tomorrow night president obama makes what may be the most important speech of his presidency on syria at 9:00 p.m. eastern. i will be here with immediate reaction. that's all for us here tonight. "ac360 later" a new show, "ac360 later" a new show, premiers right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com good evening, everyone, welcome to the first edition of "ac360 later." an hour spent with people who don't just know how to talk but know what they're talking about. when we tried it out earlier this year you asked for more and demanded more intelligent conversation with knowledgeable people, people who share your opinion. at the table, the founding editor of the dish. there is a beagle on there as

well somewhere. and crystal wright. and later in the fifth chair just back from an interview with bashar al assad, charlie rose. senator majority leader harry reed postponing the trial vote on support against syria. and a diplomatic invitation for syria to turn control of its chemical arsenal to international authorities. and russia latched on to the idea. and finally cautiously, the president himself, quite a weird day. chief national correspondent john king is here with the high points. so this delay on the vote, is that basically directly related to this russian proposal? >> yes. it's also complicated -- part of

it is also the fact that a lot of the democrats who may feel they have to back the president but don't want to they appreciate this delay. you have this bizarre situation unfolded. the secretary floats a mistake and gaffe and mess up. >> they admitted it was a mistake? >> his own staff on the record were saying he was just talking rhetorically. this is not going to happen or a serious proposal this morning. and of this evening, the president of the united states is telling wolf blitzer maybe this is a way to have a diplomatic breakthrough and resolve this without the use of military force. considering that and considering a lot of people are not happy with the way the president has communicated his strategy they are happy to delay the vote. democrats would prefer not to take it. harry reed who will begin the process tonight of setting up the senate schedule, you file tonight so you can have a vote

tomorrow said never mind. now the senate vote is off indefinitely wild this russian proposal gets an airing. the president says this might be a breakthrough. but his staff says he will make the case to the american people for possible military strikes. you have a conflict. >> he booked the it have time essentially for tomorrow night before this john kerry slip of the tongue which became this russian proposal which the syrians have seemed to agree to. originally the li that was making the case why there is a red line and has to be an attack. will he be able to make that case if this russian thing is out there. what is he going to talk about? >> i think he is going to make that case. he is now saying and secretary clinton -- former secretary clinton said it is shows that

diplomacy might work. and she is saying and the president is saying it would never have come to this point, the syrians themselves said today this russian proposal could be very interesting. i just want to be clear. i know a lot of people are spinning that john kerry made a mistake or gaffe or slip of the tongue but this has been out will there in britain. give bashar assad an ultimatum and has to destroy the weapons and then hit him hard. >> it had been mentioned a few days ago. >> president obama claims he spoke to president putin about it. >> i agree with what john was talking about, how the administration is conflicted on syria. let's back this -- rewind this to last week. kerry comes out and makes the case that the president has a right to act on syria. it's a catastrophe now, the red

line is in the sand. and obama comes out two days later on the saturday and says i'm going to punt this to congress. i think what this looks like is obama had it -- we know he pulled putin aside at the g-20 and he sat down. they had an off the cuff conversation. snowden came up. syria was more dominant in the conversation. i wouldn't be surprised that others have floated this, give assad a chance to turn over things. they talked about it. this was planned. and i don't think this was by accident. this wasn't a slip of the tongue. >> let's play the john kerry sound for people who have not seen it so far. >> is there anything at this point that his government could do or offer that would stop an attack? >> sure he could turn all of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week, turn it over, all of

it without delay and allow a full and total accounting before that. but he isn't about to do it and it can't be done. >> can i talk -- >> can i just say this is also just a fantastic end result for the president? if it works out. what he will have done. sometimes people want him to be a reagan but he is a different kind of creature. he lays out his argument and lets the other actors come in and place their cards on the table. then if he's lucky some creative solution comes up. but the point is about this the big problem from the very beginning was russia. >> it's still russia. this is all a farce. turn of your chemical weapons. >> he is not saying he wants it destroyed. now look the russians saying that and they would never had said that -- >> and for the last two and a

half years, president obama and the rest of the world have hid behind russian obstructionism to not do anything the syria. hundreds of thousands of people have already been killed. now maybe russia will prevent an attack on syria. i'm sure that john would agree that if this works it is genius and a game changer. if this works. and if it works it puts a whole new protocol down for getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. >> that's exactly what the -- >> how is it a game changer when assad has -- >> it's fan fast call. wait a -- this. >> fan fatastical. >> let me jump in here. it's tough being the guy outside of the room.

>> for a change. >> that's okay. i like the challenge. >> everybody is right. that's part of the issue here. if they can pull this off, capitalize and underlean the if. if they can pull this off, this country doesn't want military action. the president himself the trouble he is having is you see his ambivalence in this. that has been part of the president's problem. some criticize that. in other ways it is breathtakingly honest. hang on one second. but here's the issue going forward to andrew's point. this is the big question mark. the world went down this route with saddam hussain. now you have to get a united nations security council resolution we create this

infrastructure to look for the weapons and put them under international custody. you have to get a security council resolution, the united states would only agree to that if russia says if he breaks this deal we will seek authorization of military force. can you work that out. how do you go into syria in the middle of a civil war. do you broker a cease fire? and what worries a lot of people is you are creating a deal that leaves assad in power. >> in that interview with charlie rose he puts this on terrorists inside syria. >> he is a sociopath. >> that's the guy we have a deal with? >> yes. they can make a deal at some point for their own survival and that is the genius. >> this is an out -- >> not an out but an amazing achievement. if we get an international order in which the u.n., with russia

leading the charge actually takes the stand on chemical weapons or the world community does this it's a wonderful solution. i'm not denying -- >> i want to go back to what -- it's not amazing. what john said -- >> you support an attack. >> that's not what i said. this president is ambivalent. he does not have a plan for syria. he punted to congress and congress said okay, look, you want our vote. where is the plan? where is the end game? what do you want to do? do you want to bomb the airfields? what is the end game, remove assad from power? but what i disagree with you all about is you act as though assad is an honest broker. he is a madman. when he looked back and said i don't know i can't confirm or deny -- wait a minute i just want to go beyond this.

let's say he turns over -- this is like saddam hussain. he would let inspectors in after he moved stuff around and disabled everything. >> the truth of the -- >> he had the capability to build them. let's not talk about iraq. i want to talk about syria. >> you can't keep fighting the last war. >> we are fighting this war. >> we're talking about -- >> you seem to be happy -- >> he turns over the chemical weapons. he killed a hundred thousand people. israel is going to get involved and drawn into this. either we're going to do something -- i'm not for boots on the ground. unless the president can articulate a firm "a," "b," and/or "c" we should not go into syria. >> nobody's going into syria.

this is not a war being proposed. it's not boots on the ground. nor is it -- >> you wouldn't use the word "war"? >> not in the way that we talk about iraq or the first gulf war. >> she is right. i was told that afghanistan would not be really a war. that's why obama did not -- i want to correct this point, did not punt to congress. >> he absolutely did. he can blame congress. >> just a second please. calm down. >> i'm calm. >> it is vested in the constitution with the power to declare war or not. the idea that this is the other great achievement of this president in this mess is to establish very clearly he has no right as president to launch a strike in this way, no right at all unless the congress -- >> hold on a second. >> war powers are -- >> we have to take a break.

we'll talk about this when we come back. >> honestly and truthfully here is the executive devolving authority and -- >> it should have -- >> we have to take a break. next charlie rose back with a face to face interview with the syrian dictator. here's in the fifth chair tonight. i had pain in my abdomen... it just wouldn't go away.thing.

i was spotting, but i had already gone through menopause. these symptoms may be nothing... but they could be early warning signs of a gynecologic cancer, such as cervical, ovarian, or uterine cancer. feeling bloated for no reason. that's what i remember. seeing my doctor probably saved my life. warning signs are not the same for everyone. if you think something's wrong... see your doctor. ask about gynecologic cancer. and get the inside knowledge. [ crashing ] [ male announcer ] when your favorite food starts a fight, fight back fast with tums. heartburn relief that neutralizes acid on contact and goes to work in seconds. ♪ tum, tum tum tum tums! i put in the hours

and built a strong reputation in the industry. i set goals and worked hard to meet them. i've made my success happen. so when it comes to my investments, i'm supposed to just hand it over to a broker and back away? that's not gonna happen. avo: when you work with a schwab financial consultant, you'll get the guidance you need with the control you want. talk to us today.

at kaiser permanente we've reduced serious heart attacks by 62%, which makes days with grandpa jack 100% more possible. join us at kp.org and thrive. do you think that it is an appropriate tool of war to use chemicals? >> the chemical?

>> yes. >> we are against any wmd whether chemical or nuclear. >> bashar al assad said there is not a shred of evidence that his regime was behind the chemical weapons attack. he dodged the question of whether he would turn over his chemical weapons. listen. >> the president is prepared to strike and perhaps will get the authorization of congress or not. the question, then, is would you give up chemical weapons if it would prevent the president from authorizing a strike? if that is a deal you would accept. >> you always imply we have chemical weapons. >> that is the assumption of the president and he will order the strike. >> it is his problem if he order the strike. we do anything to prevent the region from another crazy war. >> you will do anything to

prevent the region from another crazy war. >> yes. >> you recognize the consequences for you if there is a strike. >> it's not about me. it's about the region. >> great to have you here. you must be exhausted. >> yeah. >> what was the key moment in that? >> that was one of them. without knowing about what might have taken place with president obama and putin and john kerr y. i said what would you be prepared to do so there would not be a strike. he seemed to me that if i can avoid a crazy war i might be prepared to do that. that seemed to open the door a little bit. but that is an interesting moment. the other moment for me is a sense of -- i get a feeling that he understands what the hell might be coming down on top of him if this happens.

and he can talk about retaliation and a lot of other things but i suggested to him it could tip the balance. >> this is a guy who demonstrations started two and a half years ago. children were arrested for putting up graffiti motivated by the arab strinpring. they were arrested and parents went out to protests just to say, release these kids. and they were met with batons and tear gas and bullets. and this is how his regime has responded time and time again. they are the ones who created this. is there any acknowledgment on his part? >> he does label everybody a terrorist. i pressed him on this. i said there are 15 to 20% who are al qaeda affiliated or al qaeda related group. and he in a sense will say i understand there are a lot of people who are not part of al

qaeda. but he thinks they are a dominant force. >> do you think he really believes that? >> i don't know. >> he can't really believe that -- i mean, his father crushed thousands of people. >> i think that is an important point. he saw his father did that against the muslim brotherhood and eliminated them -- >> 20,000 people. >> i asked him about that. >> he didn't answer, did he? >> he did in part. he said he was influenced by that. i said to him, look, did you learn anything from your father? he said essentially if you get involved in war you have to go all out. >> i know he talked about retaliation and consequences. nobody thinks that he will do it. the president has said that assad doesn't want to pick a fight with the u.s. and his main ally doesn't want to pick a

fight. and he won't retaliate unless there is a rejoem change in the cards. and the president has said it is not about getting rid of assad. >> they fear what might come after assad. >> he gets that, right? >> yeah, i think he gets that. but he also understands that once it happens all bets are off. he made that point very clear. >> but he also -- the people who short him all fear what will happen if if falls, they are worried about being slaughtered. >> who gets the chemical weapons if he is gone. if your primary concern is controlling the chemical wells, it's better for assad to win. he seems to have some kind of control over them.

and that's why the russian idea of sequestering these things and destroying them. >> and so do the french. >> exactly. >> that's why that is an appealing thing. and i understand -- >> what's appealing? >> the idea of separating the chemical weapons out and dealing with it as a question that has to be resolved and keeping it independent of the issue of the civil war. >> we need to be really careful. it would be fabulous and a game changer but so many people have said, you know, it's such a grain of salt you have to take assad with when he says things like that. we don't know the logistics. >> you don't really know. >> but here's the problem. this is what is so fascinating about assad. look, as you said, there is an element of psychopath about the man. he talks so calmly and so gently. and with that lisp and you know, butter wouldn't melt in his

mouth and everybody i talked to describes a man as ruthless as his brothers and father. they are about a survival of a clan. they are not about -- >> his dad gave him the country. >> the reason that -- >> what you have here is a country you feel like you own for 40 years with the support of -- >> i think he does own it. and -- >> in your interview -- >> back to -- >> just as a second. i'm absolutely fascinated by what the administration is trying to do now. the president has given six interviews. tomorrow he addresses the nation. he is trying to convince congress and his allies this is the right thing to do. after two and a half years of saying exactly the opposite and now the military, general dempsey who, you know, not so long ago in public testimony said we don't know who the opposition and what they are going to do, now they are saying, you know, we should do

this and that. >> and john kerry says we have seen the moderates are in the upswing in the opposition -- >> john kerry is a -- nobody is going to come out of this covered in glory but john kerry has been disastrous. >> i agree. >> and that is the way it is being played. people are saying he has -- >> i think it's a time element here. they were saying that earlier. and there have been verbal slipups. >> back to what you were saying, the president is giving interviews. that is not building a coalition of the willing. but you are saying he is doing a good thing. >> i didn't say it is a good thing. i said he has a heavy -- >> i'm -- >> after two and a half years -- >> after you are talking i'm trying to give -- i'm trying to respond to what you said.

and my impression is he is doing a good thing and giving interviews. but all -- >> there is no judgment there. >> you framed in the that way. we're having a conversation here. so all the lobbying supposedly that he's done, right, with congress and with the world and our allies, british is off the page. they are not on board. france, holland said it first, i'm going to help you and now rethinking that. >> not saying that at all. >> the president has not -- >> they did not say that. >> they did say that. i want to go back to charlie's interview. i have a question for charlie. when i watched the interview i got a sense that assad was so detached from any kind of reality and you felt like the moment of truth for you is when he said he would be willing to consider turning over the

chemical weapons. but beyond that what is -- >> i'm not sure there is a moment of truth. but i think he very much fears this attack. >> so my question is -- >> he believes it could tip the balance. someone suggested that an intensive series of air strikes could do more to degrade -- the john kerry term -- than two and a half years of rebel attacks. >> but does the u.s. want to tip the balance? >> they don't want to tip the balance. they are unsure about what -- >> who would replace. >> so in a sense isn't a u.s. intervention an attempt to send a message on chemical weapons. but they don't want to change the -- they want to keep this going. >> currently this is not about -- >> i don't think they want to keep it going. >> obviously they'd like to find a solution. >> and that's why they are

latching on to this idea of the weapons. >> it's blending things. like you said and anderson alluded to. the problem is we have no relationship with the moderate rebels in syria. the cia is training them and helping to identify who the -- >> they are not boots on the ground. just cia boots. >> and there is mission creep when you don't have a plan. and i think that is the real problem here and what rand paul has brought up. remember, the president can't get democrats on board with this thing. he can't get democrats or republicans. >> i think we should stop playing partisan games -- >> this is reality. >> please just let me have a few seconds to talk. >> i was just making a point. >> it is understood -- it's an incredibly difficult situation

in which no good outcome is likely. and the opposition has a dangerous force in many ways. i think if they got power could be far more destabilizing to the region than assad but it's our goal is to prevent chemical weapons from being used and maintain that international norm and protect americans from any use of these chemical weapons against us. that's the first responsibility of this president. the first important thing is to try and find a way to get rid of these chemical weapons. now the problem is how do you both at the same time? inevitably tip the balance. well, what might work is not a military strike but a u.n. consensus, the russians buying in. assad has not used the chemical weapons since august 21st. obama has achieved what he wanted to achieve. we are there. >> he used them in june, earlier this year. >> since the 21st.

>> but intelligence believes he has used from 14 times to 35 times since 2012. >> and obama said there was a red line in june. >> busy traveling. >> it is one that there is german intelligence reported they are saying he had in fact blocked the use of chemical weapons by his military and others stepped forward to say -- >> it could have been an accident. >> we are going to talk about that. >> that raised the question, is he in control? >> the interview with charlie was fascinating and chilling. we'll be back with more. ♪ ♪ unh ♪ ♪ hey! ♪ ♪ let's go! ♪ [ male announcer ] you can choose to blend in.

♪ ♪ yeah! yeah! yeah! or you can choose to blend out. ♪ oh, yeah-eah! ♪ the all-new 2014 lexus is. it's your move. the all-new 2014 lexus is. the math of retirement is different today.ek. money has to last longer. i don't want to pour over pie charts all day. i want to travel, and i want the income to do it. ishares incomes etfs. low cost and diversified. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.

were the attacks against american bases in the middle east if there season air strike. >> you'd expect everything. not necessarily through the government. it's not only -- the governments are not only -- not the only player in this region. you have different parties and factions and idolity. you have everything indecision now. you have to expect that. >> tell me what you mean by expect everything. >> expect every action. >> including chemical warfare? >> that depends if the -- if the

rebels or the terrorists in this region or any other group have it. it would happen. i don't know. i'm not a fortune teller to tell you what's going to happen. >> syria's dictator, exercising his command of the passive voice. he sat down with charlie rose in damascus. tonight he is here in our fifth chair. when he talked about terrorists there possibly using chemical weapons is he -- >> he said they did it. they used chemical weapons in aleppo. >> there is not a shred of evidence. but it's so important because it's a huge ripple effect has happened. because the -- >> they got the chemical weapons they would not use them? >> i don't know. we are not talking about hypotheticals but about what has happened. we need to take stock of the

fact that weapons of mass destruction have been used. this is a really terrifying prospect to me that if they are used and they are used with impunity then what happens down the road? to me that is a terrifying prospect. >> if he is allowed to use chemical weapons the president is by necessity forced to retaliate. >> that is the president's argument. he said it's not my red lean by the world's red line. we argued this on this program months ago. i strongly believe having covered some of the worst crimes like the genocide in bosnia and rwanda. i saw what happened and coughed what happened during saddam hussain's -- >> you said there has to be a red line? >> yes. >> it doesn't have to be -- it has to be confronted. >> do you believe that, andrew?

>> yes. but i don't think it has to be military. that's the question. if you can remove these things by nonmilitary means -- >> if you can't? >> then it's difficult. once you enter into that conflict in any way you are going to diseek liberate it. >> it could possibly spawn an incredible vortex of violence like we saw ain iraq. >> we have to draw a line here. >> the line is iraq. >> everybody is worried about iraq and i understand that. >> why would it not be disaster in syria. >> you are not talking about a land invasion. just listen for one second. you are talking about what the

secretary of state himself said today. a really unbelievable limited, small effort. >> but at the same time they are walking back from that a bit because they think that he -- >> right, of course. >> right. >> but this is public spin. >> he told them -- >> we have seen this before. to be fair. president clinton and the british went in in operation desert fox in 1988 against saddam -- >> all of this is before iraq. >> up until 1988. and david kay the inspector afterwards was quoted in an important article as saying, actually that attack prevented saddam -- >> that was predicated on saddam retaining control of the country to keep order. once you get rid of the ability to keep order you see what happened in iraq that is blazing today.

we were there with 100,000 troops and could not stop 100,000 iraqis from massacring each other. you talk as if this conflict is only assad. it's not only assad. >> i just want to bring someone else -- >> you're right. >> you have -- >> i have a plan. the plan is -- >> the people supporting intervention have no plan -- >> the syrian opposition have taken affront as the notion of them all being these terrorists. they are not all that. >> i want to bring in another guest. jonathan -- >> please, let me bring this

guest in. he is a photojournalist held captive in syria by opposition militants and released over the summer. good to have you back on the program. you were held by rebels, by militant rebels. do you know what group was holding you? >> a local group operating near damascus a few hundred strong and captured 30 kilometers north of the capital of syria. >> was this an al qaeda related group? >> money was involved. that's true. they were not affiliated to al qaeda. that's not true. however they are local guys who control certain portions of territories. >> the question is what do you believe now about whether assad ordered a chemical weapon to be used? that's the critical question. what is your opinion? >> my opinion is the following. i don't believe that the government used chemical weapons on this specific occasion. i think the rebels did.

one of the main arguments is because on the ground for tactical purpose, there is no reason for him to be using chemical weapons considering he is winning the conflict right now on the ground and he can win by using conventional weapons. and he knows the consequences of using such weapons. it makes no sense from a military sense. >> the rebels don't have the delivery systems capable of going this and the u.s. tracked where the rockets were fired from and my understanding that is this area in damascus that was hit with an area that the regime has not been able to take over or push the rebels out for the last year. >> yeah, it's rebel-controlled, that's true. and we know that the rebels have over the past two and a half years, have captured numerous equipment, tanks, artillery

pieces. >> andrew, do you believe that it's the regime? or do you believe that the administration needs more evidence? >> i think there is a third option. the regime may not be fully comp at no time and united. assad may not have complete control. this may have been a miscalculation. the logic of it doesn't make any sense. i believe that assad did this but it seems a standpoint thing to have done. and there the question of whether this was an accident or miscalculation or a rogue commander or something like this has to be raised. we have to be skeptical of everything in this. >> the german intelligence has come out and said -- >> skepticism with him too. >> right. and the german intelligence has come out and said while they believe the regime did it there is no evidence of assad himself ordering this. >> but i understand the german

intelligence suggests that in fact he rejected the desire by the military to use it. i haven't seen it but read about it. >> that is what reports are saying. israeli intelligence believes that they intercepted panicked communications between commanders saying why did you do this? and make clear that whatever happened -- >> here's what happened with me in the conversation. i said to him, look, if you didn't do it, who do you think did it? and he said, the rebels or an external state what he said. and i said, but the point is -- -- that's a scarier concern that other people have either access to chemical weapons or access to your chemical weapons or you not if control and rogue generals -- >> that was the best moment of the interview. you said if it's not you, do you

have control over your chemical weapons. but that is a possibly. remembering iraq. it's not a distraction to think of iraq. it's not an iraq syndrome and it's not a syndrome to look both ways when you cross the street. he may be a victim of forces he unleashed. if we can find a way to get him out of this -- if he can save face and the russians can take credit for this, let them take credit. >> but how do you do that? nuts and bolts in the middle of a civil war how do you send in an international u.n. force. >> you have to set up a protocol to do that and if the syrians agreed they would be able to do it it's in syrian government territory, the chemical weapons. and i think we just simply have to take stock again for a moment. bashar assad is not a victim.

>> thank you. >> he is in control. we have asked all the people who are close to him who defected whether or not he gave this order. i'm willing to accept whatever intelligence that is out there about it but he knows it has taken place. there is command responsibility and he knows it is taking place not just on august 21st. >> and he is allowing -- >> way -- >> i just mean that you can -- >> but he is -- >> we have to take a break. everyone is going to stick around and we'll talk about the evidence. a live picture from moscow where it is a quarter to 7:00 in the morning. we'll be right back.

thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it. >> way -- to guard their manhood with new depend shields and guards. the discreet protection that's just for guys. now, it's your turn. get my training tips at guardyourmanhood.com

[ male announcer ] staying warm and dry has never been our priority. our priority is, was and always will be serving you, the american people. so we improved priority mail flat rate to give you a more reliable way to ship. now with tracking up to eleven scans, specified delivery dates, and free insurance up to $50 all for the same low rate.

[ woman ] we are the united states postal service. [ man ] we are the united states postal service. [ male announcer ] and our priority is you. go to usps.com® and try it today. you are not sure of chemical weapons even though you have seen the videotapes, even though you have seen the bodies and even though your terriblofficia been there. >> our soldiers were attacked and went to the hospital as casualties. because of chemical weapons. in the area where the government use chemical weapons we only had video and we only have pictures and allegations.

we are not there. our forces or police, our institutions don't exist. >> bar sh-- bashar al assad talking to charlie rose. what do you think the president should say tomorrow night? he was going to say why there is a red line. >> he should say that the united states has -- our goal is to prevent their use. by any means possible. that without him taking a stand on this, the world would have looked away and he has forced it on to the global agenda and got a consensus at g-20 that the chemical weapons were used and must never be used. and if he can do this without military action he will. but he will ask for that ability. part of what make it possible is the threat of military action. >> you think they should bring

it to a vote on capitol hill? >> i don't know. >> it's going to be voted on. >> suppose the congress votes it down what should he do? >> he should not go to war. >> he has executive power to do it and drawn his red line. in any event i'm sure he won't do it. >> he -- >> if congress says no -- >> i'm sure he won't do it. i'm sure he won't do it if congress votes him down but america's vote -- >> i think he should have done it before -- everybody has talked. i would like to get a word in edgewise, okay? first of all i think the president should have acted before asking congress. i want to go back to something that christiane said, i agree with you. chemical weapons since the late 19th century, the chemical weapons ban. it's the most grotesque use of

war and destruction on humanity that we know. and going back to something we were talking about before the break, if america has lost its greatness and influence and might under varied circumstances. we can look at bush and today under this president. and if we are not able to find resolution as a country on syria, our credibility and -- is going to go down the toilet and right now iran is watching, north korea is watching and like it or not we are the world's conscious. we are the cop on the beat. i'm not for intervention. and back to what -- can i go back to what -- >> you -- >> you have made your point quite well. but isn't that what people say about the war in iraq. that iran is watching? >> that's the other fascinating possibility here. is that -- just is that if this

russian thing comes about if assad is pressured, iranians he is their client too. and rowhani could use this as a way to engage the united states to reach some deal. the second thing is how to solve the problem with syria and with iran. history is like this, accidents, gaffes, miscommunications these things create history and also create wars. >> assad is not a victim. >> no one is saying that assad is the victims. there is no evidence that the rebels used the chemical weapons on people. you can talk about the german report, fine. and back to something you said we should give russia this opportunity. why should we give russia anything? >> because -- >> chemical weapons go away and

they are arming assad. >> we can trust putin. >> we can want to and see if this happens. it's possible to watch if this happens. >> the important thing is the achievement of the goal. it does not matter any more. that's why obama is an interesting president. it doesn't matter if america has the credit. america's credibility is after bush/cheney in tatters and after iraq war. >> the world hasn't done the job for us as we sat on the sidelines. >> would everybody agree if they can find some peaceful way in which the u.n. and the united states and russia could agree on some way to eliminate chemical weapons on the part of the syrian government that would be a very good thing? >> it's a start. >> it's huge. >> it's a game changer. >> it's a start. >> i don't think it's a game changer. >> you have a possibility of a

new world order. >> it's a massive precedent. >> it avoids your point that general petraeus has stated the idea this has serious consequences for the united states if it looks like that we are not prepared. >> not just with chemical weapons but nuclear weapons. >> and the question of north korea. >> what does our word mean? >> on the other hand -- >> we have not -- >> we haven't done a lot of. >> we fulfilled our word with iraq and ended with a disaster. >> i'm talking about syria. >> sometimes avoiding the disastrous consequences is worth losing a little face for. >> he would, i think like it if the world helps us. and if russia really can do

this, if it really can do this it's a way to reset all these relationship. >> what is the timetable? >> one of the -- >> 18 months ago. >> one of the things the intelligence experts as said to me -- the timetable, the delay as paradoxically made any strike that much bigger if it has to happen because targets assad is moving around personnel and weapons and this and that. and i think -- and i think that the military in the united states has started to talk not about just tomahawk cruise missiles but stealth bombers. if you are going military -- >> how long would you -- >> the pressure from john mccain and others. >> how long should the u.s. give russia? >> there is emotion in the u.s. senate or a draft proposal by senator mansion and another senator to give some kind of an

ultimatum, i believe they mentioned 45 days to do something similar. >> it's crazy to strike without an ultimatum. it's impetuous if we cannot give him a chance to obey and make a strike more legitimate in consequence. >> if you can get the congress and the u.n. in some way it would be better. >> we are out of time. thank you. we'll be right back. a writer and a performer. ther, i'm also a survivor of ovarian and uterine cancers. i even wrote a play about that. my symptoms were a pain in my abdomen and periods that were heavier and longer than usual for me. if you have symptoms that last two weeks or longer, be brave, go to the doctor. ovarian and uterine cancers are gynecologic cancers. symptoms are not the same for everyone. i got sick... and then i got better.

he sure did. that's why he had state farm life insurance. like you. so his family never has to worry, right? mr. goldman didn't have life insurance. why not? well, he's just a goldfish. ignore him. [ male announcer ] you've got questions. your state farm agent has answers. backed by the life insurance company millions of moms and dads already trust. we put the life back in life insurance.

president obama expected to address the nation tomorrow night in primetime. we will be here with perspective and analysis. i hope you liked the first edition of "ac360 later." we'll be back tomorrow night with another. see you then. and see you at 8:00 eastern with a regular edition of "ac360." tonight a special hour of cnn. >> do not use chemical weapons. >> president obama banking the full power of his office. >> we have to maintain this pressure which is why i'll still be speaking to the nation. >> on the eve of making his case to a skeptical american public the president sits down with cnn. >> is there anything that would stop an at