MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Welcome back, because we're going to have some Republican reaction now to President Obama's press conference which he held today.

Let's turn to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Senator Hutchison, what would you like to see President Obama do that he's not doing with regard to Iran?

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, TEXAS: Well, I thought the beginning statement that he made today was a better statement than we had heard in the beginning.

Basically, Chris, we have Great Britain, we have France, we have Germany stepping up and saying peaceful protests should be allowed in Iran. I mean, everyone is speaking with a very bold voice. And I think America, which is a beacon of freedom to the world, should not be timid in a situation like this.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we have credibility when it comes to democracy in Iran, having stifled it back in the '50s, having supported Iraq against Iran? Do you think that we're credible when we argue we really want the willing-the people's will to-to win out in Iran?

HUTCHISON: I think the image of the American people is always that we stand for democracy. And, yes, we have credibility, always.

MATTHEWS: In Iran?

HUTCHISON: Everywhere.

MATTHEWS: In Iran?

HUTCHISON: Well, yes. I mean, have we made mistakes there? Yes.

Did we get involved probably too heavily? Yes.

But that doesn't mean that we don't have credibility standing up for people being killed on the street protesting an election where they feel that their voices were not heard.

MATTHEWS: Well, do you think we should get involved in-in telling them what to do, in terms of another election or anything like that?

HUTCHISON: Well, no, I don't think it's our place to tell them what to do, except to stand in solidarity with people who are fighting for freedom.

I-I would-you know, I would say that maybe some of the freedom-loving countries could come together and suggest to mullahs what might be a way out of this that would show a concern for the people of that country.

But, no, it isn't our place to tell them what to do, except to say these are human beings. They are trying to peacefully protest. And it has been turned into a-a crackdown that is killing people.

MATTHEWS: Are you worried at all about us facing a terrible situation, where we have to choose between supporting an Israeli strike or joining an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, or letting them have a nuclear weapon? Are you worried about that down the road?

HUTCHISON: Oh, of-of course. I think that that would be a terrible situation, where we would have a weapon that is there, a nuclear weapon.

But I-I will say, Chris, that I would not shy away from trying to destroy a nuclear weapon that might be used to destroy Israel or some other country in the area, or be in some way-having export of nuclear power somewhere else. It would be a terrible thing.

MATTHEWS: But you wouldn't rule out any-a strike on-supporting an Israeli strike on Iran?

HUTCHISON: Well, I can't say that.

You would have to know the circumstances and what is the evidence that there is a weapon. And, again, I think that the countries that were actually put in charge of trying to make sure that Iran was not getting a nuclear weapon are the countries that have leverage.

They have embassies in Tehran. And that would be France, Germany, perhaps England. Those are countries that could step up. And we-we ought to be more forceful. Russia and China should be more forceful with Iran.

They have leverage. And-and they have relationships. And, if we could get them to be more cooperative on the Security Council, and America and the rest of the world could speak together with one voice, it would be so much more powerful than what we're seeing now, which is some countries speaking out boldly, America being equivocal, and Russia and China not even saying a word.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

I guess what concerns me-and I think you may be right on this completely, Senator-it's not for me to say whether you're right or not, but I think you might be-about a need to be more forceful.

My concern is, when I read the op-ed pages of the major newspapers, they are chockful right now from the people of the American Enterprise Institute. The neoconservative hawks who got us into Iraq are now out there beating the drum to raise hell against Iran. They look like they want to create, once again, the war footing we were on before, create a hellish situation, vis-a-vis our relations with some country in that part of the world. And they wouldn't mind a war one bit.

That's what scares me. The hawks are back flying around over the Capitol of the United States, urging on what they call an aggressive foreign policy. And we've been there, senator. We went into Iraq under false pretenses. I get the feeling the same crowd, the same list are out pushing it again. It is easy to talk aggression. It's tough to bury the wounded-bury the dead, which is what we've been doing over there.

HUTCHISON: Chris, I do think that if you go back to when the run up to Iraq came, it was post-9/11 and there was the concern that there were chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, that could be delivered out of Iraq into America. And that had to be the only legitimate reason to go into Iraq.

Everything else, in my opinion, is not relevant except for that, and that was the reasoning that was used. I think you can legitimately question it.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

HUTCHISON: And just taking out a bad dictator is not enough reason for me to put American lives on the line either. But if he had weapons of mass destruction, which it has been proven the intelligence was to us and to Great Britain, then that was to protect America from being able to have delivered to us another weapon of mass destruction, as we had already seen tear this country apart at 9/11.

MATTHEWS: Can a reasonable person like you-and you certainly are, and I don't mean to be condescending. I'm looking up to you, senator. I've always looked up to you. Can a reasonable person like you of moderate conservative views, centrist conservative views, win a Republican primary in Texas for governor against a candidate, a character like Rick Perry, who's talked about secession from the union, who now enjoys, if that's the right word, the endorsement of Sarah Palin, who for whatever crazy reason has gotten herself involved in Texas politics?

HUTCHISON: Oh, Chris-

MATTHEWS: I'm asking a double question. A secessionist who has the support of Sarah Palin; can you beat somebody with those attractive features?

HUTCHISON: Yes. Well, no, I'm not mentioning or talking about Sarah Palin. But I'm talking about running for governor of Texas. And I do think it is so important that we send out the message that Ronald Reagan sent out. I'm a conservative. I want the party to be growing and building and bringing people into our ideas by welcoming them into the party, by holding to our principles, while we say here are what we believe. We know you can't agree on 100 percent of everything. But we can form a party around basic principles of freedom, of lower taxes, of entrepreneurship and the American spirit.

We can build a party around that. And we can argue about differences that we might have. But we should not repel people from the party. And that's what I think has happened with Governor Perry in some instances and why I am committed to trying to make sure that the Texas Republican party does stay vibrant and open and willing to try to bring in new people that believe as we do.

MATTHEWS: Good luck. Thank you very much, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. Thanks for coming on HARDBALL tonight.

HUTCHISON: Thank you.