War Without End

Guest

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/4925312.htm (access this URL to see the actual poll numbers in graphic form):

Americans are against unilateral war in Iraq

A Knight Ridder poll suggests that 83% of the country supports war - as long as it is backed by the U.N.
By Martin Merzer
Knight Ridder News Service

With U.S. troops heading for the Persian Gulf, Americans say in overwhelming numbers that they oppose unilateral U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, according to a national Knight Ridder poll.

A robust majority of Americans - 83 percent - would support going to war if the United Nations backed the action and it was carried out by a multinational coalition. But without U.N. approval and allies, only about a third of the public would support a war with Iraq.

"This... is a worldwide effort to eradicate terrorism," said Robert Black, 57, a firefighter from Easton, Pa. "It should not be the United States going it alone and picking and choosing what country we want to take care of this week or this month."

The poll highlights the Bush administration's political and diplomatic quandary.

Unambiguous evidence that Iraq has nuclear, biological or chemical weapons is a key requirement for the broad international support that Americans crave. Yet a majority of poll respondents, while convinced that Iraq harbors such weapons, said they doubted that U.N. inspectors would find them.

Many said President Bush had not effectively explained why military action might be required. Nearly one in five said they still did not believe Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

"We have been given no compelling reasons for going to war," said Bill Quarton, 52, of Ann Arbor, Mich., who was among the respondents who said they were opposed to unilateral U.S. action against Iraq.

"Our government acts as if it knows something terribly important and we should go ahead with this, but we haven't seen anything to substantiate it," he said. "The whole scenario makes me very uncomfortable."

The survey, conducted Jan. 3 to Jan. 6 by Princeton Survey Research Associates, questioned 1,204 adults, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Most Americans do not want to rush into war, the poll found. Sixty-eight percent of respondents said the United States should continue to work toward achieving its goals in Iraq without war. Only 27 percent favored quick military action.

Still, more than 60 percent of those surveyed would support an eventual war if it were the only way to topple Hussein or end the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Arguments against war are much less compelling to Americans than arguments in favor of military action. In particular, the arguments that war with Iraq will hurt the economy, damage relations with our allies, or divert attention and resources from the goal of tracking down those responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, don't carry much weight, the poll found.

Two-thirds of the respondents said they thought they had a good grasp of the issues surrounding the Iraqi crisis, but closer questioning revealed large gaps in that knowledge. For instance, half of those surveyed said one or more of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. In fact, none were.

The informed public is considerably less hawkish than the public as a whole, the poll found. Those who show themselves to be most knowledgeable about the Iraqi situation are significantly less likely to support military action, either to remove Hussein or to disarm Iraq.

Asked to rank the threats facing the United States, more than twice as many respondents (49 percent of the total) chose al-Qaeda as the greatest peril as chose Iraq.

With war looming and another crisis brewing with North Korea, the survey found Americans exhibiting considerable uncertainty and ambivalence.

Among other things, they are evenly divided about Bush's effectiveness in explaining what is at stake in Iraq and why U.S. military force might be employed. Forty-eight percent said he had not clearly laid out his rationale for a war against Iraq; 46 percent said he had.

The result shows some slippage for the President since September, when other polls asked a similar question. Then, 52 percent thought the President had clearly explained his position; 37 percent disagreed.

"He's the best," said Jose Velez, 25, of Lehighton, Pa., near Allentown. "After Sept. 11, President Bush didn't take any chances, and this is part of that."

Dan Yeager, 24, of Grand Ledge, Mich., saw it differently.

"I think going after Iraq is just for Bush's own popularity and to finish off his father's work," Yeager said. "He's not clear about why he wants to go to war. I think he just wants to do it and he's just saying, 'Back me.' "

Yeager and many other Americans remain worried about the economy.

As a group, respondents were evenly split when asked whether foreign threats or the economy should be the administration's top priority.

"We're going to spend a lot of money sending all these troops to Iraq and right now we have a problem of our own with the economy," said Lydia Sepulveda, 41, of Weston, Fla. "A lot of people are without work."

Still, the 27 percent who think Iraq should be the administration's top foreign-policy priority are more likely than others to want the White House to devote most of its time to an overseas crisis rather than the economy. Fifty-two percent of those people feel that way. Only 42 percent of those who think that al-Qaeda or North Korea should be the top priority want the White House to place that issue ahead of the economy.

When it comes to North Korea, a majority think the United States is imperiled by that hard-line regime and should maintain or enhance its military presence in South Korea.

But there is little support for military action against North Korea. Seventy-nine percent of those surveyed said the crisis should be dealt with by diplomacy; only 15 percent said the United States should prepare to take immediate military action.

"It should be resolved diplomatically, absolutely," said James Webb, 45, an unemployed shipping clerk from Philadelphia. "It boils down to something my grandmother told me: They're making war because they have too many people to take care of... . So we need to deal with that."

Returning to the Iraqi crisis, a commanding 91 percent of those surveyed believe that Hussein was concealing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Sixty-five percent said U.N. inspectors aren't likely to find those weapons.

If war proves necessary, Americans seem willing to tolerate a long military presence in Iraq. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed said they would support eventual military action even if it required U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for five years.

The survey also demonstrated that many remained altruistic and idealistic. They worry that the Iraqi crisis could mark a fundamental shift in American attitudes toward war.

Two-thirds of the respondents said Hussein's record of using chemical or biological weapons against his own people provided a good reason for going to war, the same number who cited American self-defense against a terrorist attack.

Forty-six percent of those surveyed said the possibility of a high casualty rate among Iraqi civilians was a good reason not to go to war.

The nation is evenly divided over the Bush administration's advocacy of preemptive strikes, launched before an enemy attacks U.S. interests at home or abroad.

Forty-three percent say the policy violates American ideals and could establish a dangerous precedent.

"We should be the country that sets the standards," Quarton said. "This amounts to punishing the criminal before the crime is committed."

Darius Transky, 65, is part of the 45 percent who could not disagree more. The retired Trenton high school teacher faulted Americans for failing to take quicker action throughout history.

"It's not in the American tradition, but it should've been. Americans always react after we get attacked," he said. "It's good to be preemptive: better to get them before they get us."

As one might expect, support for war among Democrats and independents was much more conditional than support among Republicans.

While Republicans widely endorse the policy of preemptive strikes and would support a war with less than the full support of U.S. allies, Democrats and independents tend to see preemptive strikes as bad policy and make their support for war contingent on U.N. backing.

Americans are divided on the use of nuclear weapons. Forty-six percent would approve of a nuclear response if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons; 45 percent would not.

Asked if Israel would be justified in responding with nuclear devices to an Iraqi chemical or biological attack, 60 percent said yes; 30 percent said no.

"It would be a grave error," Quarton said about the use of nuclear devices under any circumstances. "Two wrongs do not make a right. It would poison a large part of the world. It would create hatreds that might take centuries to resolve."

The survey also suggested that the factual underpinnings of many respondents' opinions were shaky.

Nearly one in four respondents said the Bush administration had publicly released evidence tying Iraq to the planning and funding of the Sept. 11 attacks, and more than one in three respondents did not know or refused to answer.

No such evidence has been released.

http://www.philly.com

Alpha

BRITS PULL SUPPORT FOR IRAQ INVASION TO THWART US ZIONISTS:

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2002/12/23/brits-pull-support-for-iraq-invasion-to-thwart-zionists.php

Guest

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12526511&method=full&siteid=50143

SHORT WARNS BLAIR ON IRAQ WAR PLAN

By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor

CABINET rebel Clare Short urged Tony Blair yesterday to prevent war with Iraq.

She said the Premier had a "duty" to stop US President George Bush sliding into battle without United Nations backing.

Asked on TV if that meant Britain should avoid going along with unilateral military action by America she added: "That is the logic of the position."

DUTY: Short

The International Development Secretary spoke as a poll showed opposition to war hardening. And her remarks raised fresh fears within Downing Street that she could quit the Cabinet over Britain's role in any future military action.

Mr Blair, who will face a stormy meeting of Labour MPs on Wednesday, is said to be increasingly worried that the number opposing war could top 100.

The outspoken International Development Secretary broke ranks as Washington unveiled plans to send 62,000 more troops to the Gulf.

She spoke out as a new poll showed 58 per cent of voters are not convinced that Saddam Hussein is dangerous enough to warrant a repeat of the 1991 Gulf War.

Ms Short said: "I think all the people of Britain have a duty to keep our country firmly on the UN route, so that we stop the US going to war too early and keep the world united."

Asked if that meant Britain should not go along with unilateral military action by America, she added: "That is the logic of the position."

The outburst raised fears Ms Short may quit the Cabinet over any future action in Iraq.

Last night Pentagon officials said the United States would be ready for war with a 150,000-strong force in place by mid to late February.

As the Prime Minister prepared to justify his position on Iraq in a televised press conference today, a YouGov poll for ITN revealed just 13 per cent of voters would support a war without UN backing.

About 30 per cent of those questioned also believed Britain and America's motives for wanting to topple Saddam were to seize control of Iraq's oil supplies.

Opposition was also growing among Labour backbenchers who are set to ambush Mr Blair at a parliamentary party meeting on Wednesday. Mr Blair will attempt to quell their anger by talking of "liberating" Iraq rather than invading it.

Ms Short is the most prominent "dove" in the Cabinet. Others include Commons Leader Robin Cook, Chief Whip Hilary Armstrong and Scottish Secretary Helen Liddell.

They have warned Mr Blair, who will meet UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix on Friday, that war with Iraq could trigger the biggest revolt of Labour MPs since 1997.

Former minister Kate Hoey warned Mr Blair of the strength of feeling on the backbenches over military action without UN backing.

She said: "If it does go ahead without the backing, there are going to be quite severe repercussions."

Former Labour minister Tony Benn said Mr Blair could lose his job if he continued to ignore MPs' views.

He said: "MPs have not been asked their opinion and I gather there are serious fears among the Cabinet that they are not being listened to.

"Tony Blair is in a unique position in that he has the power to veto President Bush's plans to invade Iraq.

"America knows it needs the political cover of Britain's support and that it would be foolish to try and continue without our backing."

Labour MP Donald Anderson, chairman of the Commons' foreign affairs select committee also warned of a backbench rebellion.

He said: "In a democracy, one needs public backing for any war, and the reality is that the public is still unconvinced. Parliamentary opinion needs facts and needs to be convinced that action is in accordance with international law which means, a second UN Security Council resolution."

But Labour party chairman John Reid made it clear the Government was not ruling out taking part in military action without UN backing.

He said: "We would all much prefer that this is solved diplomatically. If it is not, we would all much prefer that the United Nations then faces up to their own responsibilities with a second resolution - which would be my preference on this.

"But no one on this position would give solace to Saddam Hussein or to those who seek to give him succour by ruling out any option."

Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell yesterday hailed Ms Short's courage in speaking out and added: "It is inconceivable that the Government could commit forces to military action without the support of the public. It is overwhelmingly clear that this support depends on a Security Council mandate."

Meanwhile Saddam warned war could only be avoided by Iraq's neighbours. He told Turkish premier Kursad Tuzmen: "Inspection teams are here and our co-operation with them is continuing, but if America wants to look for a pretext for the aggression, only the countries of the region can prevent it.

"With clarity, seriousness and brotherly dialogue we can reach the best solutions in the field of bi- lateral co-operation which would lead to many achievements and a high degree of stability in the region."

But Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah insisted there would be no war and said Arab states were considering a proposal from his kingdom which would "solve many problems".

Mr Blair is expected to travel to Washington for a "war summit" with President Bush later this month.

Guest

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2003/01/14/why-is-blair-poodling-with-the-bush-jinsa-zionists-for-war.php

Guest · Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 6:42 pm Post subject:

Anglo Thug · Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 7:14 pm Post subject:

Guest · Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 7:18 pm Post subject:

I understand your position, and I really WANT to agree. It's just that I'm in the majority on this poll also...

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Latest: Oct. 21-22, 2002. N=527 adults nationwide. MoE ± 5.

"Now thinking about the United Nations: Do you think the United Nations is doing a good job or a poor job in trying to solve the problems it has had to face?"

Good Job 43%
Poor Job 51%
No Opinion 6%

Anglo Thug · Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2003 7:41 pm Post subject:

Guest

http://www.msnbc.com/news/859673.asp (the following is the transcript of the "Hardball" television program which aired nationally in the USA last night on MSNBC):

‘Hardball’ for January 14, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the complete transcrip to Tuesday’s show

Guests: John Zogby, Jay Carney, Lindsey Graham, Jon Kyl, William Perry Smith, David Hackworth, Ed Rollins, Katrina Vanden Heuvel

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I’m Chris Matthews. Let’s play HARDBALL. The big story tonight, is President Bush losing popularity? A new “USA Today”/CNN Gallup poll has his job approval rating slipping to 58 percent, his lowest number since the September 11th attacks.
In a moment, we’ll be joined by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, but first, John Zogby is a pollster and Jay Carney is with “TIME” Magazine, he’s the White House correspondent for “TIME”. Let’s go to John. Let’s look at these first numbers, John.
It shows the president of the United States down to 58 percent. Now, that’s not a big fall, but it is sort of moving past or below that 60 percent magic line he was above for all these months since September 11, 2001. What does it mean to you?
JOHN ZOGBY, POLLSTER: Well, a couple of things. First of all, on the ground out here, Americans are insecure about a lot of things, about Iraq, about terrorism, about North Korea, about the economy. At the same time, though, it also shows that Democrats are starting to come back home. They may not have a message yet, but they have real bona fide candidates for the presidency who have gotten some attention. That obviously is going to draw some of those Democrats and left leaning independent numbers away from the president.
MATTHEWS: So the country is basically a 50-50 country politically, and this 58 percent just shows the president is coming back to reality?
ZOGBY: This is a gravitational poll.
MATTHEWS: Right.

ZOGBY: Even with the president’s leadership and his strong showing in the last election, only 50, 51 percent voted Republican.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me go to Jay Carney. What’s your thought?
JAY CARNEY, “TIME” MAGAZINE: Well I think the president was, as his
pollster has been predicting for a number of months, was eventually going -
his numbers were going to settle. Ratings above 60 percent in the modern presidency don’t last. They’re not realistic. It’s a divided nation and Bush’s numbers were bound to come down.

I think it’s coupled by anxiety over the war, and I think that his rollout of this taxcut proposal the he’s put forth has not gone as he’d like. People are hearing about and reading about some Republican opposition in the Senate...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CARNEY: ... some experts, tax economists who are...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
CARNEY: ... saying that it won’t do the things the president says it will do, give a stimulus to the economy, and it does indisputably disproportionally favor the wealthy.
MATTHEWS: Well maybe because the liberal media generally has been raking across the coals for the last week, maybe people aren’t as happy at getting a taxcut as they might normally be. But let’s take a look at those numbers and check them.
The “USA Today”/Gallup poll-here’s another number on the economy. How well is the president handling the economy? Evenly divided basically, John, no big surprise there, messamess (ph) 48, 47. They basically can’t figure out whether they like them or they don’t.
ZOGBY: That’s right. I mean in many ways he’s propped up by the fact that they like him as a person, but the bottom line is the economy is sputtering, regardless of what other economic indicators might show, you know, average folks out here are having a rough time. You saw that this past Christmas, and you see it now, and there’s a lot of anxiety still about the economy today, and about 401 (ks) and what’s left of them...
MATTHEWS: Oh you’re not kidding me. Everybody that checks their
stock market situation must be miserable today. Let me take a look at this
here’s another number before I bring Jay in. This-I love this number. What’s most important to you and your vote coming up to 2004? The economy overwhelmingly trumps terrorism-Jay?

CARNEY: Well I think that’s because people have seen that there haven’t been any terrorist attacks at home since 9/11, so the more distance we put between that moment...
MATTHEWS: Well there has been attacks on the stock market.
CARNEY: There has been an attack on the stock market, and traditionally when there’s not an immediate imminent threat or a war going on, voters return to the issues that matter most to them in their lives and those are economic issues. And I think, Chris, on the issue of Bush’s taxcut proposal, it’s not a matter of the liberal media or the Democrats criticizing it.
People are so attuned to partisanship that they dismiss that. It’s when Republicans or conservatives begin to raise questions about it that red flags go up, I think both to the White House and in the public at large. That’s what happened with Trent Lott. It was the conservative criticism...
MATTHEWS: No, that’s a different point. On the economy, do you think it’s true that Jay’s right, John, that it’s the Republicans’ fight over the taxcut rather than the usual partisan rich man/poor man argument against the taxcut that’s hurting it?
ZOGBY: Yes, it is basically. There is no rich man/poor man. Those who are poor aspire to be rich, especially the 66 percent of the voters out there who have some sort of stock market investment. Democrats beware of making this into a class issue. It won’t work.
MATTHEWS: Let’s take a look at something that really is interesting -
the question of al Qaeda. I mean I’ve made this case before, but I’m not the only one obviously. Look at these numbers. Forty-nine percent of the people say that al Qaeda is a bigger threat than Iraq and yet we’re going to war with Iraq.

John, how do you explain that? Why do people generally seem to support this war even though it seems to be going after the wrong target?
ZOGBY: Well they don’t. They’re evenly split on the war in my polls and that’s what I’m seeing in other polls as well. But al Qaeda is the force that attacked us, and no one can forget that. People are wondering just what the-what Iraq means to the national security of the United States. That linkage hasn’t been made yet.
MATTHEWS: Well you know I thought it was interesting in the other poll I looked at today, the Knight/Ridder poll that wa7s published in this Sunday’s “Philadelphia Inquirer” said that half the people that they polled in a very sophisticated poll, I think it was, said they thought that there were Iraqi citizens aboard the planes which struck us...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... the suicide bombers of September 11. Isn’t that massive disinformation by the president and others to keep suggesting that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, implicitly keep suggesting that when the facts are there were no Iraqis aboard those planes?
ZOGBY: Chris, you ask a very important question and I actually look at that from the other way around. Given all the hoopla that the president has made about Saddam Hussein and his imminent threat to the United States, I’m surprised that only half think that there were Iraqi nationals as part of those 19...
MATTHEWS: Can you think about any time since September 11 the president said the Iraqis weren’t involved in 9/11, ever once said it-
John?
ZOGBY: I’m not recalling anything, no.
MATTHEWS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) John-Jay, can you...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: The president-has the president gauged an implicit misinformation campaign to blame the Iraqis for 9/11 when they had nothing to do with it, by all evidence had nothing to do with it?
CARNEY: Well I don’t know if it’s a misinformation campaign. He has certainly and other members of the administration have certainly pedaled the idea that Iraq was somehow involved and when the proof of that has never forthcoming, they’ve...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK, let’s talk about...
CARNEY: They’ve never said - they’ve said...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: No, they just keep suggesting...
(CROSSTALK)
CARNEY: ... Iraq was not involved.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Let’s take a look at this. Eighty-three percent of the American people support a war with Iraq if the U.N. is behind it. Only 34 percent, John, if the U.N. is not behind it. It’s just an American versus Iraqi war. Does that surprise you, John?
ZOGBY: Not at all. It’s been consistent throughout. In fact, that is the one major caveat to this war-support for the war goes down enormously, down to about a third of the population if we go it alone. Basically, that’s showing a level of distrust towards this administration. The linkage hasn’t been made, but they will trust an outside international force above the president of the United States. That’s not a good sign and Bush proceeds at his own peril.
MATTHEWS: We’re going to be debating this, by the way, at the half-hour on this show. The big debate tonight is going to be about whether we need U.N. support or Bush was right to seek U.N. support. By the way, are you surprised that 83 percent want the U.N. behind this war and 34 percent are willing to go without them, but only a third are willing to fight this war without the U.N. support.
CARNEY: I’m not surprised because obviously Americans would like to have the whole world on our side. But I think the administration believes that these are soft numbers, that there’s a natural antipathy to the United Nations and that once a war starts, there’ll be a rally around the flag...
MATTHEWS: But remember, the poll comes out today, it says 60 percent of the American people do not want to go to war without the U.N. behind us.
CARNEY: But this administration...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... believe these numbers.
CARNEY: I think the administration doesn’t...
MATTHEWS: OK, thank you.
CARNEY: ... believe these numbers.
MATTHEWS: It’s been great. Well they love the numbers when they’re up. They don’t like them when they’re down. Thank you-that’s normal. Anyway, thank you John Zogby. Thank you my friend Jay Carney.
Senator Lindsey Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. You’ve been very attentive and very patient to listen to this...
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM ®, SOUTH CAROLINA: I love this...
MATTHEWS: ... fight. What do you make of this decision by the American people that lose some of their enthusiasm over the last couple of weeks for the president? What’s that about?
GRAHAM: Well I think these guys did a better job explaining it to you than I did. A lot of it’s coming back home, but these are uncertain unsettling times. When you look at television every night, you see families being separated, military members going overseas, the economy is not doing very well, so you want to make sure as an American because you really do love your country and you want to make sure that if people sacrifice for it, whether it’s through taxcuts or anything else, that’s considered a sacrifice, we’re doing it in a fair minded way. I believe the president needs to and will make a case that will make everybody feel better about the deployment...
MATTHEWS: Right.
GRAHAM: ... and the upcoming action. I find it in my own state, a very conservative area in South Carolina, conservatives come up to me just all the time and say you think we’re doing the right thing? Is now the time to go to war? Is this the right target and I said be patient. I think the president is on track to get rid of a bad guy in an appropriate way and at the end of the day, no matter how many polls you show me, I am convinced that Saddam Hussein over time is a very big real threat to this country and we need to neutralize him permanently.
MATTHEWS: Does the president have the flexibility to go back to the conservative voters of your state and say you know, we’re not going this without the U.N. I still have to make the case to the U.N. We’re going to hold off on this until, say, the fall to make that case. Would that sell with your people?
GRAHAM: Well I’m not so sure that the conservatives that I hang out with are really hung up with the U.N. giving us no-yea or nay.
MATTHEWS: OK.
GRAHAM: I think most people don’t want their country to be seen as a cowboy or a rogue state. And the idea of a having a multinational force makes sense given 1991, we saw how well it worked. The president, I think, is doing the right thing consulting with the U.N., but we should not allow the U.N. to veto what’s in our national interest.
MATTHEWS: What about the fact that if we go in there alone, it’s an American/Iraqi war, that we...
GRAHAM: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... by the rules of history started because we go in there and start fighting with these people...
GRAHAM: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... and we try to take over their government. Doesn’t that make us in the eyes of the world, not Americans maybe, outlaws?
GRAHAM: Well I don’t think we will because not only in the eyes of the world, I think a lot of people in this country would be uncomfortable if Britain would not be able to go with us. Militarily we need Turkey and we need people in that region to help us. The idea that Saddam Hussein will be a bad threat to us over time is there. The case is there to be made. The perfect person to make it is not me, it’s not a pollster, it’s the president. The reason 65 percent of the people in the poll trust President Bush is they’re somehow able to connect with him as a person and believe...
MATTHEWS: Right. I know that...
GRAHAM: ... that he has the best...
MATTHEWS: Suppose the president called you, Senator, and suppose-congratulations by the way...
GRAHAM: Thank you very much.
MATTHEWS: It must be amazing to be a U.S. senator...
GRAHAM: In my state, it doesn’t happen very often.
(CROSSTALK)
GRAHAM: Every 50 years.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. If the president of the United States you support were to call tonight and say Senator, you’re a new guy, but you know your state, you just got elected...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Should I go to Iraq without the U.N., what should you say?
GRAHAM: I would tell Mr. President, before you engage us in a military conflict, make the case to the American people first because it will be the American men and women who will do the fighting mostly, and I would continue to seek U.N. support, but I would not let Hans Blix tell us we can’t do anything until March. The U.N. is important, but what’s most important to me as a member of the Senate is that my president talk to the people in my country to convince them that shedding their blood is a worthy thing at this time.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Senator Lindsey Graham. A new senator, freshman senator, please come back. He’s going to be coming back.
Up next, the question of whether President Bush has lost his way politically. More with Senator Lindsey Graham and these poll numbers. We’ll be joined by Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona.
And later the HARDBALL debate tonight, a hot one. Secretary of State Colin Powell pushed President Bush to act through the U.N. Does that approach stall the president’s plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein?
You’re watching HARDBALL.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: When HARDBALL returns in a moment, freshman Republican Lindsey Graham on whether President Bush has congressional support for war with Iraq. That’s coming back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm. I’m sick and tired of games and deception, and that’s my view of timetables.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: That was President Bush today when asked about the timetable for a war with Iraq. We’re back with Senator Lindsey Graham. Let me ask you a question. Every time we do one of these “college tours”...
GRAHAM: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... and some people don’t like me doing this, I always ask the question of the students who are all of military age, I say are you for the war and generally it’s about a majority...
GRAHAM: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... for the war. Regardless of the school, how elite it is...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... north, south, whatever. Then I say how many of you intend to participate in any way in this war? They look at me like I’ve asked them is Santa Clause coming tomorrow morning?
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Like why did you ask that. Isn’t there a problem of having the fighters, a lot of them from South Carolina, black and white, so separated from the regular people that people don’t even think about those soldiers as they might be one themselves or a cousin might be one.
GRAHAM: Well I’m talking to Charlie Rangel, we talked last week, I may come up with a hybrid of his draft proposal. There’s a lot of ways to serve your country other than carrying a gun, but the idea that...
MATTHEWS: But the most dangerous way is carrying a gun.
GRAHAM: That’s the most dangerous way. But, the idea that a lot of people are unconnected with the consequences of sending people overseas based on income or race...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
GRAHAM: ... even the perception that that’s real bothers me. Phil Gramm had a great line. It’s time for people to get out of the wagon and pull the wagon and welfare reform. I think what Charlie Rangel was telling us, maybe it’s time for us all to take turns standing on the wall, and there are a lot of Americans based on color and income believe that we don’t stand on the wall equally. So I am for the idea of compulsory service to make this more real to people.
MATTHEWS: John McCain, a guy you used to like a lot and probably...
GRAHAM: Still do.
MATTHEWS: ... still do made the case we don’t-I say we have a professional army because they’re paid to join and it’s an...
GRAHAM: Right.
MATTHEWS: It’s a career opportunity for a lot of kids, as well as being patriotic and he says no, we have a volunteer Army. I said it’s not really a volunteer Army because regular middle class or upper middle class kids, you know we go to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Chicago, these type of kids aren’t thinking about maybe going in as infantry men or Marines.
GRAHAM: Well you know, the Officer Corps is pretty representative.
The Enlisted Corps is lower economic...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
GRAHAM: ... end of society, but there are a lot of people who join for a variety...
MATTHEWS: Would this war be less popular if the middle class and upper middle class were exposed to the draft?
GRAHAM: That’s a very good question and the honest answer is I don’t know, and the idea that we’re talking about whether or not it’s the right thing to do based on who’s representing our country, I think Charlie Rangel is on to something, and I would like to fix that. I believe it’s the right thing to do to remove Saddam Hussein sooner rather than later. I believe it’s the right thing to do to make sure North Korea doesn’t produce a lot of nuclear weapons, but the idea that somebody else’s kid is going to do it is thought of by too many Americans as to be wrong, and I agree with Charlie Rangel. We need to make it more real to more Americans.
MATTHEWS: Can you say tonight you’re ready to support some kind of mandatory national service of some kind?
GRAHAM: Yes I am, and I’m going to work with Charlie Rangel to-you don’t need to draft every 18-year-old in the country, but this idea of bringing new people into the system-the war on terrorism, if you believe it’s a war, then we ought to behave as if we’re in a war and World War II, would be there any doubt we went to a draft, Korea...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
GRAHAM: ... Vietnam? Homeland security needs are unlimited. The public health sector may need some support. The border security...
MATTHEWS: I agree.
GRAHAM: ... may need some upgrading. There’s a million ways young Americans can help make us more secure, and I believe now is the time to act like we’re in a war mode because we are.
MATTHEWS: Do you think-you said something right before the break, which I think everybody watching agrees with. The president needs to get on television and some kind of...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... you know fireside chat, it’s that time of year, and explain the details of why this country, ours...
GRAHAM: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... has to carry the burden of attacking that country, Iraq. Tell me what you want to hear from him.
GRAHAM: Well I’d want the president to make a case to the American people that it’s in our national interest that the reason we’re sending your sons and your daughters, American men and women overseas getting ready to engage in military combat is because of here’s what lies ahead if we just ignore Saddam...
MATTHEWS: To us?
GRAHAM: To us.
MATTHEWS: Not to the neighbors including...
(CROSSTALK)
GRAHAM: To us because...
MATTHEWS: ... but us.
GRAHAM: We’ll have some British help and we’ll have some help...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
GRAHAM: ... from other countries, but the dying and the fighting and the bleeding and the sacrifice and the money is going to come from this country. And I would really encourage the president sooner rather than later to get on television and make that case.
MATTHEWS: Thanks a lot. It’s great to have you on as a senator.
GRAHAM: Thank you. God bless...
MATTHEWS: Up next, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl on Bush’s foreign policy in Iraq and a lot on North Korea coming up with him.
And later, the HARDBALL debate. Will the U.N. prevent President Bush from toppling Saddam Hussein? Big question. And is Secretary Colin Powell responsible for slowing the march to war on purpose or not?
Plus Katrina Vanden Heuvel, she’s got a lot of fans out there, and haters, and Ed Rollins, they’re going to be here with the “Political Buzz”.
You’re watching HARDBALL.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: Senator Jon Kyl is a Republican from Arizona. Senator Kyl, let’s talk about North Korea, then Iraq and overall, the question of the president’s leadership. Do you think the president has been consistent on North Korea?
SEN. JON KYL ®, ARIZONA: I don’t think the administration has portrayed a common theme with respect to North Korea. I think the president’s instincts are very consistent and solid, but I think the administration has sent some conflicting signals.
MATTHEWS: What is different between the president’s move to try to find some way to accommodate the North Koreans’ need for energy, and their overall starvation, with the Clinton’s approach back in 1994 where the president traded basically oil for killing the nuclear program?
KYL: What the Clinton administration did was to cause the North Koreans to freeze their nuclear program at that time. What President Bush is calling for is dismantlement, and the difference is this. When they freeze it, they can restart it again at any time, which is what-just exactly what they’ve done in the past week. If they dismantle it, then they can’t go back to that same program again, so I think the president-
President Bush has the right idea here.
MATTHEWS: What about this sort of off and on again decision as to whether to talk to the North Koreans? The president had a no-negotiation stance we’re basically not going to talk to these people as long as they’re building nuclear weapons. Then, along comes this strange sort of cut-out situation - I think that’s the term in espionage where you have someone like...
KYL: That’s right.
MATTHEWS: ... Bill Richardson, the governor of North - of New Mexico speaking to the number two guy at the U.N. from Korea. Are they talking to the North Koreans or aren’t we talking to the North Koreans?
KYL: Well that’s what I referred to earlier. That seems a little confusing, and what I think we ought to be doing, obviously, is preparing for talks, but to prepare for those talks, we first of all have to change the dynamic. They hold all the cards right now. They’ve got nuclear weapons. They’re pretty irresponsible about the way they sell this stuff all over the world. They’re selling missiles.
They’re getting out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, restarting their fissile material program, and what have we got? We need to put an “or else” into these negotiations and...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
KYL: ... what we need to do is let the North Koreans that there are consequences if they don’t reach some reasonable accommodation with us.
MATTHEWS: Let’s take a look at what the president had to say today about prospects of diplomacy with North Korea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are we willing to talk to North Korea? Of course we are. But what this nation won’t do is be blackmailed, and what this nation will do, it gives us an opportunity to bring the Chinese and the Russians and the South Koreans and the Japanese to the table.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: What I don’t get is the president was very tough on North Korea in his last year’s State of the Union address where he called them the axis of evil, put them in with Iran and Iraq, and seems to be somewhat flatfooted in dealing with this threat. He seems to have known it was there through his intelligence. They are trading dangerous weapons to the Middle East, but yet seems completely unprepared in terms of a U.S. diplomatic initiative.
KYL: Well there’s where we have to put some sticks back into the equation. He noted that there were some carrots available if the North Koreans would talk. But so far when they talk they make agreements and then they break them, and there has to be a consequence for that bad behavior...
MATTHEWS: What’s our big stick Senator?
KYL: I think the biggest stick is the same kind of thing we did with Iraq, pass a resolution like 61 applicable to Iraq, make it applicable to North Korea. That says that we’re going to quarantine you. You can no longer export or import. We’re specifically going to interdict anything that you ship out of your country that’s a weapons of mass destruction or a missile. We’re going to deny you the hard currency that results from that, as well as the illegal drug trade that you participate...
MATTHEWS: But you wouldn’t go so far as the most recent congressional resolution on Iraq and allow the president to take any military steps he needs with regard to U.S. security vis-…-vis North Korea?
KYL: We can probably put that on hold. I do not think that force should ever be taken off the table, but it’s clearly not called for under current circumstances.
MATTHEWS: Are you concerned that the latest polls show the American people want to see evidence from the U.N. inspectors? They’re not satisfied with the evidence the administration has shown so far with regard to the need for an attack on Iraq.
KYL: Yes I am concerned with that because there needs to be consensus with the American people before we take military action, and the president, obviously, will want to try to achieve as great a consensus as he can before we do that.
MATTHEWS: Does the president need to have an Adlai Stevenson moment where he shows the American people and the world evidence that there’s weapons of mass destruction being built in Iraq?
KYL: There may be other ways to derive that consensus because that kind of evidence is not easy to come by nor is it easy to share as it comes from sources and methods that we frequently don’t want to disclose and sometimes, Chris, remember the connecting the dots theory, well sometimes there are a lot of dots out there. It takes hard analysis to connect them, but none of those dots specifically is that smoking gun everybody seems to be...
MATTHEWS: OK...
KYL: ... looking for.
MATTHEWS: Please come back as this develops. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona.
KYL: Thank you Chris.
MATTHEWS: Up next, the HARDBALL debate. Secretary of State Colin Powell pushed President Bush to act through the United Nations, but is the United Nations slowing down America’s plans for war with Iraq? We’ll be back with that hot one after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: This half hour the HARDBALL debate, is the United Nations actually slowing down America’s plans for war with Iraq? Plus Ed Rollins and Katrina Vanden Heuvel with the political buzz on President Bush’s latest poll numbers. But first, it’s time for the news.
(NEWS BREAK)
MATTHEWS: The HARDBALL debate tonight, Secretary of State Colin Powell pushed President Bush to work with the United Nations to achieve its goals in Iraq. But is the United Nations actually slowing the Bush administration down now? Here’s HARDBALL correspondent David Shuster.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): From the beginning it was Colin Powell’s idea to work with the United Nations and after seven weeks of unproductive weapons inspections, Powell is still putting his faith in the world body.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: And I look forward to the director general’s presentation to the Security Council on the 27th of January.
SHUSTER: But that presentation on Iraq’s arsenal is unlikely to include what many in the Bush administration are looking for, namely grounds for war. Chief Inspector Hans Blix now says the January deadline to report back to the U.N. marks the beginning of the inspection and monitoring process, not the end of it. And Secretary General Koffi Annan suggested today that any U.N. action on Iraq might be postponed for months.
KOFFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL: I think the inspectors are just getting up to full speed. They are now quite operational and able to fly around and get their work done.
SHUSTER: But the delays and difficulties have left the president expressing frustration.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm. I’m sick and tired of games and deception and that’s my view of timetables.
SHUSTER: Mr. Bush is responding to critics who charge that Powell’s approach is enabling U.N. bureaucrats to keep the U.S. tied down.
JOHN HULSMAN, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: These are people who really think that war in and of itself is an evil rather than people who think that sometimes war is in the best interest of justice and actually stability for the world. That’s why they joined the U.N. in the first place.
SHUSTER: But some analysts claim the problem is not with the United
Nations, but with the
administration’s failure to provide evidence of the Iraqi threat.
MICHAEL O’HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: We all realize Saddam is a liar and a despot and a tyrant, but we don’t necessarily know the basic way in which the U.S. can prove that he has weapons of mass destruction. And if we don’t know in this country given how much we pay attention to this issue, certainly the rest of the world doesn’t know either.
SHUSTER (on-camera): So the question is, does the U.S. need to put more faith in the U.N. or has Secretary Powell’s multilateral approach bogged down the administration in a hopeless diplomatic quagmire? I’m David Shuster for HARDBALL in Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: William Perry Smith is a retired Air Force general and David Hackworth is a retired Army colonel. He’s also author of “Steel My Soldier’s Heart.” That’s by the way s-t-e-e-l. Let me ask you first of all General Smith, right off the bat, was the president wrong to go to the U.N.?
GEN. WILLIAM PERRY SMITH, RET., U.S. AIR FORCE: No, I don’t think so, Chris. I think diplomacy is always the first thing you should try, work it as hard as you can. Colin Powell was very successful in getting a 13-0 vote a couple of months ago, so so far the course has been a good one. There are a lot of questions in the future, but I think he made the right choice.
MATTHEWS: Colonel Hackworth, was the president wrong to go to the
U.N.?
COL. DAVID HACKWORTH, RET., U.S. ARMY: No, he was dead right and I think he’s successfully checkmated the Gucci cowboys and the new world order gang that’s kind of running this war, at least until March, a very smart decision. He’s given our generals time to get the appropriate force on the ground and he’s given the civilians and citizens of this country adequate time to say hey, what’s going on? Is this trip necessary?
MATTHEWS: Second question and this gets to the heart of it, you first General, should the president go by the U.N. decision making with regard to whether to go to war with Iraq or should he go it alone if he has to?
SMITH: No, I don’t think he should go it alone. I think he should go back to the United Nations, talk about how the United Nation’s credibility is really on the line here, and urge them, at a certain time, and it’s probably not going to be the 27th of January.
It may be a month or two later, at a certain time get the United Nations to really look into the possibility of taking military action. I think that’s probably the course we’ll go forward. It may not be a 13-0 vote, but I think the persuasive powers of Colin Powell will be very helpful in this regard.
MATTHEWS: If he can’t get U.N. support to go to Iraq, should he go any way General?
SMITH: Tough question. I guess my view is, Chris, probably he should, but he will not be going unilaterally. He’ll be able to convince a number of coalition partners to come with him, that’s for sure, but whether he can get a U.N. resolution and what he should do from that, I’m not sure, but my guess is he probably will take us into war, maybe in the March time frame.
MATTHEWS: With or without the U.N.?
SMITH: With or without the U.N., but with a considerable number of coalition partners who will sign up because they want to be at the bargaining table after the war is over because Iraq is a very important country oilwise and many our ways.
MATTHEWS: Do you think he can get the countries we need for the war, particularly Turkey, without the U.N. behind this action?
SMITH: Chris, I have negotiated with the Turks on many occasions. They are tough negotiators, but they need the United States so much, in economic ways and getting into the EU and all those other areas, the Turks will come with us eventually. It’ll be tough, but we’ll get them on board.
MATTHEWS: Well, they were with us in Korea. Let’s go to Colonel Hackworth. Can the United States go it alone if the U.N. foot drags?
HACKWORTH: I think we need maximum support. I agree exactly with the good general, that what we need is a broad coalition. We need all the bases and all the supports that we can get. We need to hit this guy from every different direction in terms of air power and ground power, the north, the south, the west, and so on.
In order to do that, we need the bases and we don’t need to throw gasoline on the Muslim population of the world to cause them to think that we’re beating up on their Robin Hood, who they look at Saddam Hussein in that light, and throwing a great amount of gasoline on the fire and bringing back the great crusades.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you this. Here’s some facts on the ground here. We’ve got a new poll out that 83 percent of the American people wants to have-will support a war that has U.N. backing. Only a third of the country, 34 percent, would support a war without U.N. baking.
How does the president of the United States, who obviously faces resistance from the French and the Russians and the Chinese and Europe generally and the world generally, make the case, as long as the issue seems to be the U.N. inspectors haven’t found anything yet so there’s nothing wrong with it? You first General. How does he change the question to not whether the U.N. inspectors find anything or not but that we have evidence there is something for them to find?
SMITH: It’s a very fair question, Chris. The first point I would like to make is you need to work the polls better. I would think a better poll would be, would be the American people would be willing to support something short of a U.N. resolution but with strong coalition support and I think you would find that more than 50 percent on that side. The second aspect of your question is, I think the president of the United States does need to make a case.
He hasn’t made it well up to this time. Colin Powell has to work it for him internationally and domestically, as does Donald Rumsfeld. It has to be pulled together. They have a couple of months to do it, I think they can do it. They’re a pretty persuasive people. I think the people in Baghdad will cheer...
MATTHEWS: You’re being kind, general. You’re being kind. According to the Knight Ridder poll which was published this week in the “Philadelphia Inquirer,” the people that know the most about the situation in Iraq are least supportive of the war.
The ones who are most ignorant, particularly those who believe that half the people who attacked us September 11 included Iraqi citizens, are for the war. So isn’t more education something that stops support for the war, general? I mean, the president is not winning on the facts. He’s winning, according to the polls, on those who don’t know the facts.
SMITH: Well, I think the more we educate the American people, the better. You can do that Chris. The rest of us can do that and I think over time...
MATTHEWS: Well, don’t you think the president ought to make the pace (ph) General, that the American people, tell the American people, you’re wrong half of you out there who think that there were Iraqis who attacked us September 11. They weren’t Iraqis. I’ve got some other reason why I want to attack Iraq. He’s never said that. Should he? Or should he allow himself to benefit from people’s ignorance?
SMITH: No, I don’t think so, Chris. I think the smarter we are, the more informed we are, the better, but I think we also need to understand that Saddam Hussein, despite the fact he wasn’t directly involved in 9/11, is a character of great concern and we have to understand that.
MATTHEWS: Colonel Hackworth, the American people, a lot of them are not up-to-date on this, like you two gentlemen, those who watch this show every night. I’d like to believe we’re informed. They believe however, half of them and it surprised me this number, that they thought that Iraqi citizens were aboard those planes and the suicide planes in September 11 of 2001. Does that surprise you that half the American people have that fact wrong?
HACKWORTH: No, it doesn’t. I went with a brigade to Vietnam that was hey, hey, all the way with LBJ and a few months later it was hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today? The bottom line is this. According to the sources I have, and they’re damn good, Chris, they tell me, we know where the weapons of mass destruction, we know where the scud missiles are. Tell the U.N. inspectors.
MATTHEWS: OK. January 27 comes by. The president said he’s sick and tired of deadlines and timetables and all that stuff he doesn’t really like, but comes to be January 27, which is not far off now, a couple of weeks, you first, General, should the president say, I’ve got something I’m going to show you now, and this is why we’re going to war or should he simply say we’re going to war, I don’t care about the U.N.?
SMITH: No, I think he ought to lay out what he’s got in greater detail than he has not only to the U.N. inspectors but to the world. He doesn’t have to do it on the 27th of January. I expect he’ll do it by the middle of February.
MATTHEWS: And then we’ll go to war?
SMITH: And then we’ll go to war.
MATTHEWS: Do you agree with that timetable, the U.S. timetable, not the U.N. timetable, Colonel Hackworth?
HACKWORTH: No, I don’t, Chris. The biggest problem we have and the general well knows this is our airlift is broken; our sea lift is broken. We will not be ready to have our fist (ph) now in place. The adequate fist that our generals are begging for and have fought for over these suits who have never been in battle, but who wanted to go in with kind of an Afghan scenario, go in light (ph) and our folks have fought for a bigger show. It will not be...
MATTHEWS: When is the fist going to be ready?
HACKWORTH: Not before March.
MATTHEWS: But you both agree it could be March. Anything short of that, you’d say would be a charge of the light brigade. We should not go in that way. We have to wait until we have the full fist ready to hit them.
HACKWORTH: In this kind of a battle, you want to knock this guy silly and that’s exactly what’s going to happen. The biggest concern of the troops on the ground that are out there and my greatest concern is the use of weapons of mass inspection and are we ready for those?
MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much. It looks like we’re going in in March according to both of you, General. General Perry Smith and Colonel David Hackworth. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us and for basically agreeing. Up next, the political buzz. Tonight, Katrina Vanden Heuvel versus Ed Rollins on why the president’s poll numbers are down. And don’t forget, sign up for our free daily e-mail briefing at hardball.msnbc.com. It’s as good as ever. You’re watching HARDBALL.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: Time now for the political buzz. Ed Rollins is a Republican strategist. He got Ronald Reagan reelected in 1984 and Katrina Vanden Heuvel is editor of “The Nation” magazine. First as we reported earlier, President Bush’s job approval rating has dipped from 63 percent down to 58 at percent in the latest “U.S.A. Today”/Gallup poll. Ed Rollins, what do you make of it?
ED ROLLINS, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It’s still pretty darn good numbers. I think the reality is that polls at this point in time don’t really matter a whole lot, but I think where the economy has been and considering all the international stuff that he has, I think most presidents would be very satisfied with a 58.
MATTHEWS: If it continues to drop as it did in the past week, five more points, does that worry you?
ROLLINS: I think if a year from now it’s down at 51, 52, then it will start to worry me a little bit. I think the reelect numbers probably would be a little more telling around somewhere around 42, 43 percent, in private polls say today they’d reelect this president, who is still very popular and I think that’s more of an indicator for those of us that know the game well.
MATTHEWS: What’s more important to the president’s slight dip in his opinion, job approval? Is it the economy or is it nervousness about this war?
ROLLINS: I think there’s no question it’s the economy. Normally a president who wasn’t as popular as this one, with this kind of an economic environment would be in terrible shape. Reagan was at 41 percent when he had a bad economy and other presidents when the economy started to dip...
MATTHEWS: We have an eight-year high in the unemployment rate. Katrina, how with an eight-year high in the unemployment rating is the president even this high, 58 percent?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, EDITOR, THE NATION: You know, he’s at risk of losing the country on issues of war and peace. Let’s take-on the economy, the polls show that Americans see through this tax plan as skewed brazenly to the rich. The White House waging class warfare on the middle and low income Americans, and then you have, Chris, as you see in these polls, a credibility gap, a trust gap.
The majority of Americans don’t believe that this White House, this president, has shown hard evidence as to why you take this country into a war that could destabilize the middle east, that could lead to for terrorist threats on America and could stabilize an already fragile economy with layoffs, hemorrhaging jobs every week.
MATTHEWS: How do you explain Katrina, making the charge you just made when the “U.S.A. Today” Gallup poll that just came out today, and it’s a very significant poll, it’s the Gallup poll, said that more people support the dividend tax elimination than oppose it, 49 to 44. I’m not saying it’s overwhelming. But you make it sound like the American people are madly against this when they’re actually for the tax elimination.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I think it’s too early to tell on that Chris. I think that the debate has not yet begun. Even within the Republican party, there are stirrings, there are noises about these dividend tax, but this president, he’s personally popular, Chris. I believe largely due the extraordinary horrify events of September 11 but his issues have never been popular.
The tax cut that he pushed through, the tax cut that is leading the hemorrhaging in the states, the worst fiscal crisis since World War II was not popular at the time the majority of Americans supported investment in education, in Social Security in the infrastructure of this country, over a tax cut. The disconnect between that, between our democracy, majority aspirations and what happens in Washington is a larger issue than this program can explore in this time we have.
MATTHEWS: Let’s talk about the issue of whether we’re going to war or not and how much thrust there is on the back of this president right now. We have a commander in chief who is untested in war and here he goes into war. The questions is, according to the latest polling I’m looking at, three quarters of the American people are not satisfied with the evidence the president has. They want to see evidence from the U.N. 83 percent in this poll said they want the United Nations to support this war. Ed Rollins, does the president need to have the U.N. behind this war politically?
ROLLINS: Well, he’s never going to have the United Nations totally behind it and I think the reality is that we’re going to go to war and I think the president feels and his advisors feel they have all the reasons necessary to go. They have a lot more information than you or I have and I think the reality is just as his father found out, when his father went to war, the country really wasn’t behind him at that point I time, but once they won the war and won it quickly, then the country overwhelmingly supported him.
I think at this point in time the country is very concerned about Iraq, certainly very concerned about North Korea and I think that this president has the confidence of the public. I think the class warfare argument is something the Democrats have been trying to make for a long time and have failed in the last several elections. I think the reality here is this country has faith in this president that he’ll do the right thing.
VANDEN HEUVEL: Chris, if I might add, I think we’re seeing now two buildups in this - two buildups. We have a build up, a military buildup in the region and we have a buildup at home and in the international community. At home, if you put together the ambivalent Americans and those who are opposed to a war, you have a silent or silenced majority, and I think that it’s unclear, this White House may keep the war on the front burner for political reasons.
But it’s not clear to me at this moment that they are going to go ahead with the war because I think all the polls show there was support for multi-lateralism. That’s why they went to the U.N. and we have a White House whose foreign policy has been hijacked by a small group of neo-conservatives or if I might add, neo-crazies.
MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you this. I agree with you by the way to a large extent on that last point. But let me ask you a big popper (ph) here. You start Katrina. If the president of the United States goes on television some weekday night at 9:00 and for a half-hour lays out in vivid detail the Iraqi nuclear arms program, he points out that they had a program.
It was interrupted by the inspections of the 1990’s, but it has in fact only been delayed. It is in fact on track based upon all the evidence we have been able to gather, Iran or rather Iraq will soon have a nuclear arsenal they can aim at us or anybody else in the region, will that make you support the war, you yourself, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, if you know they’ve got a nuclear program underway?
VANDEN HEUVEL: No. I believe preventive diplomacy, not preemptive war which is a violation of American traditions and international law is the way to handle this and if I might add the North Korean crisis perfectly illustrates that this war against Iraq is not about weapons of mass destruction. If it were, we’d be going against-we shouldn’t go to war against either.
MATTHEWS: Let me go back and ask Ed Rollins the same question. Will the American people rally to a president, if he points to a nuclear program of ICMB’s being built in Iraq? Coming up, the Gallup poll, it surveyed the latest crop of Democratic candidates. Let’s see who’s winning. Who’s the top Democrat to take on Bush? Back when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: We’re back with the political buzz with Ed Rollins and Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Ed, as promised, I’m going to ask you the question, if the president of the United States goes on television tonight with some hard evidence that the Iraqis are continuing with their efforts to try to build nuclear weapons to use against us and other countries, will that make the case for war?
ROLLINS: I think the president has to make the case and I think he will make the case and I think once he does, then I think a majority of Americans will be supportive of the efforts. And I think it will be-I don’t underestimate any war, but I think it will be over a lot quicker than people anticipate today. Our military has really scouted this one out. They know what they’re doing. They’re going to get everything that they need to fight this war and fight it accurately and adequately.
MATTHEWS: Do you think it will be as clean as the Iraqi war of 1990 and ’91?
ROLLINS: Well, that was not a war. That was not a war in Iraq. That was chasing them back out of Kuwait which was not their turf to defend. So I think this time it could be a little bit more prolonged. But we’ve had 10 more years of getting the technological side of it better. I think obviously the military has studied this long and hard and they’re pretty much getting what they want in the sense of the numbers of troops and the kinds of resources which is very very important.
MATTHEWS: Let’s talk about the Democrats right now. Ed, you’re a Republican and Katrina, I think you’re on the liberal side of things. Let’s take a look at the four guys who are leading the polls. They’re all teens. You count all the Democrat teens. Lieberman at 19, Kerry at 16, Dick Gephardt at 16, it looks like and John Edwards at 12, actually Gephardt at 13. What do you make of this, Ed?
You’ve been watching these fields for so many years. The shape of this field looks like - well they are the other guys. Let’s not waste too much time with that second list. The first list is interesting. Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards. Lieberman says he’s not a typical Democrat yesterday. Edwards is running against Washington. Gephardt is running as a populist outsider a well. The only establishment candidate of the four who admits he’s really just a Democrat, is John Kerry. What do you make of this? They’re all running against their own party, it seems.
ROLLINS: John Kerry may be in the right place. First he’s from Massachusetts, which makes him very important in New Hampshire. I think he’s got to win that New Hampshire primary. If he loses it, it’s obviously over very quickly. It’s a very short protracted primary season. I think it’s up to him and probably Gephardt at this point in time to either show they can put the organization together. Kerry certainly has the resources, but I don’t think any of them turn anybody on.
I don’t think anybody’s sitting out there today saying oh God, I want one of those guys to be the next president of the United States. I think they got to go out and prove through a very tough primary process. Equally as important, this president has to falter other wise it doesn’t matter. No one’s going to beat an incumbent president if he’s sitting there with 52, 54 percent approval ratings a year from now. He’s going to basically clobber this field.
VANDEN HEUVEL: I don’t think people get turned on by this field. I think they get turned on by issues.
MATTHEWS: You’re turned on by Kerry, aren’t you Katrina?
VANDEN HEUVEL: I’m turned on by someone who’s going to take on the national health care crisis in this country and I think this is about who’s going to define the voice and vision of the Democratic party. I mean Joe Lieberman, the polls are silly in a way, because he’s there because he was the 2000 vice presidential standard bearer.
But any rational observor, after 2002 in the debacle the Democrats faced, knows you need to have a Democrat who’s going to really distinguish himself, herself from the Republicans and not be Republican light and Lieberman has really been the most enthusiastic and critical ally of the Bush administration. I think Howard Dean is interesting on the health care issue. I think there are others who are going to come in.
MATTHEWS: Isn’t Hillary Clinton the one they’re all holding the torch and she’s not running?
VANDEN HEUVEL: You have something with Hillary Clinton.
MATTHEWS: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) I think she’s the real leader of the party. Ed Rollins, thanks for joining us tonight, Katrina Vanden Heuvel. Join us again tomorrow night at 9 Eastern for the return of the HARDBALL college tour. Our guest tomorrow night in Delaware, Senator Joe Biden, live from the University of Delaware, live on HARDBALL.
END

Guest

War Without End

The global war against terror, news about the illegal invasion of Iraq, the corporate puppet presidents, the war criminal Tony Blair, September 11th 2001, the USS Liberty and New World Order crimes against humanity.

Americans are against unilateral war in Iraq