don‘t think it‘s bad politics. I think it‘s good.
MATTHEWS: Do you find it odd that the former president who has the most role to play in the last 20 years in terms of helping poor nations with disease and problems like this, smaller versions of this, Jimmy Carter, was not asked to participate? Do you find that interesting?
CLARK: Well, I think it‘s a terrible thing that he wasn‘t asked to participate. And I‘m sure that President Carter is going to do everything he can to help this effort.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it was partisan knocking Carter off the list?
CLARK: I don‘t know if it was partisan or not. But I will tell you what. Jimmy Carter is held in very, very high esteem around the world. I‘ve had people from every walk of life around the world tell me how much they think of President Carter. So it‘s in our country‘s interest that we put President Carter out there on the line as one of America‘s great representatives.
MATTHEWS: I felt I discovered a new Bill Clinton. You know him much better than I do. A new former President Bill Clinton yesterday. I saw a man who seemed to be not just enjoying the role as a nonpartisan world leader, but embracing it, saying, god damn it, I‘m finished with politics. Here‘s a chance to be nonpartisan. Here‘s a chance to be a world leader.
It looked to me—well, what did you think? A new version of the guy.
(LAUGHTER)
CLARK: I think Bill Clinton has a tremendous personality. He‘s a brilliant guy. And he‘s charismatic. And he is a great leader. And he‘ll do a great job in this mission, too.
MATTHEWS: Totally aboard with the president, no hint or showing a little ankle here or there or partisanship, absolutely embracing the president as a world partner, weren‘t you impressed by that?
CLARK: Well, I was impressed by the fact that...
MATTHEWS: But not surprised?
CLARK: ... they‘re trying to put a team together here that will represent this country the right way.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CLARK: I think what all Americans expect to see is a lot less partisanship and a lot more working together to deal with the issues this country faces.
MATTHEWS: I think it saw a Bill Clinton yesterday, maybe because of his health, because of the terrible threat to his health of his heart surgery, he‘s ready to kiss off politics completely and go for world leadership and try to get to a higher level.
Do you think that, like running the U.N.? That‘s what I think. I‘m not going to ask you to comment. But I really do think he wants to be head of the U.N. and get out of politics.
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: I think he would be a great head of the United Nations. But I think this is his—as he‘s recovered from this operation, I think his horizons are open. And I think he‘s engaged at every conceivable level. This guy really makes a difference.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Do you think President Bush would endorse him for world leadership of head of the U.N. now that they‘re working together on this food issue over on that part of the world? You‘re laughing, but this is serious business.
CLARK: He would be smart—he would be smart to pick Bill Clinton to be the head after Kofi leaves.
MATTHEWS: OK.
Let me ask you about the whole question. You‘re a military man. You were supreme NATO commander. You know U.S. capabilities in the world. When we were all growing up, you and I, we always heard, well, we could fight 2 ½ wars, don‘t worry, with our hands tied behind our back or whatever.
Today, last night on the program, we had three generals. You respect them all, Meigs, Downing and McCaffrey. They were talking about the possibility that we were reaching our limits in terms of sea lift, airlift, especially, with all these planes, 15,000 troops going over to help with the relief effort, basically stretching our capability, given our war in Iraq. What do you think? Are we stretched to the limit?
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: The ground forces are stretched.
Now, no one should misunderstand this. We‘ve got a lot of ground forces left in the United States. If there was an emergency somewhere, we could do it. But we couldn‘t maintain it like another Iraq theater simultaneously without really enhancing the strength of the ground forces.
MATTHEWS: We couldn‘t go into Syria, for example, with what we have?
CLARK: Well, we might after the election be capable of going into Syria. It depends on the outcome of the election. It depends on the status quo in other regions in the Middle East.
And, remember, you didn‘t mention the Air Force. And our Air Force is absolutely the best in the world. It‘s hardly flexing its muscles as it is right now. It was operating at a much higher tempo when we had Operation Southern Watch, Operation Northern Watch, when Saddam was still in power.
MATTHEWS: Sure.
CLARK: So you‘ve got all those Air Force assets. They‘re there.
They can be used in the region. We‘ve got lots of ordnance.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You sound like you‘re open to the idea of further aggression by the United States, more occupations, more invasions than just Iraq and Afghanistan.
CLARK: I think that the military cards have slipped out of public view.
And, as a result, I think that we‘re not getting the kind of dialogue we need on this. I think Americans need to understand that this administration still has military options both in Syria and Iran and that the alternatives to those military options are effective, engaged diplomacy. And I don‘t see the effective and engaged diplomacy.
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: Therefore, I think there‘s planning for military options. I think it‘s the wrong course at this point.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CLARK: But I think we need that dialogue. You started this dialogue, Chris, in the summer of 2002 about Iraq.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CLARK: And, at the time, people thought, well, what‘s going to happen? Why would we go into Iraq? And yet, right now, we‘re in that same period here with both Syria and Iran. There are military options available. There are people that I‘m told around town thinking about it.
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: And there‘s not a discussion on it in the American...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Unfortunately, there wasn‘t enough debate before the last encounter, when we went into Iraq. I think we now know the costs and the difficulties of being in that country that we didn‘t know before.
Let me ask you about Alberto Gonzales, the president‘s counsel. He‘s up for—the president has put him up for attorney general. He‘s the man that laid out the guidelines, if you would call them guidelines, on torture of prisoners and the power of the presidency during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think he‘s fit for the job?
CLARK: No.
How can the American people have confidence in a man like Gonzales after what he‘s written for the president of the United States? He‘s basically said the Geneva Convention was irrelevant. He basically said that torture is something that‘s very limited, that you could be in terrible pain and that you still wouldn‘t be being tortured.
MATTHEWS: Yes. He said we could have cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners.
CLARK: And not have it be torture.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CLARK: And Mr. Gonzales has basically said the power of the presidency is unlimited and he can do anything he wants.
How can we feel confident as Americans that we‘re living under the rule of law when the attorney general has violated what we believe to be the law?
MATTHEWS: Well, let‘s just get this straight, so we don‘t sound like we‘re goody-two-shoes here. You‘re a military man. You‘ve commanded troops, many of them. You‘ve been in combat in Europe. What are the limits of interrogation, as you understand it to be?
CLARK: Geneva Convention, no question about it.
I mean, we would never have violated the Geneva Convention. You don‘t shoot prisoners. You don‘t do false—trick executions. You don‘t rough them up and beat them up.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Did we threaten to throw people out of helicopters in Vietnam?
CLARK: I have heard those rumors. I never saw it. And if it was ever done, I hope it was punished.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Did we hose people with hoses in their mouths until they talked?
CLARK: Not in any of my commands that I know of.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CLARK: And I‘ll tell you this.
In 1999, when we had three Americans captured by the Serbs at the start of the Kosovo campaign, they were put on television and one of them had a big black eye and looked like he was beaten up. We were outraged.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CLARK: And...
MATTHEWS: So you don‘t think water-boarding, as it‘s called, where you basically threaten a guy with drowning, you make him think he‘s going to drown, is acceptable?
(CROSSTALK)
CLARK: Absolutely not.
MATTHEWS: So Gonzales is not your man.
CLARK: I think strict Geneva Convention, strict adherence to the law.
MATTHEWS: Thank you.
CLARK: We put that law in place to protect our soldiers.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: You can‘t officially do it anymore, but—you‘re retired. But do you think a lot of military men of your rank, flag rank, do you think that‘s a common view? McCaffrey certainly had it last night. Is this a general view you hear from military men?
CLARK: This is what we believe in.
We—look, we fought for the Geneva Convention. It was put in place to protect our soldiers, our values and our institutions.
MATTHEWS: Right.
CLARK: We can‘t win the war on terror if we give up what we stand for as the American people.
MATTHEWS: Would you testify against Gonzales on the Hill if they asked you?
CLARK: Well, I would testify against anybody who wrote those kinds of things. I don‘t know Gonzales personally. But how he could have written these documents is outrageous.
MATTHEWS: Strong words. Thank you, Wesley Clark.
You going to run for president again?
CLARK: Rule nothing out.
MATTHEWS: I love it.
Anyway, thank you very much, General Wesley Clark, still in the mix.
