Guest: Condoleezza Rice
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Tonight, my exclusive interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Let‘s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talks with me about the so-called Downing Street memo that suggested a lack of American preparedness for the Iraqi insurgency and the American people‘s declining support for the war.
Here now, my interview with Secretary Rice.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: Madam Secretary, there‘s a lot of concern in this country, as you know, about the strength and the violence of the insurgency.
We just got these two memos in the last couple of weeks that—they‘re called the Downing Street memos. One of them is a memo from now British Ambassador to the United States David Manning, in his capacity as adviser to British Prime Minister Blair, where he said that, in March of 2002, he met with you.
And among the big questions that were still out there in your mind was having to do with what are we going to be like—what‘s it going to be like in Iraq the morning after? Do you recall those meetings?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, of course.
David Manning is a fine public servant and an extraordinary—was an extraordinary foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Blair. And we had a number of conversations. I don‘t remember this one in particular. But I would just note, Chris, that that was a year before the actual invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein‘s regime. We had not yet gone to the United Nations to try and resolve the issue through diplomatic means. But a lot of planning went on between March of 2002 and March of 2003.
MATTHEWS: When the president made the decision or began to make the decision to topple Saddam Hussein, whatever it took, whatever means, whether it be multilateral or basically with coalition forces, was he calculating then the strength and violence of the current insurgency? Did you have a fix then on the—the size of this opposition we‘d face at this point?
RICE: I think it‘s fair to say that we knew that there were a lot of unknowables about Iraq, the strength of the institutions.
We were concerned, for instance, that—whether or not the ministries would be strong enough to stand up once you had taken away the kind of Baathist leadership that was supporting Saddam Hussein. We were certainly concerned about what to do about the armed forces.
But it was our view, we thought at the time that the army would stand and fight. You could then demobilize that part of the army that was associated with Saddam Hussein, and the remainder of the army could be brought to—for a transitional government in Iraq. But we were looking at all of these imponderables, all of these unknowns in that period of time.
I think we had, when we went to war, having tried everything diplomatically to avoid war, I think when we went to war, we had a plan for how to deal with the—with the aftermath. There were a number of things that surprised us, including the fact that the army, in a sense, kind of melted away in those last days after Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
MATTHEWS: Were you surprised that the Army was able to slink away into the cities of Iraq and still maintain the power of its ordnance and its fighting ability?
RICE: Well, it‘s not clear to this day the degree to which this is the structure of the old army.
There are clearly a number of old Baathist people who want to return the Saddam Hussein-like forces to power. There‘s also a significant of people—there are also a significant number of people who have come in as foreign terrorists, who recognize the importance of Iraq to the war on terrorism and are therefore fighting as if this is, in a sense, their last stand to make certain that democracy can‘t take hold in the Middle East.
So, I would never claim that the exact nature of this insurgency was understood at the time that we went to war. But that there might be forces after Saddam Hussein was overthrown, yes, that was understood.
MATTHEWS: Before we go on, that second memorandum that has been talked about, the one that was originally dubbed the Downing Street memo, said that the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.
What do you make of that word, fixed? Is that an assertion, that we were fixing the argument, making a case for intel that said there was a connection with al Qaeda, a connection with the WMD, just to get the war started?
RICE: Well, I don‘t understand—I can‘t go back and judge what was said.
MATTHEWS: Well, there‘s an American sense of the word fixed, which is like fixed the race, fix the World Series.
RICE: Right.
MATTHEWS: There‘s a British sense, which means just put things together.
RICE: Put things together.
And I know the people who were involved in this, and someone like the head at that time of the British intelligence services was very much involved in the discussions we were having on intelligence. A lot of the intelligence was from Great Britain, from British sources. And the entire world thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
I think if the world had not thought that he had weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn‘t have had him under sanctions for 12 years, trying to deal with his weapons of mass destruction. And there‘s good reason to have thought that he did, given that he‘d used them before, that, in 1991, he‘d been much closer to a nuclear weapon than anyone thought.
The important thing is that I think we‘ve all taken a look at the intelligence problems of the time. We‘ve made steps to try and improve the capability of the United States—and I think the British have, too—for intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. It‘s always going to be hard when you‘re dealing with very secretive regimes, when you‘re dealing with the dual-use capabilities that are usually involved in weapons of mass destruction.
You know, Chris, the same chlorine that can be used in a swimming pool can be used in chemical weapons development. And so, it‘s not easy. But the improvements that we‘ve made to intelligence, the creation of a new director of national intelligence, the sharing of information, the changes in the way that—that sourcing is reported to policy-makers, I think those are all things that we‘ll—we‘ve learned those lessons from the Iraq experience.
MATTHEWS: The interesting contradiction you just pointed to is the
fact that the president, in his State of the Union in 2003, used that
reference to British intelligence about the African—turned out not to be
the case, apparently, although that‘s still murky—the purchase of the uranium from Niger, right?
RICE: Right.
MATTHEWS: And, at the same time, British intelligence was saying, well, we don‘t have our act together. And yet we‘re trusting them.
RICE: Well, in fact, the British intelligence services are fine services. I don‘t think there‘s anyone in the world who would say that they aren‘t one of the best services in the world.
But the nature of the intelligence around Iraq was always hard. We were focused on a long pattern of engagement with weapons of destruction of Saddam Hussein. And it‘s interesting. The report that Charles Duelfer did at the end, when the Iraq Survey Group reported, showed that this was somebody who was never going to lose his connection to weapons of mass destruction.
MATTHEWS: Right.
RICE: ... who continued to harbor ambitions, continued to try to keep certain capabilities in place.
Sooner or later, it was going to be necessary to deal with the unique circumstances of Iraq, a state that was linked to weapons of mass destruction, so linked that there had been 17 Security Council resolutions against him, who had used weapons of mass destruction before, who had invaded his neighbors twice, who had caused massive deaths of his own people, somewhere in the nature of 300,000 or more people found in mass graves, and who was, by the way, still in a state of suspended war with the United States and with Great Britain as we tried to fly these no-fly zones to try to keep his forces under control, was shooting at us.
So, this is a pretty unique set of circumstances that led to war against Iraq, and that we had to sooner or later deal with this terrible tyrant in the middle of the Middle East.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: In a moment, as the United States fights in Iraq, what approach should it take in two other key Middle Eastern countries, Syria and Iran?
We‘ll be right back with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: Coming up, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on what to do about Syria and Iran.
HARDBALL returns after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to the eighth anniversary of HARDBALL.
I asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about Syria and Iran‘s influence in Iraq. Here now is more of my interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: You mentioned the fact that not all the insurgents are domestic. Let me ask you about Syria. Bashar—Bashar Assad...
RICE: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Is he supporting the movement of jihadists into Iraq?
RICE: We believe that there is substantial activity of the terrorists on Syrian territory. Now, the degree to which the Syrian government is or is not witting of that, I think no one would want to judge.
MATTHEWS: Are they trying to stop it?
RICE: Well, they‘re not doing enough to stop it. And we understand that this is a long and permeable border, but there are many—many efforts that could be made, many steps that they could take to improve the security on that border.
And the problem with the Syrian government is that they‘re—they‘re out of step with the entire region. They‘re still supporting Palestinian rejectionists who are frustrating the efforts of people like Mahmoud Abbas to bring about a Palestinian state. They are still trying, through, we believe, their surreptitious means in Lebanon, to continue to have an effect on Lebanese elections there.
And, in Iraq, with the Iraqi people trying to get a better life, trying to get a democratic government, they continue to do very little about the people who are gathering on their territory, despite the fact that those terrorists are coming to Iraq and killing not just coalition forces, but innocent Iraqis as well.
MATTHEWS: Do we support the opposition in Syria, like the Democratic Party of Syria?
RICE: Well, obviously, the Syrian people deserve to have the same freedoms that we‘ve talked about everywhere else. But how that comes about I think is yet to be seen. We have had diplomatic relations with the Syrian government. We still do. But we just want to see a change in Syrian behavior. That‘s the important thing at this point.
MATTHEWS: What do you make of Bashar? I mean, there‘s all this new generation coming into the Arab world. King Abdullah seems to have done well. Mohammed the VI is a moderate leader. You‘ve got Saif Gadhafi coming down the line, maybe a new Mubarak. But Bashar, has he been a disappointment.
RICE: Well, the Syrian regime has been a disappointment, and it‘s just—we‘ve tried many times, including trips that my predecessor, Colin Powell, took, that Rich Armitage took, to say to the Syrian government, do these things if you want to be in step with changes in the Middle East and if you want to be—if you want to have better relations with the United States.
In—in Iraq, for example, yes, this is a very, very tough fight, but it is for a good cause. It is to have in the center of the Middle East a different kind of regime that can be at peace with its neighbors, that can be a model for democratic development in the region worldwide, that, as the president said, can be an example of an answer to the ideologies of hatred that caused people to fly airplanes into buildings on a fine September day.
MATTHEWS: But who‘s rooting for that? You go through Syria. They don‘t seem to be rooting for it.
RICE: No.
MATTHEWS: Iran, you know, Congressman Curt Weldon just got back, and I can‘t—well, you understand this. Is Iran supportive of the Shia-dominated new government, or are they undermining it through support for insurgency?
RICE: Well, Iran‘s behavior, I would say, vis-a-vis Iraq has been somewhat mixed.
On the one hand, I would have to say that the Iranians apparently, with the Iraqis, are trying to develop neighborly relations. We want that to happen. It is Iraq‘s neighbor. They need to have good relations. But we would hope that those relations would be transparent, that there would not be efforts in any way to destabilize there.
But there—the Iraqis do have people in the neighborhood who want them to succeed. You mentioned the king of Jordan, King Abdullah, who is training Iraqi policemen and military people on his territory.
The—we‘re going to have a conference in Brussels on June the 22nd,
where the European Union, the United States and the Iraqis will host many,
many countries—I think it‘s now about 80 countries from around the world
· that are going to say to the Iraqis, “We are ready to support a unified, inclusive, democratic Iraq that can be at peace with its neighbors.”
Think, Chris, what a tremendous change that will be for the Middle East, to have that kind of Iraq, not Saddam Hussein in the center of the Middle East.
MATTHEWS: What about Iran? Do you have a favorite in this race coming up in five days?
RICE: I have to say...
MATTHEWS: Rafsanjani is a familiar name in...
RICE: Right. No, I know there are a lot of familiar names, but I have to say that a process by which the candidates were preselected by the mullahs before they could run doesn‘t really fit my definition of a free and democratic election.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: When we come back, I‘ll ask Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice what she makes of new poll numbers showing the American public‘s dwindling support for the war in Iraq.
You‘re watching the eighth anniversary of HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: We‘re back on HARDBALL.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice addressed new poll numbers that show dwindling support for the war in Iraq, as well as a news report that Iraqi security forces are poorly trained.
Here‘s more of my interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: The poll that comes out—just come out, “USA Today” front cover. Six out of 10 Americans, 58 percent, now want our troops to begin coming home in portions or else totally. Can we win this war if we reduce the number of troops?
RICE: There is no doubt that we all want our forces to begin to come home.
And they‘re going to do so, Chris, because there is both a political track and a security track that turns eventually, and really not too long into the future, the—the management of Iraqi affairs back to Iraqis.
When you think about the political track, they have had—we did transfer sovereignty. It‘s not even a year ago. They‘ve had elections. They are now going to write a constitution. They‘re going to have elections again in December. At that point, you have a completely freely elected and legitimate Iraqi government.
Their security forces are being trained. And I‘m told by our commanders in the field and others that, increasingly, these are capable security forces that take on the challenges before them. Our forces are not going to be the ones who bring security, ultimately, to Iraq. It‘s going to be Iraqis who bring security to Iraq.
So, this is day—this day is coming.
MATTHEWS: Right.
RICE: And it‘s—it‘s going to have to come because the Iraqis themselves have to have responsibility for their future.
MATTHEWS: Did you find the front-page story in “The New York Times” today frustrating, the top-of-the-fold story that said that it‘s pathetic? They point to anecdotal cases of where, sent out on missions, the Iraqi security forces don‘t even know what the mission was. They don‘t even pick up the hostage. They leave the hostage when it‘s an attempt to try to grab somebody. They seem to be missing the point of what they‘re being trained to do.
RICE: I‘m quite sure, Chris, that there are bad stories in Iraq and there are a lot of good stories in Iraq with the training of these security forces. These are new forces.
But they‘re not being asked to confront a huge conventional army that is going to come after them. They‘re learning to engage in counterterrorism training. They‘re learning to engage in anti-insurgency training. That‘s a different kind of mission. It takes a little while to train. But it also doesn‘t require them to look exactly like the American armed forces before they‘re capable.
I would just note that, at the time of the elections, for instance, they did very well on their own. General Casey told me that he didn‘t have a single case where the coalition had to intervene in the protection of those elections. And I—when I was in Iraq, I went to visit wounded soldiers at our hospital there. And I met, among those people there, a young woman, a 21-year-old woman named Sabrina, who had lost her leg because she had thrown herself toward an IED.
She was a part of the prime minister‘s protective detail. She knew what her mission was.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
RICE: And she sacrificed greatly for it.
There are many stories of Iraqis who are doing that. And that‘s going to hasten the day when coalition forces can begin to withdrawal, can bring down our numbers, so that Iraqis can take on those—those tasks.
And I just want to repeat, we‘re not talking about them having to face off against a large conventional army. We‘re talking about them having to do relatively limited counterterrorism missions. And, in some ways, I think you can argue that Iraqis are going to be better at those missions than coalition, because they‘re going to know who the good folks are and who—who they‘re not.
MATTHEWS: Any fear that they might have to confront a war, a civil war, that they might have to fight a resurgent Baathist effort once we leave or begin to leave?
RICE: Well, as far as we can tell, there‘s no organized army supporting this Baathist element. Their best method—their best method, their best strategy at this point is suicide bombings and blowing up innocents.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
RICE: And that‘s different than if there were a large army. Rather, what is happening is that the only true armed force in the region is pretty soon going to be the army of a united Iraq.
Now the ethnic tensions, the sectarian differences, have to be confronted on the political frame—political playing field. That‘s why it‘s been so important to encourage the Iraqis to be broad and inclusive, to have Sunnis involved in what they‘re doing. There‘s a struggle politically, but they are making a lot of progress. And if they do have this inclusive process for writing their constitution and their elections, that is going to be the path that I think Iraqis are going choose, not one that depends on people blowing up innocent schoolchildren.
MATTHEWS: Did you read the story of the day, that someone on the Sunni side openly said, “If we don‘t get our 25 seats out of 55, the violence will continue”?
RICE: I did see that. And I also know that it‘s important to realize that people are negotiating and discussing and trying to come to a solution at this point.
There does seem to me to be a lot of goodwill to include everybody in this political outcome. And it‘s not easy, because the Sunnis, for a variety of reasons, didn‘t participate in large numbers in the last elections. I think they now know that that was a mistake, and they‘re trying to find a way now into the political process.
The good news is, I—I really do believe that the Kurds and the Shia want them in the political process.
MATTHEWS: Why do we have to go to other countries to encourage more Sunni inclusion? The Steve Weissman piece this weekend said that we are using—and a lot of people speaking off the record or on background saying, because of sensitivity toward Jaafari from our side—why do we have to go to other countries? Have we lost our influence with Jaafari, that we have to use other national governments to try to encourage him to include the Sunnis?
RICE: Oh, I think it‘s always good to have an international consensus about this. And we do have an international consensus.
No, I found him quite responsive to the notion that they have to include the Sunnis. The problem is that it‘s a complicated issue of which Sunnis—there isn‘t terribly great coherence on the Sunni side. And, so it‘s a complicated process.
But it‘s always better to have as many voices as possible speaking from the same—same script. And everybody is saying to this Iraqi government, it‘s time to have a really inclusive process, so that you can write a constitution in which all Iraqis have confidence and then have elections.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: When we return, how should the United States deal with North Korea? And is Kim Jong Il a sane man?
We‘ll be back with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
You‘re watching HARDBALL, the eighth anniversary, only on MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
I asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice how she felt, as a native of Alabama, about the Senate‘s decision to pass a resolution apologizing for their historic failure to outlaw lynching.
Here‘s what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RICE: Well, I‘m delighted that they‘re going to do it. And I know that people like Senator Allen have been involved in it, a number of Southern senators. I—it‘s a really good thing.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: A little late.
RICE: Well, better late than never on something like this.
I remember as a kid the stories about lynchings. Everybody‘s family had at least one story in that regard. You know, my grandfather, who ran away from home at 13 because he‘d gotten into an altercation with a white man over something that happened with his sister, and he was pretty sure that, if he hung around, that‘s what was going to happen.
MATTHEWS: So, it was real.
RICE: Yes, it was absolutely real.
And it—but you know what it shows, Chris? It shows that the great thing about democracy and about American democracy is that, even though it has taken us a long time to fully realize the principles and the values that were outlined in the founding fathers‘ documents, that those very institutions allow you to overcome these conflicts, these historical problems, within the context.
So, in that sense, it is a remarkable and wonderful thing that this has been done in the U.S. Senate.
MATTHEWS: I was amazed, too, that Janet Langhart‘s relative was one of the people lynched.
RICE: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Amazing.
RICE: It is.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this civil rights case. We grew up with it—you more than I did—in Philadelphia, Mississippi—the three Northern civil rights workers who were maybe buried alive. They were killed. It was brutal. They‘re finally reopening that case. What do you feel about that tonight? That opens today.
RICE: Yes. I‘m not going to comment on the case. You know, I hope -
· I‘m sure justice will be done. We now—again, the institutions have matured to the point that, whatever the outcome, I really do believe people will trust it because we now tend to trust in the court system.
MATTHEWS: Let‘s talk Africa.
Senator Brownback attacks our program with regard to malaria, which I had a few years ago, and said that it‘s—we‘re spending too much money on consultancies and not enough on bed nets and basic materials.
RICE: Yes.
Well, this is a broad program. It‘s HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis.
And we are using—trying to make sure that the programs work very well. But we also are using direct means, direct action, if you will, to try to help these countries deal with these problems.
I‘ll—I‘ll give you an example. We have now more than 200,000 people under treatment for HIV/AIDS just since the president‘s program began.
MATTHEWS: In Africa?
RICE: In Africa—well, in Africa and the countries that are hardest hit, a couple of them in the Caribbean.
But this is a—a remarkable step toward putting two million people under treatment in the next several years. And a lot of this has to be done, working—which is the good thing—working with the countries themselves to improve their health care delivery system, because, when I was in Uganda, I was noting, learning about how they put people on bicycles and have them go out into the villages, because the villagers can‘t get all the way into the cities for...
MATTHEWS: Right.
RICE: ... for treatment.
So, there are a lot of very clear direct-action things that are being undertaken here. And, you know, we‘re always looking at the balance of planning and consulting vs. direct action. But I have to say, we‘re doing an awful lot that‘s direct action.
MATTHEWS: What do you think about it? I mean, I was in the Peace Corps over there. And we‘ve been over there a lot. And I think my son‘s going to be involved over there at some point.
And you have a leadership class, a generation of people, and they‘re sexually active, 20s to 50 years old. They‘re the ones getting killed by this disease. So, you have kids and grandkids surviving.
What‘s that going to do to the leadership hopes? Well-educated people, the best-educated, in a sense, the best and the brightest of Africa, are getting hit by this thing.
RICE: Well, it‘s the one of the reasons that I think the president felt he had to act. He had the feeling, the sense that you were going to lose a whole generation if you weren‘t very careful here.
You know, in some places, you‘re looking at infection rates going toward 40, 45 percent.
MATTHEWS: I know.
RICE: And so that‘s why this program is so important.
But, you know, it also takes leadership in Africa. Today, the president was with five democratically elected presidents in Africa, from places like Ghana and Mozambique and Botswana, places that have had recent democratic elections where they‘ve had peaceful transfers of powers a couple of times.
And those are the leaders that are accountable to their people because of democracy. Those are the leaders that are speaking out clearly about what has to be done. Those are the leaders that are embracing the strategy of abstinence and education, recognizing that this is something that you can‘t sweep under the rug.
There are still too many places in Africa and in other places where it is not considered a part of one‘s leadership to speak out about this, because it‘s a sort of taboo subject.
MATTHEWS: Right.
RICE: Well, if it‘s a taboo subject, you‘re going to continue to lose lives. And, so the president‘s program, which he discussed again with these leaders here who are here for the African Growth and Opportunity Act, a little mini-summit on that—but he discussed with them again the importance of real leadership.
And we‘re starting to get it in Africa, and I think it‘s going to make a difference.
MATTHEWS: Do you like the program where—in Uganda, where they say abstinence first, have a partner second, condom third? ABC?
RICE: Yes.
MATTHEWS: That‘s the order of...
RICE: Absolutely, because—because there‘s no reason to be shy about teaching, particularly young people, about the behaviors that are going to stop the spread of AIDS. We know what those behaviors are. And so, you have to be honest about them.
MATTHEWS: Okay, let‘s go east to west now to North Asia, to Korea. It‘s been said that you‘re moving more toward the diplomatic approach, more like Colin Powell, your predecessor. Is that accurate?
(LAUGHTER)
RICE: Gee, I thought I was a diplomat.
MATTHEWS: Less of the hard line of whatever—if there is a hard line—I‘m not sure what it is.
RICE: Right.
MATTHEWS: Do you think Kim Jong Il is a sane man?
RICE: I don‘t know. I‘ve never met the man.
MATTHEWS: Is he a responsible leader?
RICE: I have to say that anyone has to say that the people of North Korea have not prospered under this regime. They‘ve suffered under this regime. You‘re talking about malnutrition rates that have led to literal height and weight differentials that are dramatic between the South Korean population, which is well nourished, and the North Korean population that is not.
The sad thing is that, while the North Korean regime seeks nuclear weapons, its population is still totally dependent on food aid to try and deal with its malnutrition.
MATTHEWS: Right.
RICE: The good thing is that, if the North Koreans chose to come back the six-party talks, they could significantly improve the well-being of their people, because there are all of the states of the six-party talks are willing and ready to help them on this score. Even without that, the United States has been a huge provider of food assistance to North Korea.
So, there are—there are ways for North Korea to take advantage of what is being offered. They just have to give up their nuclear weapons program.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: When we return, Condoleezza Rice on America‘s challenging relationship with Russia.
And don‘t forget, sign up for HARDBALL‘s daily e-mail briefing. Just log on to our Web site, HARDBALL.MSNBC.com.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: Coming up, can the United States trust Russian President Vladimir Putin? More of my interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when HARDBALL returns.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS BREAK)
MATTHEWS: We‘re back with HARDBALL.
I ended my interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice by asking her about the state of Russia‘s economy and the appeal of its president, Vladimir Putin.
Here‘s more of my interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: Last two questions, and they‘re related. Russia and the piano, OK?
RICE: Russia and the piano. OK.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: First of all, you‘re a Russian expert. Somebody said to me recently that—I think it was my wife—that the word in the world is that, if you are a desperate people, times are bad economically—this may be human nature—you go to the tyrant. You go to the strong man.
Is that the appeal of Putin, that he will bring back that nostalgic sense of the greater Russia, the greater empire, and therefore...
RICE: Right.
MATTHEWS: And that it‘s being driven by this terrible dichotomy between rich and poor in that country?
RICE: Right.
Well, first of all, a lot has changed in the 15 years, 15-plus years in Russia.
This is not the Soviet Union. And so, even when we talk about trends of consolidation of power in the Kremlin that we think are troubling, we‘re not talking about anything remotely like what it was before the collapse...
MATTHEWS: No Brezhnev.
RICE: ... of the Soviet Union. There‘s no Brezhnev. There‘s no Khrushchev. In that sense, there is not even a Gorbachev. There a much freer society for individual rights and the like than there has ever been, I think, in Russian history.
But there is a trend toward the consolidation of power. And I think you have to understand it in terms of the Russian people‘s views. I think, in the ‘90s, there was a sense that it became a bit chaotic. And I think there was a sense that Russia‘s sense of being a great power was diminished.
Now, some of that has been rebuilt. And some of that is good. But what you don‘t want to do is to have an overreaction to the point that the concentration of power in the Kremlin, at the expense of an independent press, at the expense of a strong and independent judiciary, begins to swing completely the other way.
And I do think that the income distribution differences in Russia need to be addressed. They‘ve got an opportunity to address them.
(CROSSTALK)
RICE: They‘ve got extraordinarily high oil prices. But they‘re not going to do it on the basis of an energy-only economy.
MATTHEWS: What‘s wrong with Russia? Because we‘ve been pretty good in this country—obviously not great, but pretty good at creating a middle class. Roosevelt had a lot to do with it, the G.I. Bill, things like that, Social Security.
The Russians went from the czarist period, where it was horrendously unfair, where there were just a few very rich people. And now it seems like they‘re going back to that horrendous dichotomy of—people tell me around Moscow there‘s these people all driving around in Mercedes with incredible wealth and prostitution and huge money. Five miles out of town, or less than that, everybody‘s impoverished.
RICE: Well, it‘s—I do think it‘s gotten better in the last several of years, that there is a middle class that‘s developing in Russia.
MATTHEWS: Really?
RICE: It‘s beginning to develop. It‘s developing in the cities. When you go out to the countryside, it is quite a different, quite a different matter.
And the Russians, even the Russian leadership, will be quite honest with you about that, that the villages and the smaller cities are still very impoverished.
If you go to St. Petersburg or you go to Moscow, you do have a growing middle class. I‘ll tell you, the longest lines, Chris, are at furniture stores. And why is that? It‘s because people are actually buying apartments. They‘re buying places to live.
MATTHEWS: Really?
RICE: They‘re fixing them up. So, there is a nascent middle class.
But what you need is entrepreneurship in Russia, because one of the great secrets of the United States, of course, is small business. It‘s not big business. It‘s small business that employs tens of people or at most hundreds of people. And until you have firm foundation of rule of law and people believe they can recoup their investment and there are going to be fair tax laws and all of these things, you‘re not going to have that entrepreneurship.
So, the kinds of issues that we talk with the Russians about, the need for rule of law, is not just to attract big Western investment, but also so you can create a culture in which Russians themselves will—will found small businesses and take the country forward.
MATTHEWS: Why are the—last question is, why are the Russians so good at writing novels, at ballet, at chess, at the piano, anything that requires intense, almost lifelong dedication?
RICE: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Their—even their national anthem was beautiful.
RICE: Yes.
MATTHEWS: The Soviet national anthem is beautiful.
(LAUGHTER)
RICE: I think it is beautiful.
MATTHEWS: “The Internationale” is beautiful.
RICE: Yes.
MATTHEWS: But they haven‘t been good at is society-building.
RICE: Well, I—that comes down, I think, to political structures.
I—I don‘t—I fundamentally don‘t believe that there are any people on the Earth who don‘t have the DNA somehow for democratic development.
MATTHEWS: Really?
RICE: I just don‘t believe it. I just don‘t believe it.
MATTHEWS: Haiti?
RICE: Everybody in the world is capable...
MATTHEWS: Yes?
RICE: ... of democratic development.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
RICE: Some people in the world are unlucky enough to get stuck with really bad political leadership...
MATTHEWS: Terrible leaders.
RICE: ... and with really bad political institutions.
Now, the Russians are—as I said, a lot has changed in 15 years. That has improved. And you notice, too, that this is the people that also have some of the best software engineers in the world, because they‘re brilliant at mathematics.
MATTHEWS: Really?
RICE: They have the knowledge base, the intellectual base, to be a quite remarkable society and to build entrepreneurship, but they need a legal structure and a political structure that will allow that to happen.
When I think about what we got so fortunate about in the United States, it was really that, from our founding, those political institutions and that sense of what values mattered were there in the first founding documents.
Now, to be sure, you know, my predecessor on the wall here, Thomas Jefferson...
MATTHEWS: Yes, are there any Jeffersons floating around Moscow these days?
(LAUGHTER)
RICE: And Thomas Jefferson, you know, my favorite quote from him, Chris, is, you know, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.”
Well, he was a slave owner. But these institutions, while they weren‘t perfect at the time, did allow people to prosper and to continue to struggle and build toward them. That‘s what you need, is good institutions and I think people will eventually live up to them.
MATTHEWS: When you go home at night after trying to deal with the world and you play the piano for yourself, what do you like? Do you like Rachmaninoff?
RICE: No.
MATTHEWS: OK, you don‘t like Rachmaninoff. Do you like Kern?
RICE: I like Brahms.
MATTHEWS: Really?
RICE: Yes. I‘m a huge Brahms fan.
And I tend to like Brahms, Beethoven. You know, I‘m pretty traditionalist in my musical taste.
MATTHEWS: Classic stuff.
RICE: Classic. Very classic.
MATTHEWS: How many years did you study?
RICE: From age three-and-a-half.
MATTHEWS: Ah. You‘re the greatest.
RICE: Yes. That‘s right.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much for the time we‘ve had here.
RICE: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: Thank you.
RICE: Thanks very much, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Madam Secretary.
RICE: It was fun to be with you.
MATTHEWS: Thank you.
RICE: Great.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: When we return, highlights of HARDBALL on the road.
And don‘t forget to check out Hardblogger, our political blog Web site. Just go to HARDBALL.MSNBC.com.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to the eighth anniversary of HARDBALL. I want to thank everyone at MSNBC and NBC News for making this anniversary such a success. It is great to do this show each night, as you can tell. But we always have the most fun when we take the show on the road.
Here‘s a look back at some of the highlights on the road.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Faneuil Hall. It‘s getting hot here at the University of Miami.
You did a lot of work, P. Diddy, to get the vote out. What do you feel about your results?
SEAN “P. DIDDY” COMBS, MUSICIAN: It‘s been extremely successful.
MATTHEWS: It‘s great talking to you. It‘s great being out here.
CLINT EASTWOOD, DIRECTOR: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: You‘re undecided.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Completely undecided.
MATTHEWS: The world has been looking for you.
MATTHEWS: You have to think some tough questions up here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is why I love your HARDBALL. I just got an education right here HARDBALL style right between the eyes.
ROBERT REDFORD, ACTOR: We‘re really playing HARDBALL now.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: No, I‘m just asking.
What do you say to Warren Beatty?
GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER ®, CALIFORNIA: If he promises me not to give me advice in politics, I promise him not to give him advice on acting.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews. And welcome to the HARDBALL heroes tour.
Name, duty, rank, what you‘ve done over there.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Corporal Brandon Berkeley (ph). I‘m from Minnesota, United States Marine Corps.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Corporal Laka Sano (ph), 1st Marine Division, Purple Heart recipient.
I love you, mom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Received a Purple Heart when we hit a couple land mines back in April.
MATTHEWS: OK. You all right?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, I‘m fine.
MATTHEWS: Good. Thank you, sir.
Thank you all for your service. I mean it for everybody here, too.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do still have a life, thank God. And you know what? I‘m going to do something with it. I‘m going to move on and I‘m going to be happy. And I can truly say that I‘m—I mean, I‘m a happy person.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I‘m not trying to not sound brainwashed or anything like that, but...
MATTHEWS: You don‘t.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I‘m a soldier. My place to be is the place—I‘m hired to fight wars for this country.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It‘s a pride thing. It has to come from in here, which is why my injuries, I don‘t—I‘m fine. I don‘t care.
MATTHEWS: Good evening. I‘m Chris Matthews. And welcome to this very special edition of HARDBALL, live from Vatican City in Rome.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I go to school at U.W. Madison back in Wisconsin.
MATTHEWS: Really?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And if I‘m going to be in Rome for this, I want to be here. This is an amazing opportunity.
Getting sent over here by MSNBC has been a privilege of a lifetime. I came expecting the death of a great Catholic leader. What I did not expect was the passionate statement by so many millions of we, the living.
Is this something you‘ll remember?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, of course. I‘m here for school. And a history chapter is being written right in front of our face. So, of course I‘ll remember it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTHEWS: I remember that music.
HARDBALL correspondent David Shuster was on the road for us as well, from covering the war in Iraq to the picking of a new pope in Rome to hitting the campaign trail. And he joins us now.
David, historic memories there.
DAVID SHUSTER, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Well, Chris, and congratulations to you on behalf of the entire staff.
And to end this incredible HARDBALL eighth anniversary week, we have a surprise tribute to you from someone you often talk a lot about on your show. Here are the top eight reasons why everyone should watch HARDBALL, courtesy of New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), NEW YORK: Number eight, Jay Leno and I both think you‘re a middle-aged heartthrob.
Number seven, you brought dueling back to politics, where it belongs.
Number six, no steroids in your version of HARDBALL.
Number five, HARDBALL, where the nuclear option is used every night.
Number four, Bill and I watch you for your calming and soothing effect.
Number three, MSNBC should stand for must see nothing but Chris.
Number two, desperate House members are always more interesting than “Desperate Housewives.”
And the number one reason to watch HARDBALL? HARDBALL has only been on the air for eight years. It feels like 100.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: David, the one picture I would love to see is those two watching HARDBALL.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: I would love it.
SHUSTER: Well, Chris, again, congratulations, not only for the anniversary, but for also defying the laws of nature. All of us on your staff seem to think that you‘re the only one in this television news business who has been able to get younger with age.
(LAUGHTER)
SHUSTER: So, congratulations.
MATTHEWS: It‘s my secret. Thank you very much, David Shuster, my pal.
I‘ll be right back tomorrow night at 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL with the debate over whether to shut down that detention center at Guantanamo Bay.
And, in one hour, “THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON.”
Right now, it‘s time for “COUNTDOWN” with Keith.
END
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Content and programming copyright 2005 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 Voxant,Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user‘s personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and Voxant, Inc.‘s copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.