The Novice Takes on the Old Pro

New Congressman Tim Walz (tenure: less than a month) faces veteran Rep. Duncan Hunter (tenure: 26 years) on HARDBALL with Chris Matthews...

...and the new guy more than holds his own. Here's the transcript, courtesy of MSNBC:

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Let‘s go to Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter of California and Democratic Congressman Tim Walz of Minnesota.

Congressman Hunter, you‘re doing well, you won that little straw vote out in Arizona. Are you on your way to winning the Republican nomination?

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: A strong national defense, a strong border and bringing back some of those jobs we‘ve lost on this one-way street, especially to China. I think that resonates with the Republican base and it obviously did in Arizona.

MATTHEWS: How come we are hearing from very few national Republican senators, for example, who are really sort of out there with the president? You do hear from Kyl, you hear from Cornyn. But there‘s so many you don‘t hear from, and then you do hear from the critics. What is going on in the Republican Senate right now?

HUNTER: Well, if you‘re talking about Iraq, obviously I don‘t have my ear to the ground over there. But Chris, let me tell you, I‘m speaking—

I‘m speaking clearly. I don‘t care what you call it, a surge, an increase

what the Republican president is doing is sending reinforcements to Iraq to carry out his plan. And if the Democrats cut off the reinforcements, the American troops will never forgive them and I think the American people will never forgive them. I think the Republican senators should be loud and clear on that issue.

MATTHEWS: Well what happens if the Democrats in the House don‘t cut off aid to the troops? They simply say, no troop is going into combat without a certain level of training. No soldier will be asked to fight longer than a certain tour. Is that cutting off funding?

HUNTER: Well it is, if you try to do it in a cute way. First, nobody goes into that war without a level of training. And nobody goes in there without a flak jacket. I‘ve had calls on that phony issue. We‘ve got more than two sets of armor for every troop that‘s in Iraq right now, more than two. And so they‘ve got the right equipment. They‘ve got the right preparedness. But cutting off reinforcements is something that‘s never happened in our history. I think the Democrats are tap dancing between this abyss of cutting off reinforcements and on the other hand, trying to satisfy the more liberal base that says get out now.

MATTHEWS: Congressman Walz, that‘s a strong word, if he used the word reinforcement. It sounds like we‘re cutting off aid to guys in the field. That‘s the way the Congressman put it. That‘s a tough fight politically, isn‘t it? To say you‘re not going to send in reinforcements for guys who are pinned down?

REP. TIM WALZ (D), MINNESOTA: Well Chris, of course that‘s not going to happen. The Congressman is using some terminology that he knows is trying to incite that base of his.

HUNTER: It‘s military terminology.

WALZ: I spent 24 years in the military, Congressman, as a command sergeant major, I know that. The American public knows what they know. They know the foreign policy experts, the military experts, and no one is saying that this is the way to go. This administration and this Republican Congress has failed to ask the hard questions about Iraq and now they are trying to pull some new terminology, surge, reinforcements, those types of things, on a failed policy. The American public is not buying it. I‘m standing here in testament to that.

MATTHEWS: What do you think congressman, both of you, of the Hillary Clinton proposal she put out late this afternoon in Washington to basically say the money we‘re giving to Iraq, to the government to build up its forces, will be conditional on whether they get serious about political or a union in that country between Shia and Sunni and they really try to stop these death squads? Congressman Duncan Hunter?

HUNTER: Chris, I think that‘s a disaster. I think this—we‘re going back to the days when we have 535 secretaries of state who star laying out the policy instead of the president. And let me tell, you, reinforcements is what we are sending in. I‘ve talked to the commandant of the marine corps, they did request Congressman Walz. Those 4,000 reinforcements for the Al Anbar Province, that‘s Fallujah, that‘s Ramadi. That‘s a real war. So I don‘t know where you are getting your information. But they did call for reinforcements out there, in Al Anbar. It‘s going to be a disaster if we don‘t send them.

MATTHEWS: Congressman Walz, do you think Hillary Clinton is right in staying we should condition the money for the Iraqi army on whether they do what they say they‘re going to do, take down these militias, distribute the oil money, stop this debaathification, start uniting the country?

WALZ: We have to ask the questions. The al-Maliki government has shown us no reason to believe that they can keep to their promises or deliver on what they say they‘re going to deliver.

In the terms of reinforcements, congressman, the 34th division from Minnesota, those are national guard troops that have been there for 18 months on their second deployment and they‘re being asked to stay on longer.

These aren‘t fresh troops being brought in. This is a failed policy that is asking these soldiers to continue to give and give and give with no strategic plan. So I think asking where every dime is going—during World War II, we held hearings constantly to ask those questions and this Republican Congress has failed to. When we tried to ask the questions two years ago, we were called unpatriotic and cut and run and you can‘t change course.

I ask the question now, Congressman Hunter, why since November 7th is the president willing to change course? It may have to do something with the political reality that the American people are tired of this.

HUNTER: Yes, and my answer to you is ask all the questions you want, but don‘t try to stop troop movements after they‘ve already begun and after commanders in the field, like the marine commanders in Al Anbar, have said we need those troops, we want those troops, we‘re doing good things out here. We need the 4,000 people. We have a plan and that‘s a Baghdad plan with the nine sectors, two Iraqi battalions or three Iraqi battalions being backed up by American battalion, embedded forces. It is a plan, and if the Iraqis don‘t show up, then we‘re going to have to deal with them if they‘re not committed to defending their country. But right now, the president has a plan, he needs the extra people. That‘s reinforcements. I don‘t care—and the people that really came up with the wordsmanship here were the Democrats who called this a surge and talk about deploying to the rear. That is not a surge, it‘s reinforcements. We need to support them.

MATTHEWS: Gentlemen, let me ask you first, Congressman Hunter. Do you believe that the American people should continue to fight if it does become a civil war? Continue to stay in that country even if both sides look resolute in fighting to the death?

HUNTER: Here‘s my—where I think our metric should be, Chris.

We‘ve done two things in this 60-year-old pattern of standing up freedom. We stood up for free government and secondly, you stand up a military that‘s capable of protecting that free government.

Now once we have stood up that 120 plus battalions of Iraqi soldiers and they have the capability of protecting that government and the Iraqi government makes a political decision that they will tolerate violence, that they don‘t want to go after al Sadr and his people, that‘s a political decision that they make. We‘ve done our job. We‘ve stood up a free government, and we‘ve stood up the military that has a capability of protecting it.

I think the government will hang on Chris, because it‘s in their political interest to do so. And they do represent a majority of the country.

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Congressman Hunter and Congressman Wal[z].