la you are looking at live pictures from washington, d.c. tonight. and the white house, where the president will address the american people. the topic, is syria. in just a moment, the president will take a short walk down the red carpet, leading to the east room where we expect him to present his case on syria. we expect him to present this in a few minutes. welcome to al jazeera's live coverage of the president's address, let's go quickly to the white house where mike is standing by. what do we expect to hear tonight, mike? >> here is the president's test. seth 9% of americans thinks he hasn't done

enough to explain the goals. that was in the new york times this morning. the pugh research foundation finds that last week compared to this week, 15% more americans belief that military strikes should not do forward. against this back drop, against a reluctant public, against a war weary public, you have the president now pursuing a diplomatic course, the more that heats up, the slower it becomes in congress. trying to move that forward. >> all right, thank you very much. we are hearing some preview of what the president might say tonight. and the administration firm says that president obama will stress in his speech that any u.s. military action in syria could be limited in scope and duration. of course we have been hearing that from the president since the beginning. the president is also expected to explain to americans why it is in the u.s. national interest for syria to face consequences for chemical weapon use. and here is the president of the united states, to address the men people.

>> my fellow americans. tonight i want to talk to you about syria. why it matters, and where we go from here. over the past two years what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of al-asaad has turned into a brutal war. over 100,000 people have been killed. millions have fled the country. in that time america's work with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. but i have resisted calls for military action. because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force. particularly after a decade of war in iraq and after dan stan. the situation for family changed though on august 21st, when asaad's government gassed to death over one how people, including hundreds of children. the images from this

massacre are sickening. men, women, children, lying in roads killed by poison gas. others foaming at the mouth gasping for breath. a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. on that terrible night, the world saw in grewsome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons. and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off limits. acrime against humanity. and a violation of the laws of war. this was not always the case. in world war i american g.i.s were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of europe. in world war ii, the nazis used gas to inflict the horror on the holocaust. pause these weapons can kill on a maz scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent

a century working to ban them. in the 1997, the united states senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement, prohibiting the use of chemical wells. you nined by 189 governments that represent 98 pest of humanity. on august 21st, these basic rules were violated. along with our sense of common humanity. no one disputes that chemical weapons were used in syria. the world saw thousands of videos. cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack. the humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people, who had symptoms of poison gas. moreover, we know the asaad regime was responsible. in the days leading up to august 21st, we know that asaad's chemical weapons prepared for an attack near an area where they mix the gas.

they distributed gas masks to their troops. and then they fired rockets from a regime controlled area into a 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. shortly after those rockets landed the gas spread. and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. we know senior figures in asaad's military regime reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increases the shelling in the same neighborhoods in the days that follows. also studies samples of blood and hair from people at the site, that tested positive for saran. when dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. but these things happened. the facts cannot be denied. the question now is what is the united states of america, and the international community,

is prepared to do about it. because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it's also a danger to our security. let me explain why. if we fail to act the asaad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. as the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. over time our troops would face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it will be easier to attack civilians. the fighting spells beyond the boarders these weapons could threaten allies lie turkey, jordan, and israel. and a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction.

and embolden the ally iran. which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path. this is not a world we should accept. this is what is at stake. and that is why after careful deliberation, i determined that it is in the national security interest of the united states, to respond to the asaad regime's use of chemical weapons to a targeted military strike. the purpose of this strike would be to deter asaad from using chemical weapons. to degrade his regime's ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. that's my judgement as commander in chief. but i am also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. so even though i possess the authority to order military strikes i believe it was right, in the absence of direct

threat to our security, to take this debate to congress. i believe our democracy is songer when the president acts with the support of congress. and i believe that america acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. this is especially true after a decade that put more and more war making power in the hands of the president, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people's representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force. now i know after the terrible toll of iraq and afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited won't be popular. after all, i have spent four year working to end wars not to start them. our troops are out of iraq. our troops are coming home from afghanistan, and i know americans want all of us in washington, especially me, to concentrate on the task of building our nation

here at home. putting people back to work, educating our kids. growing our middle class. it's no wonder you are asking hard questions. so let me answer some of the most important questions i have heard there members of congress, and that i have read in letters. first, many of you have asked won't this put it on a slippery slope to another war. one man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in iraq. the vet venn put it more bluntly, this nation is sick and tired of war. my answer is simple. i will not put american boots on the ground in syria. i will not pursue an open ended action like iraq or afghanistan. i will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like libya or cost sowf slow. this would be a targeted

strike. two use of chemical weapons and degrading asaad's capabilities. what are acting if we don't take out asaad. some members have congress said there's no point in doing a pin prick strike in syria. let me make something clear. the united states military doesn't do pin pricks. even a limited strike will send a message to asaad that no other nation can deliver. i don't think we should remove another dictator with force, we learnd from iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. but a targeted strike can make asaad or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons. other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. we don't dismiss any threats. but the asaad regime does not have the ability to

serious threaten. the other retaliation. neither asaad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. and our ally israel. as well as the unshakable support of the united states. why don't we ask a broader question, why should we get involved at all in a place that is so complicated and where one person wrote to me, those that come after asaad made enemies of human rights. it is true. some of the opponents are extremist. but al quaida will only grow strength in a more chaotic if they see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. and the syrian opposition

we work with, just want to live in peace. with dignity and freedom. any military action we would redouble our efforts that strengthening those that reject the forces overtiremy and extremism. finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries. or seek solutions short of force. several people wrote to me, we should not be the world's policeman. i agree. and i have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. over the last two years my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations. the chemical weapons were skill used by the asaad regime. hour, over the last few days we have seen some encouraging signs. in part because of the credible threat of u.s.

military action. as well as constructive talks that i had with president putin, the russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community, in pushing asaad to give up his chemical weapons. the asaad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said they joined the chemical weapons convention, which prohibited their use. it's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed. any agreement must verify that the regime keeps its commitments. but this initialtive has the potential to remove the threat, without the use of force. particularly because russia is one of asaad's strongest allies. i have therefore asked the leaders of congress, to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force, while we pursue this diplomatic path. i'm sending secretary of state john kerry to meet his counter part on thursday, and i will continue my own discussions with president putin.

i have spoke ton the leaders of two of our closest allies france and the united kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with russia and china, to putter forward a resolution at the u. n. security council requiring asaad to give us his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control. we will also give u.n. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on august 21st. and we will continue to rally support from allies europe to the americas from asia to the middle east, who agree on the need fora. meanwhile, i have ordered our military to maintain their current posture, to keep the pressure on asaad. and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails and tonight i give thanks again to our military and families for their incredible strength and sacrifices. my fellow americans for nearly seven decades the united states has been the anchor of global

security. this is has meant doing more than forging international agreements, it has meant enforcing them. the burdens of leadership are often heavy. but the word's a better place we have born them. and so to my friends on the right, i ask you to reconcile your commitment to the military mind, with a failure to act when it cause is to plainly just. to my friends on the left, i ask you to reconcile your believe in freedom and dignity for all people, with those images of children riting in pain and doing still on a cold hospital floor. for sometimes resolutions and statements are simply not enough. indeed i would ask every member of congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack. and then ask, what kind of world would we live in

if the united states of america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way. franklin roosevelt once said our national determination to keep free a foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are charged. our eye keels and principles as well as our national security are at stake in syria. along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used. america's not the word's policeman. terrible things happen beyond the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. but when would modest effort and risk, we can top chin from being

gassed to death, and there by make our our children safer, i believe we should act. that's what makes america different. that's what makes us exceptional. with humility, but with resolve, let us never lose site of that truth. thank you, food bless you, and god bless the united states of america. >> a short speech from the president of the united states tonight in the east room, making his case again for using military force. he said he will give diplomatic solution as chance. but he reviewed a number of questions he had been asked for american people who had sent him letters and emails. do we need another war, is it worth it if we don't take out asaad. asking questions like why do we really need to get involved and at this point, the president answered all of those questions with answers it appears he had given many times to the american people of the last several weeks.

no boots on the drowned ground. as he said the u.s. does not do pin pricks when it comes to attacks. two president again making the case for an attack on syria if diplomatic course does not work. jim walsh is an international security expert. and holly of al jazeera is with us. give me your reaction. >> you know, i just think he keeps -- he just keeping leaving more questions unanswered. he invoked sort of provocative reasons that the united states would have to ask in the case of chemical weapons imaging of the children dying. >> he should go home and look at the video. >> right. there have been videos for the last 2 1/2 years of children dying. i think -- i think a lot of people are not understanding why the only reason to act is when death is by chemical weapons. as opposed to sitting out what is happening. the same things he

invoked to compel people to understand what is at risk here, what is at stake, can be said about all the deaths that have been happening over the last 2 1/2 years. >> did you hear anything new? >> not so much. it was more a legal argument, not until the eend special purpose, and the emotion involved in chose videos. i think the part of the speech is the part that you highlighted the questions in the middle clearly they polled on them, they polled and figures out this was the things that bother americans most, and what is striking to me are the first two. i think this points to the conundrum he has, on the one hand everybody is afraid of another iraq. they don't want to get involved in a big war. this is going to be limited. on the other hand, if it is limited is it going to accomplish anything. so no, this isn't iraq, but yes this will zillion matter even though it is limited.

s that a very difficult road to walk between to avoided those two things. then on top of that he had to deal with the russian perspective it sure sounded like the president tonight was saying by golly, we are going to have a strike on syria if this doesn't work. >> i agree. and in fact, he has to say that, because otherwise he will have lost all momentum, and his proposal is going to be dead in the water. and rightly, he can argue, and you were talking with gender nonconformings earlier tonight, about this. i think you can say this this threat of force did produce an offer. whether that happens it remains to be seen. >> alley, what do you think people around the world will say? >> it was a very u.s. sen

trick speech. i think syrians are for anybody who had their hopes up that this was the flurry of activity was a signal that the u.s. was going to seriously engage in what was going on, i think a lot of people hopes have been let down. what we didn't hear was any sort of discussion to the international audience, particularly syrians that want to hear that we want to stabilize syria, we want to stop the killing, we want to create a country where the 2 million refugees and the 7 million internally displace candidate return to their homes. we heard the opposite. >> yes. >> and he is sort of washing his hands. this is one thing we need to discuss, this framing it as a civil war, makes it easier to wash you hands and step away, this is not exactly a civil war. we have to remember where it started and ended. the buck stotts at the end of bashar al-asaad. the situation, we have armed! ists coming in from noter. this is a situation he

fostered. this was a regime cracking down asking for basic freedoms. so when we say it is a civil war, makes it sound like there was nothing that can be done. and what i heard was the quite wasn't going to do anything. >> we will continue this discussion, we will take a quick break, and when we come back we will have more right after this.ç]

welcome back. we are continuing our coverage of the

president's address on syria. joining us with more, mike, your reaction. >> it is a tough sell. the it is is saying we have to keep the hammer down, we have to keep this threat on the table. this is after all the only thing that brought the russians and the syrian to the table, around this motion they would surrender, on the other hand, he is asking the american people to buck up to swallow that war of weariness, which the president has alluded to time and time again. there wasn't anything new in this speech that we didn't know, the arguments we have hear before. from sek tame of state kerry, over days of testimony to defense secretary, and even from the president itself, what is different about this is the venue, and the time of day, and the scope and reach of the audience. i have to ask you. we have been talking about this on set, that is quite remarkable. the only thing different was the venue and time of day, so what did the

president gain? i think they already set the course. they made the announcement and the decision that it would be a tuesday night, to coincide with the senate vote that was expected tomorrow, a key procedure vote, not a vote on the substance itself, but it would have told us about the strength or lack thereof that the president had for his initiative to gain authorization, that vote has now been delayed because of this diplomatic aspect. that is just fine for members of congress. nobody wants to wac the plank while -- on a tough vote that nobody wants to take. while the possible of a diplomatic is out there. i have to tell you, the voice in cob, it didn't look good at all. key members of congress, not only the republican member, announced he

wouldn't go for it. but members of his own party were lining up as well. also announcing her opposition, and it goes on down the line. so the president is in a very tough spot. there is a lot riding on this initiative. >> all right. thank you very much, let's go to libby casey who joins us from the house, and what reaction there. >> well, it will be interesting in the next couple of hours to check in with members of congress who have been on the fence, and people like elijah cummings and determine of maryland, he said he is worried about the u.s. acting alone. unilateral action, so we will be checking back in with people like that, to find out if the president has been able to move the needle. this is the boil down version, right from the president's mouth of what those of us who have been checking in on this have been hearing for the last ten days or so. he is making an appeal to different groups. you heard the president reach out. he said you have pride in

the military in our force, look at the human cost of what is happening in a place like syria. to those on the left, the president said your passion for peace will line that up for what is happening to children, the murder of children by chemical weapons attacks. so he is trying to get both sides to come to the table to the place where he is. he has a vast audience, he is trying to reach out to tonight. another place to look is social media. to see what the feeling is but we have to remember that a lot of people on social media are more plugged in in general, so members of congress are doing to be the ones to watch as they talk to folks back home to get a sense of whether or not the president made any kind of an impact. >> on senate side, paul, do you think the president said anything tonight that will have an impact on senator whose might vote on this. >> well, as mike and libby were both pointing out, that any delay here is probably just fine with the members of the senate who have been

looking for a way out. that have been deeply divided on this issue, maybe -- who has been pushing hard for the president to seek stronger action, esprexes skepticism about this plan, but willing he saying to give eight chance to play out. that's what we have to way and see. of course a strong emotional career, to swole low their war weariness, but again, nothing new hard to say how it is going to move the needle here. >> all right, thank you very much. back to jim just want last thought, that you had about the president's speech tonight? >> well, i think if you have a speech in which the president is appealing to the people on the left, directly, and on the right, that means you don't have a lot of people on your

side. it is an indicator of what a tough position he is in the whole idea was to try to rally support, but they didn't just cancel the speech yeah, it is a good question. he will be able to get back on air to have the bic speech. probably just decided to take this as a community to recommunicate. the other thing they are trying to do is say < , america, i hear you. referring to the letters, citing that the actual things that people had said to him. >> about 30 seconds. >> i just heard for a speech that invoked american exceptionalism and leadership in the world, i heard an absolutely feeling of failure to show up. >> thank you very much. for your inciter, now coming up, al jazeera is standing by in washington, d.c., with the syria debate, and america tonight town hall special. joey.

>> thanks very much. and welcome to america tonight, special town hall coverage of the president's speech. we are coming to you live from the night studio at the museum. we are just a short walk away where the depate is in full force. we are get full analysis of the president's speech, the politics the diplomatic initiatives and we will ask what the next. in this very fast moving story. take the poll to the american public here in washington with our live studio audience. we will also go out to michigan. and along with our colleagues at the stream. and joining us here, consider this. >> great to be here with you. >> and also with us is america's tonight, who has been covering every twist and turn in this fascinating and fast moving story, america tonight, the sery debate will begin right now.

♪ good etching and welcome to al jazeera special coverage of the national debate about syria, i'm joey chen. >> let's get right to the president's speak, and where he is hoping to lead the country and the world. we have a team of analysts leading us. a leading u.s. political analyst, and distinguished a think tank whose mission is to advance moderate policy. jason johnson, a political analyst, author and professor of political science, and syndicated columnist, thank you for being here. >> we go to the pant, i want to go to our

audience and ask the broad question of the whole crowd, how many of you were swayed to president obama's. by his speech. >> clearly a very small minority. let's get some reaction from you individually. >> well, i think after hearing -- seeing all of the resolutions and statements of condemnation, that with everything that's going on with the syrian holocaust, i think we are closer now to all that ink becoming blood, and all that paper becoming flesh, meaning that something has to be done, in order to stop the killing, how do we stop the killers, so at least we are getting closener a very public forum then bewere just a year ago. and so it is progress. but in my opinion, it is not enough, but it is something. so i'm grateful for that. >> out here in the audience. what did you learn.

>> learn, i'm not sure. which is unfortunate. i felt we had a very strong opening says a lot of we know statements, we know this p had so we aren't going on another witch hunt. i am glad he clarified we are doing a strike. i was hoping we were going to do with the international community as opposed to for it. >> the president who started out saying look, i am not the guy who wants war, i am the guy who has been trying to have peace, i have been trying to get out of the military, what does he do with his legacy? >> well, this is how he is trying to establish it. the the united states for the last 16 years has been the country the world has relied on. if the united states doesn't do anything, nothing happens. we have to act in kuwait, and kosovo, and afghanistan, and even iraq. and the president is saying he wants his legacy to be when terrible things happen in the world, we will step

forward. >> jason, did he make a strong enough case. that's the reaction shows that this crowd did not think so. five lot of people expected he would bring more proof to the table about who committed that act, and he barely mentioned a couple of facts about what the off side regime was doing in before and after the attack. was that enough. >> of course not. and there's not a person in this room who had an attitude that was changed by what the president said, because everybody already knows how they feel. there's nothing that president obama could have said today that would have changed it, he could have been pa tonks kennedy, reagan, he could have been desmond tutu it wouldn't have matter. all he needed to do today was say this is why i am going through with asking congress to begin with. the evidence is there, i don't care what the staleys say, i don't even care where the u.s. says when the arab league says we know they used gas, he wasn't going to change

any minds. >> but the fun mental problem, in our national security interest, what is that. i think you have to explain what that means. then when you talk about how we as america have acted, we didn't act in rwanda. we haven't acted in the congo. we haven'ted acted at other places where there have been thousands, murdered. not 1400, but thousands. he talked act children. again, you can make the argument in other countries how they have been effected. so that's part of the problem, and i have been texting members of congress and some of them said sorry, unmoved. i am not chained i am not voting for this. >> and isn't part of the problem that it was a reflection actually of the questions. seems like a lot of these are things we have heard in all the coverage. the real issue here, is there is no right or wrong way to vote on this. you can just figure if

you say i am voting against it you can justify that. if you voter the it, you can justify it. the president also does not have a natural constituency. or depend upon -- the largest voting block among the democrats, he likely is not doing to even win them. his most loyal group, 56% against. that's a problem when you have no constituency to lean on. >> they are across the board, of course the american people 2-1 against this, but the republicans are dramatically divided between the old guard of john mccain and lindsay graham, and the speaker of the house. against the libertarians led by rand paul, and the democrats again across the board. have you ever seen this kind of broad based division? >> yes. i saw it when the panama canal treaties came up and all-americans were outraged we were going to give up the canal, and a lot of members paid a

price for that. this is a pop lissives accomplishment. the establishment understands this and want today act. what the president is doing is something very difficult. he asking members of congress to defy their constituents. they do that at their peril. they did that with the pan that canal. they did that when they voted for tarp, and they paid a price. >> out here in the audience, we have sasha, and sasha i know you have been active interested in syria affairs, was there something you learned or is there something that you would want to know? >> i didn't feel that the president expressed anything new. but definitely i would like the ask a question. >> absolutely. >> my question is at this time, originally there was some efforts in the senate and is vote looked food but many members in both chambers feel that the president doesn't have a clear plan and would like to see it expressed. why does the panel think

that the president is allowing putin to undercut his very tenuous efforts to get votes by entertaining the russian proposal? >> i don't think he is being undercut. the president has been talking to putin about this for a while. i don't think john kerry slipped, i think that's something they were planning all along. and i think there's something very clear about this that we have to pay attention to. where did syria get their weapons from? they bout them from russia. the reason putin is involved because if we bomb even with our pin pricks we are going to end up killing russian citizens. they have technicians there, they have military consultants, they have private citizen who is are helping to organize the missle systems that are operating. so putin isn't here undercutting the united states, he is acting in his own country's best interest, and something that makes him look good. >> let's remind people, that -- >> the headline of the national journal that said putin wins didn't safe obama he beat him. >> this is washington,

d.c. being stuck on stupid. that's exactly what this is. and this is why i hate the inside belt way process. here is what americans have to understand. when we are trying to deal with north korea, guess who we talk to to talk to the north koreans. china. when we were talking to iran, we talk to the french. we have to understand, we don't have the greatest relationships with everyone else. other country whose are our allies they have great relationships. and so if there's somebody who i don't really like, but jason knows him, i am going to say hey, jason, i can't stand them, can you talk to him, because i really don't want to deal them, so that's one thing you do here, and so we are when the president has conversations with people, thenn't talking ant -- they were probably talking about this very issue. let's stop this nonsenses that somehow he is upstaging us. no, you need folks like him that can send the signal, that says hey

man, they are serious, they are going to plow you up, you may want to listen to me because i'm your friend. >> the common cause here where vladimir putin has no interest in having those chemical weapons fall into the hands of extreme is. he has a domestic problem, in the southern part of his country, where chechynia, and he fears himself that if those weapons were to fall into the hands of extremist they could end up back on russian soils and harming the russian state. that's one of his interests. the other as you point out, was this a slip of the tongue on the part of the flourish on two part of the secretary of state, i don't think so. we now know that this is a subject that vladimir putin and president obama have been discussing at the g 20, we know that the secretary of the foreign secretary of russia and secretary kerry have been discussing. did he mean to say it then, who knows. was the timing right, but it happened.

one thing i did not hear, he spoke specifically about the kind of resolution that he wanted to see come forward at the u. n. security council. and we know mrs. a dispute now between what the russians say they want, there can point any punishment, there shouldn't be any criminal trials of those responsibility, and there has been objection to that from the u.s., the u.n., and france. tonight the president made no mention of punishment. he said only disarmament and destruction. he did not add any other conditions. >> he did say, the emembers of the jurying signs of diplomacy because, that was his emphasize because of our threat of military action. >> he did say that. >> you have to understand, that something has been achieved. there was ask important break through. syria has acknowledged that it has chemical weapons. they never did that.

they didn't acknowledge they used them. if in the end the syrians for diplomatic reasons give up their weapons and they are destroyed this will be a great achievement for president obama. >> and remember, sue dam hussein never acknowledged he did not have them. he kept toying he paid p price. other leaders are saying i may not want to go down that road, because they have shown what can happen if you joke around. so him admitting that is a huge huge -- >> the big question of course is had that had happened if there wasn't the threat of force. >> absolutely. >> i thought the president mostly was two speech proved that he is still a good public speaker he made appeals to logic and emotions but i also like many here didn't hear any new information. but i am interested to hear many of you on the panel have expressed that you thought that these

conversations with the russians have been going on for a while. if that's true, then why go to congress in the first place, if you have this other plan, and is the threat of military force necessary if you are planning on ending up at this agreement in the fist place. >> both are necessary. here is one reason. a lot of the ways -- asaad doesn't know the united states as well aids his father did. his fatherhood a much better field as to who our presidents were and how they behaved. one reason we had to bring force into play, is the syrians were getting a lot of their information on how they should behave from iran. and iran was basically telling asaad they are not going to do inning. and the united states recognizes that is a problem. the iranians have been working oen a nuclear weapon for 25 years but it is possibility politically for presidents of the united states to continue to send iran the message that if you finally get that project done, then we will have a problem

with it. so it wasn't just a matter of threatening asaad, it was a matter of also sending a message to iran. so that's what the plan was. and i think the diplomacy, had hennaed mentioned portion, it wouldn't have sent the message to the rest of the region, and we wouldn't have this deal now. >> keep in mind, if the russians don't ask, they say i am not going to put forth a strong proposal. when he said i am going to bomb, they said all right, we may want to get serious. >> when we come back, we will talk to some folk whose have a lot of experience in the international diplomacy as well as in weapons control, take a break and more of our special town hall coverage after this. lap

town hall debate here in in w a at the museum, we are now joined from new york. he is a former u.n. weapons instructor, and by edward luck who is a top aid to the head of the united nations, thank you for being with us, i want to start with you, you heard the speech, president obama is still talking about the possibility of operating unilaterally if necessary, i know you disagree with that. has his strength and threat of force not brought up to this point where diplomacy is now possible. >> there can't be a simple answer to that question. i think possible some mixture of force. and engagement of russian interests has brought us

to this point. i agree with the panelist who said there's a critical thing we must recognize here. that syria has stepped forward, for whatever reason, it has come forward and conceded that it has chemical weapons that's immensely important. and that gives us an opportunity to focus on that problem, it is one of two main problems here. one is the chemical weapons problem, the other is the solution to the syrian civil war. what i want to know, is why don't we take this forward? the president said he is prepared to do it for a little while, why don't we take it forward at face value. syria has said they have chemical weapons. provide the security council, organizers and authorizes a p proker search and distraction mission to do so, we have done it before. we can can do it again. that would change the landscape. and it would make the president's requirement that we preserve the legal norm, the normal

civilization that no one should have chemical weapons. it's a much bigger picture. but my first is let's take this at face value, and see if we can do what we have already done before. in other cases and get rid of these weapons that syria now admits it has. >> edward, let's address what ambassador butler just talked about. the question is the devil is in two details. already, a french proposed resolution language was reject bed i the russians. they don't want the threat of any military might, as to what happened with these weapons in syria. will the u.n. security council come to an agreement? is it possible in this environment? >> well, certainly it would be a bed change, i think in this case there may be a devil in the strategy as well as the devil in the details. but if we could get the russians onboard market

the security council, then the chinese would come aboard, then i think we would have unanimity. that could begin to affect opinion, even in congress and with the u.s. people. but it is a big step. and i think bringing the russians aboard, would be a big prize for the president, but then actually doing this is not simple. yes it has been done in other places. >> ed washington, d.c., richard, stand by for us, we will come back to you. >> we did promise our audience we are going to hear not only from our live audience but from folks all around the world, and from that we will turn to our folks at the stream. who has been talking to folks out there. >> hey, joey. >> we started seeing reaction to the remarks almost immediately with our social media community. check out these tweets i got. president obama did not articulate anything we have heard.

i oppose to any intervention. >> thank you, we need to do something, this is the right choice. jeffery says i'm still discouraged. then we do. >> we are also engaged with arraignline community, a very active community, first up we have lynn a peace activist who is torn about the way forward. rabbi marvin favors intervention, and brian johnson an auto mechanic is opposed the interfering. you heard the speech, what was the reaction, and did this help you make up your mind? >> in some regard it didn't. because i'm still torn. i'm pleased that president obama has -- obvious my fear is that three years into the conflict now, can we

effectively change the on going destruction of the syrian people. or is it going to be doing too much that will trigger an all out regional war. it is like i am not hearing the answers still that i want to hear. do you still favor intervention? >> i do, but i think the president is still muddled. when he says we need to do this action, but i have the power to do it as. , but i actually that congress needs to be part of it and then i asked him for a vote, and now i'm hitting the pause button. it is very tricky, and it reminds me of when he was campaigning for president, and hillary clinton had the commercial, who is going to answer that phone call at 3:00 a.m., we will have someone with the stamina and to take

unilateral action in our behalf, and then be able to face the con wednesdays and it seems he is following polls more than his -- what his country needs. it is very sad, because in the overall scheme it is like america is now giving up the position of being the policeman. some may be happy with that, be uh in the long term it relynn wishes the power to do anything big. >> you mentioned unpopularity in the polls. 340s of mesh are opposing. do you zillion hold the view? >> my view remains the same. i don't think we need to be interfering inside the borders of a sovereign nation. his use of the weapons of mass destruction is a justification. i feel it's hypocritical for someone who is killing women and children all over the region using drugs. just using a different

technology, it is the same result. that's in a sovereign nation, that has very little significance to us. >> what is your response. >> my response is that the united states like it or not, is the leader of the world. and if the united states is not going to do anything about mass gassing of women and children, who will? secondly, let's remember, it's great news that the rugs have this proposal. but the russians the iranians, and the syrians, are the greatest experts in the world of saying yes, when they mean no. the iranians are celebrating their 10th anniversary of discussions over the nuclear -- over whether they are going to -- use nuclear acquire nuclear

weapons. is anyone going to give them a cake to celebrate the 10th anniversary talks. so you can have unlimited talks and the president should have said, united states welcomes the russian sean proposal, but we give within two months, if there's no resolution within two months, the quite will act. otherwise, we will be here another ten years and we will still be talking about the u.n. about this issue. >> we have about two minutes lynn, why the need for immediacy? are you justified that we need to -- should there a time line on this? >> all i know is that we have seen 100,000 syrians that have been massacres. and millions displaced and a large majority of these are children. we can talk, do we want to talk, yes, we want to keep talking.

it may some from an odd source, but it is better than blasting away with strike, and then you have collateral damage, you have a kill zone. louis about how about you? >> i totally agree there should be a specific time line, and that time line had not been met to a specific satisfaction, of our country, then we need to have a strike and it peopleds to be limited and i agree that we should be hitting them, and getting the heck out of there. so the reality is i think the problem is that this white house is completely lost and i think both sides democrats republicans doesn't matter. we don't know, we don't have a leader right now, and he is certainly not getting the support, because he is noll inspiring america to be the great country that i think he should be.

>> you have about second seconds for response. >> i have no response to any of that, i think the reason we are even talking about this is the president made a gasp with his red line comment, is because secretary kerry made a gaffe with his if they surrender they weapons comment. i do not understand why we are here, and i do not feel we should be interfering in other politics. >> as you can see, nothing is resolved. >> our friend at the stream, bringing us up to date on what folks are talking about. >> we want to goat to what the audience here is talking about, and where the reaction is. how many of you think diplomacy will be effective? >> wow. pretty substantial group. >> pretty substantialble. highway many of you think the threat of force remains necessary in

order for that to happen? diplomacy with the threat of force, so you need to -- >> speak loudly and carry a big stick. >> how many of you think that the regime and the russians and the chinese allies will come to the table, in the short period of time that has been at least the first week that we have talked about. and really moved forward as a resolution. >> no much optimism there. >> we will take a break, we will be back at the top of the hour, with more of our discussion on this special coverage from america tonight, stand by.

stand against the use of chemical weapons, weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction. and embolden the ally iran. which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path. >> and so some breaking news. a french draft would give syria 15 days to make complete declaration of their entire chemical arms program.