is it possible this could avert a u.s. military strike on syria? >> it is possible if it real. and you know, i think it is certainly a positive development when the russians and the syrians both make gestures towards dealing with these chemical weapons. >> so does this change the equation? well, the president is telling everybody it just might. listen to what he said tonight on nbc. >> this represents a potentially positive development. and my preference consistently

has been a diplomatic resolution to this problem. >> add this to abc's diane sawyer. >> are we back from the brink? is military strike on pause? >> absolutely, if in fact, that happened. >> and then there was this to cbs. >> i don't think that we would have gotten to the point where they even put something out there publicly had it not been a credible military threat from the united states. >> i think we get the message, mr. president. and here is why the white house is making an all-out effort tonight. strikes on syria, still uphill climbing, and votes from the senate, 29 yes, 49 no, and 46 undecided. in the house, 25 yes votes, six nos, this is the game changer on syria, let's get to the big story, on syria, cnn's jessica yellin has more.

jessica, i can't really get my mind around this, can you tell us in plain, simple language where we are on syria. >> well, that is the challenge of the day, piers, i don't even know if the white house is clear on this. but the president will give a speech tomorrow in which he effectively argues that he is open to this russia position, which is allowing assad to turn over the chemical weapons. but that is only -- we're only in this position because the u.s. has made this threat of use of force. and he well argue that congress has to authorize him to strike, because that -- that creates the conditions for a diplomatic solution. >> right, i think i can get my head around that. not easy, is it? here is -- i suppose my reaction to this. which is if you assume that assad did unleash these chemical

weapons, slaughtering 400 children and over a thousand adults of his own people, if you took that assumption why would you trust that kind of man to hand over his weapons? and why would america trust vladimir putin in all of this. >> well, and that is an interesting question you raise. and i think that the most senior officials in government are where you are. the phrase i heard today is trust but verify, an old term we used in the cold war era. used in the cold war era.. and so we're in a bit of an old two-step. where on the one hand the administration is on this track that has just now been opened on the john kerry goof this morning. which may have been actually a goof that saves the president from a military strike. and on the other hand, also on the other track of pursuing a military strike for precisely the reason you raise, which is fundamentally they don't believe that assad or putin can be

trusted right now. >> and again, call me naive, jessica, but do we assume that john kerry made a gaffe here? just a huge monumental gaffe, and the moment he made a gaffe, could turn out to be the solution. i just don't think it is how these things work, do you? >> first of all, it is an issue discussed in private. that john kerry has been discussing with the foreign minister in russia, and that the president -- president putin of russia were also discussing last friday when the president was there in russia. so we know that it was something that has been talked about behind the scenes. there are two schools of thought on this, did john kerry blurt it out by accident unwittingly? maybe he was trying to nudge it out there on the world stage to get a resolution. i don't know, i am one of these people that thinks it is more complicated. and things happen in a different

way, that they're cooking a conspiracy, maybe they're not. if it is an out maybe we can avoid a strike, we'll see. >> the president is facing quite a challenge. and support on capitol hill from syria, joining me now is democratic congressman steve israel, who supports strikes on syria, at least in principle. welcome, congressman, can you try and put this into the correct context? right now, we are supposed to be working on trust that vladimir putin and president assad are to be completely trusted on the issue of chemical weapons. and that should avert war. >> well, two things, piers, number one, it is clear that the credible prospect of force to deter and degrade syria's chemical weapons capability prompted russia to step up to the plate and propose a path forward. now, we have to make sure that

that path forward is credible. and so the president of the united states should engage putin robustly. we need to vet this out and make sure this is not a subterfuge. and the administration has always said and i agree with the prospect that diplomacy is always the preferred choice. if there is meat on the bone, we have to take the deal. first, we have to establish if there is meet on the bones. >> right, where does this leave the voting concerns? >> right, i was at a meeting today, and in a meeting with the white house chief of staff and other members of congress. and the proposal was very intriguing. and the message we gave, both in the bipartisan briefing among house members and in that smaller meeting with the chief of staff was we need to vet this out. we need to see if this is a credible path forward. this can't be endless or take months to vet out. but the administration does have an obligation to test the

russians. and if they're going to be constructive, then we ought to pursue it diligently. >> the problem for barack obama is that he has zigzagged his way for 18 months on assad. first it was we're going to get assad, and then there was a red line, it got crossed. once i got crossed, he said we're going to have to do strike s. and wait a minute, i have to go to congress, and now they're going to have to go to congress, and many americans are scratching their heads saying what is going on? >> well, it was north the president of the united states who used chemical weapons against 400 people and slaughtered thousands along with others. it was not the property of the united states who continued to escalate this. it was bashar al-assad. and the president of the united states hoped that the diplomacy would work, that russian and china, nobody used weapons, he

said no, the international community looked the other way, he used them again and again until he engaged in the worst way with the catastrophic weapons. every parent knows when you have children who misbehave, and you don't tell them they're misbehaving, where there is no punishment. they will continue to misbehave. it was bashar al-assad who set the terms, and where we are now. i hope we can use diplomacy on the use of force, but if it fails we can't live in a world where the chemical weapons are used in an ordinary world as weapons of war. >> and others such as john mccain want to see much more action.

>> i am concerned about the resolution that the administration did sent to the house of representatives. i'm more in line with the resolution that passed in the senate, specifically no boots on the ground. and no deployment of combat forces. a swift and certain process that is contained and confined at one strategic objective. and that is the -- deterrence and degradation of syria's chemical weapons capability. not just to keep them from being used by the regime but to keep them from other elements in syria, in this battle. and to prevent their proliferation to north korea, because they're watching what is happening in syria, ran and hezbollah. >> congressman steve israel, thank you. now, a democrat who strongly opposes the strikes on syria, congressman allen grayson joins me, congressman, you heard what israel had to say there. i guess everyone's position on this is changing pretty quickly.

because a lot of people are buying now into this idea that if assad and putin can be trusted to deliver on this concept of handing over all the chemical weapons in syria, then that could be the end of any need for military action. what is your view? >> well, it underscores the fact that the administration has not come up with any plausible means to prevent another attack, while diplomacy like this may very well accomplish that. but the element that you're leaving out of this is public opinion. the public is adamantly opposed to this attack, and therefore, members of congress are adamantly opposed to this attack. the washington web count has 240 against, today, the administration picked up one vote in the house, the opponents picked up 16. and our don't attack syria website is getting close to 100,000 members of the public who signed the petition against the attack. whatever happens, the public is

not going to tolerate another middle east involvement in the war. >> the question on the poll was should congress pass a resolution to authorize military action in syria? yes, 39% no, 59%. but of course, public opinion being against something like that is not necessarily the sole reason why you would choose to do it or not if you're a president of a country like the united states, is it? >> well, it is the public that ends up paying for it and the public that ends up bleeding for it. so i would have to say if the public is against it then that is not a good reason for us to go to war. listen, i think that we're giving way too much leeway to this idea that the elites in washington, d.c. can decide in favor of war or peace. i think the public is entitled to say, and they're inserting themselves in public polls like this. the public states the --

>> and -- >> let me say one more thing about this. individuals -- a republican member of congress said he received over a thousand e-mails of his constituents, the number in favor of attacking syria is three. >> right, but is part of the problem in this public opinion debate that actually may be because of the catastrophic errors, if not willful errors, made during the iraq crisis? and the american public is very skeptical, this whole colin powell with the bogus evidence, they don't really trust this guy when he says this guy is using chemical weapons, when in fact it would look like to a seasoned objective observer, that he has done it. >> and we're finished -- >> therefore, you should have

military action -- i think we may have lost you. >> no, i'm here. >> can you hear me. >> right, there was an sbupgs -- >> let me just say, could this just be a post-iraq crisis of confidence among the american people who simply don't believe the administration? >> that is not the problem, the problem is the administration is saying things that are unworthy of belief. i indicated this saturday in -- in "the new york times," the administration has not released any of the underlying e-mails, intelligence reports, any of the information that they claim would justify this war. they have already changed their story regarding the casualty count, which they have been spreading for more than a week now. now the story has changed in that regard. and i think the reason why people are finding it difficult to believe the administration's details because the administration is not releasing the details even to people like me who have classified clearance. >> if -- clearly we know that somebody gassed all of these people and that somebody gassed 400 kids and over a thousand adults.

>> actually, the administration has walked that back today. >> you don't believe it happened. >> and if you want more details -- >> you don't believe it. >> no, if said the casualty count is now radically different than what it was before. now the administration is saying many of the people in the shrouds did not die from the gas attack, they died from the bombardment of the conventional use of weapons that night. >> if you would give an account to your satisfaction that assad had indeed ordered a chemical weapons attack on his own people, would you then support military action? >> well, of course, that is not where we are. but the appearance is no. this is what barack obama the candidate referred to in 2008 as a dumb war. this is a war that does not accomplish anything useful and in fact is counterproductive, if we choose to engage in it, which we will not. coming up, one of the architects of war, why he is

supporting president obama, and asking congress to back him. joe lieberman joins me next. i'm beth... and i'm michelle. and we own the paper cottage. it's a stationery and gifts store. anything we purchase for the paper cottage goes on our ink card. so you can manage your business expenses and access them online instantly with the game changing app from ink. we didn't get into business to spend time managing receipts, that's why we have ink. we like being in business because we like being creative, we like interacting with people.

so you have time to focus on the things you love. ink from chase. so you can. and didn't know where to start. a contractor before at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. no company can pay to be on angie's list, so you can trust what you're reading. angie's list is like having thousands of close neighbors, where i can go ask for personal recommendations. that's the idea. before you have any work done, check angie's list. find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. i love you, angie. sorry, honey. waiting for your wrinkle cream to work? neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair has the fastest retinol formula. to visibly reduce fine lines and wrinkles in just one week. neutrogena®. about yoplait's fall favorites. so we brought pumpkin pie and apple crisp back for a limited time.

see? you really do call the shots. ♪ yoplait. it is so good. real fruit plus real nuts plus real multigrains equals real delicious! quaker real medleys, your on-the-go burst of goodness! quaker up.

will there be a tax against american bases in the middle east if there is an air strike? >> should expect everything, should expect effect. not only through the government, the government is not the only player in this region, you have different factions and ideology, you have a different situation, so you have to expect that. >> the crisis in syria has been creating have unexpected situations, joining me now, paul wolfowitz, and former senate homeland security chairman, joe lieberman, welcome, paul wolfowitz, this is kind of a cheeky question, how much emphasis do you put on the claims for the use of chemical weapons by assad?

>> piers, there were no lies, everybody saw the same intelligence and a lot of people changed their tune afterwards. the real point is, look, people are concerned not because of the intelligence, but they're concerned about the possibility of american casualties. and on that point i would actually agree with secretary kerry who says this is not iraq, it is not afghanistan, i don't think -- frankly if we don't use manned aircraft there is no risk of american casualties in these strikes, at least. so i think it is fair to emphasize it. there is an eerie similarity in one respect, not to iraq in 2003 but in 1991, there were reports that saddam was dropping chemical weapons on the shiites. the reports were not confirmed until 12 years later, but we learned yes in fact they had ordered the use of chemical weapons against the shiites. of course, that was already over.

>> one comparison is to the nazis. >> the real issue here is whether or not the congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice until assad. hitler and saddam hussein. >> very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons. without assuming responsibility for syria's civil war. that is exactly what we're talking about doing. unbelievably small, limited kind of effort. >> see, here is my problem, senator, how do you say on one hand this is the new hitler we're dealing with, and on the other hand, say it is going to be an unbelievably small military action? that is not how one would deal with hitler? >> well, i'm sure that john kerry said he wished he wouldn't

have said small, he described the attack as being limited but decisive. that is better phrasing. but i tell you, secretary kerry had a point that -- we have been challenged here. not just by the use of gas, which links bashar al-assad to adolf hitler, but by all that happened in the '30s as the u.s. particularly watched, drawn by isolationism, the fascists moved forward, and finally at a late hour, thank god, decisively. this is a real threat. and if we turn away from it, our allies are going to be shaking. the enemies will be bolder. and inevitably, we'll be drawn

into a larger conflict that will later cost us more lives and treasure. that is what happens when you don't stop a bully, a thug, when he murders his own people, particularly. and with gas. >> all right, paul wolfowitz, this is the problem i have with it. it seems to be clear evidence this time, assad or people acting on his behalf have unleashed these chemical weapons on their own people. that would seem to be the general consensus of the people. and yet, the consensus of dealing with it, it is terrible. but we can't deal with it, and america, who is supposed to be this great global power, says we're not doing that anymore. you're on your own. is that the sensible way for america to go? >> frankly, i don't think it is, and i don't think anyone is denying that 100,000-plus syrians have been killed, and the brutality of this regime, to say we're not going to take

responsibility for what is going on in syria. we take responsibility when we do nothing. and we've done nothing for 30 months, two and a half years, when i believe we had a lot that we could do. and still a lot that we can do. although not as much as we could have earlier by empowering the syrians to defend themselves and put this regime on the ropes. maybe even get a peaceful resolution, but we won't get a peaceful outcome if we don't get involved. >> look, there is still over 7% unemployed. the economy is still in the tank, incredibly expensive wars in iraq and afghanistan, with no apparent victory, with blood shed to american troops and people. and they say we don't want to meddle in the middle east forever, what do you say to people about that? because clearly it is the

majority. >> right, i think we have to say, first acknowledge that we have had periods in our history when americans have pulled back, almost always following tough economic times and unpopular wars. but almost always that isolationism, if i can over-state the case, has forced us later into conflicts that were much more brutal. i also believe, piers, that american public opinion on the question of syria has been much more fluid than opponents of action, as a result of the chemical weapons would argue. if you look at the polls at different times, if you talk about a limited action which is carried out by the american military from offshore as it were, without boots on the ground, and involving some

international support, the support is actually over 50% in the various polls that have occurred in the last two or three weeks. i tell you, just to say something -- i'm going to say it because i believe it. i believe that if on that saturday afternoon, the day after secretary kerry gave the impassioned, i thought compelling argument for us to respond to syria's chemical weapons use against their own people. if the president had come out saturday, instead of saying i am sending it to congress. he said as we all expected, i have ordered an attack against syria, limited and decisive. i think today public opinion would be very positive about what happened. and that is what happens when there is leadership. and i think the president took a really large risk for himself and for our country by throwing this action to congress, when he himself argued, and i think he is absolutely right. he has the legal authority without congressional

authorization to take exactly the kind of action he has argued is necessary in syria. >> well, very mixed messages from the president, which is never a good thing in any leader. stay with me, gentlemen, when we come back i want you to know what you think the president should say tomorrow night when he addresses american people on the back strikes to syria. and the planned military action.

if we can accomplish this limited goal without taking

military action, that would be my preference. on the other hand, if we don't maintain and move forward with a credible threat of military pressure i do not think we'll actually get the kind of agreement i would like to see. >> president obama talking to wolf blitzer today, with me now, secretary of defense, paul wolfowitz, and in this debate, one heard from at for me, saying what is the proof that it was assad who used the chemical weapons? i'm curious, senator lieberman, this is part of the problem. there is not yet the incontroverted evidence that makes them satisfied that assad did do this. >> well, first, part of the problem, i think, piers, is the lack of trust in government generally. government in washington, as a result of the dysfunction

partisanship ideology cal issues going on here, and it plays right into the debate. secondly, i'm not a senator anymore so i don't get the classified briefings. i have talked to colleagues who were there and listen to do what has been said publicly. to me, it is incontrovertible that the chemical weapons were used by the direction of bashar al-assad. and that he has exercised over time a personal control over these weapons. so that there is no indication that the opposition, which assad said carried out these attacks, they don't have the capacity to do it. so i must say, the one thing that gives me some hope in congress, in this debate is that almost nobody with the exception of allen grayson, slightly, earlier in the program, takes

issue with the fact that a chemical weapons attack occurred in syria and it was carried out by the syrian army, directed by assad or people very close to him. >> and paul wolfowitz, barack obama makes the big address to the nation tomorrow. we're all expecting it to be this huge, thumping cry to rally arms, now there is this big banner thrown in the works of the russian master plan to coerce the syrian government into handing over the chemical weapons. why should the president trust him or the russians? the answer is they should not. why is president obama going along with it? >> i think he is exploring it. i think president reagan's dictum applies, trust, but verify. i think part of the problem here is far too much emphasis has been placed on this one final

issue, the chemical weapons, it seems probable they have used them. but 100,000 people have been killed, 200 refugees, i think iran is backing assad. i think what the president needs to say is not that we have no stake in the civil war, on the contrary, there is a civil war, people are dying, frankly other nations are willing to pay for it. if we don't help the syrians now who are prepared to fight. i think senator lieberman is right, five or ten years from now we may in fact see boots on the ground and dead americans. and i don't want to see that. >> thank you both very much, indeed. coming up, he wrote the books on americans who made history, from franklin, to president obama, place in history. plus, what jobs would have

thought of apple today and the new iphones we'll probably hear about tomorrow. . you raise her spirits. we tackled your shoulder pain. you make him rookie of the year. we took care of your cold symptoms. you take him on an adventure. tylenol® has been the number 1 doctor recommended brand of pain reliever for over 20 years. but for everything we do, we know you do so much more. tylenol®. ♪ every now and then i get a little bit hungry ♪ ♪ and there's nothing good around ♪ ♪ turn around barry ♪ i finally found the right snack ♪ ♪

[ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on an ancient burial ground. [ ghosts moaning ]

surprise -- your car needs a new transmission. [ coyote howls ] how about no more surprises? now you can get all the online trading tools you need without any surprise fees. ♪ it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. we run errands. we run to the grocery store. in fact, the average american drives fewer than 29 miles a day. the 100% electric nissan leaf goes two-and-a-half times that on a single charge. it's a car. it just doesn't take gas. [ farrar ] so think about where you go in a day. do you really need gas to get there? [ male announcer ] the 100% electric nissan leaf. nissan. innovation that excites. now get a 2013 nissan leaf for $199 a month.

♪ the critical moment there for president obama, a moment that could make or break his presidency. joining me now, a man who has learned a lot about americans who made history, walter isaacson has written a lot about americans, from franklin to president obama.

he is former managing editor "time." walter, who did you make of this and the arguments of paul wolfowitz, and given the reality of saddam hussein's non-existentwmds? >> you have asked tonight if we should trust the russians, and there is one thing i will trust them to do is act in their own strategic interests. and they're pretty good at determining what their strategic interests are, so we have to learn where they clash with us, which is a lot of places. and where might they coincide. it is certainly within the strategic interest of russia to minimize the influence in the middle east. and it is in their interest for them to poke and tweak at us, which they do quite well. but there is an area in which we have an aligned security interest.

it is not in the interest of russia to have radical islam arise in the middle east, especially radical islamists who have chemical weapons. so i think they're just as concerned about the radical rise of islamists as we are. so that is a place where they could have mutual interests, and that is why it is very predictable that putin would do this. and the russians would play this card. i think henry kissinger predicted this. it is in their interest to do something like that, all right, let's step in and try to solve this problem, by having a confluence of eliminating the chemical weapons. and i think it is in our interest to think ahead what the russians will do next, and how we may respond. and certainly it is in their interest to call a national conversation. they don't want a saddam hussein topple. and realize it is -- i mean not saddam hussein, to have bashar

al-assad toppled. because if he is toppled right now and you have radical islamist groups taking over and they get control of the chemical weapons, that is not in the interest of either side. so i assume the russian's will keep playing this game, keep wanting to be more of a player in the region. they will call for a national conference and keep trying to take the lead in trying to deal with the chemical weapon problem as they minimize america's influence in the region. >> let's turn to apple. they have a big announcement tomorrow, a big unveiling of products. we expect maybe a new iphone and products. we have the vested interest in the announcements. and where is apple as a company now? there is a sense among many which may be inevitable. that after steve jobs died, that the soul of the business died with him. do you think it is a fair criticism? >> i think it is a concern we might have. steve was a spark, a creator spark, an innovative genius, and as you said, the soul of the company.

during the period from 2001 to 2010, every few years he just blew us away by introducing a totally new product we didn't think we would ever want. sufficient as an ipod or an iphone and then the ipad. all during that decade. it has now been more than three and a half years since the ipad came out. and i think what we're looking for is not just can we make the iphone 5 a little bit better, can we make another one a little bit cheaper? but can we do something totally different, or steve would have said, think different. >> this seems to be the spark that is missing. is something brand-new that just knocks your socks off. you know, steve job would stand there and it would be like wow! and we have not had that moment really, since he died, i don't think. >> and what happens is, if apple doesn't have those moments they just get into a commodity war fare with people creating android systems, which is a

pretty good copy or ripoff as steve would put it. so what apple has to be is more creative. there will be possibly a watch better than the one samsung did. i hope eventually they will come up with a tv set in which the content, the software and the product, and an easy user interface is easily integrated. i just hope they will think like steve, which means think different. >> the trouble is, you probably have to be steve jobs to think like steve jobs. and that is a problem when you have such a brilliant man. thank you very much. >> thank you for having me, piers. >> on the paperback edition of steve jobs, his book is out tomorrow. and we'll come back, george zimmerman is back in the news, again for the wrong reasons. why his estranged wife called 911 and made extraordinary claims. we lowered her fever. you raise her spirits.

we tackled your shoulder pain. you make him rookie of the year. we took care of your cold symptoms. you take him on an adventure. tylenol® has been the number 1 doctor recommended brand of pain reliever for over 20 years. but for everything we do, we know you do so much more. tylenol®. ugh! actually progresso's soup has pretty bold flavor. i love bold flavors! i'd love it if you'd open the chute! [ male announcer ] progresso. surprisingly bold flavor for a heart healthy soup.

surprisingly bold flavor [ jen garner ] what skincare brand is so effective...

so trusted... so clinically proven dermatologists recommend it twice as much as any other brand? neutrogena®. recommended by dermatologists 2 times more than any other brand. now that's beautiful. neutrogena®. ♪

george zimmerman back in the news today, police say the man who shot and killed trayvon martin and was found not guilty of his murder was allegedly in an altercation with his estranged wife and her father, shellie zimmerman called 911. >> we do have officers enroute, is he still there? >> yes, he is. >> is he inside now? >> no, he is in his car. and he continually has his hand on his gun and he keeps saying step closer. he is just threatening all of us. >> step closer and what? >> and he is going to shoot us. >> shellie zimmerman declined to press charges, george zimmerman's attorney, mark o'mara said he was allowed to have a gun with him. he said it was what they call a disagreement in the middle of heightened emotions. in just a few hours, colorado

voters will decide to recall two state senators over gun control laws passed last year in the wake of the aurora movie thursday -- theater shooting. they said not a single gun control law has been ever proven to control crime. how are you? >> good to be here, piers. >> there is a charming image of you, clutching your gun there. >> my sig. >> now here is what i find interesting about you. your view of guns apparently changed in a pivotal moment in your life when you had a home invasion. >> well, i'm pro guns, i'm a conservative. and i walked in and there was a thug.

>> i talked him out. >> why would you prefer to shoot him? >> i would never prefer to shoot him. but 15 guys on drugs coming back to the house. >> you fended him off with a camera. you were armed with a camera. >> i got really blessed and lucky. >> or you did what happens in most civilized countries in the world where most homes don't have loaded guns and most intrusions don't end with someone getting shot. >> 2 million times a year guns are used in defense moves. >> 2 million times a year in america. and yet i never read any examples. where are they? >> if you -- >> do you know how many 2 million is. >> you don't read the "washington times" clearly. >> you tell me americans using

guns fend off intruders 2 million times. but i have been sent one example every three weeks. where are all these things happening? >> obviously there is a biassed in the liberal media against showing these stories. >> every paper is a liberal media? >> i post stories about positive gun ownership. i would hope that will happen with me. they see i'm armed and will leave or surrender. >> my argument is where there are more guns there are more likelihood of a gun being used. there was a heart breaking case of an 18-year-old who for a prank in a family home hid in the closet and jumped out to surprise him. he happened to be carrying a gun

and because he was startled he killed her with a gun. that would happen in countries where you are not just overrun -- >> what about the guy in england who killed a guy with a machete. accidental deaths is a different issue. it's 700 people a year. it's not that frequent of a crime. it catches your attention but it's the bigger picture is there has never been proven whether it's the cdc, the government, harvard that all the gun control laws they don't prevent violence or decline violence. that's what we want to do is decrease violence and make our cities and children safer. >> but they reduce gun crime. >> no, they don't. gun crime has gone down 40% in the past 20 years while ownership has skyrocketed. whereas in england, gun crime

after the ban went like this and then started going down. there is no parallel -- there is no parallel between gun ownership and gun crime. >> gun crime in britain it went up in the next five years and they made them twice as hard and were going to jail people for five years for possession of a handgun. and every year since 2003 it has gone down significantly. >> as it has in the united states while gun ownership the is through the roof. >> iowa wants to give gun permits to legally blind people and has been doing that including a number of people who are not allowed to drive. >> it is a state issue. i know a lot of the disability groups want to say you can't take aware their rights because they're blind. it's a complicated issue. >> they're blind. these people are blind.

stevie wonder says i'm allowed to go and buy guns. can you imagine me with a gun? it's utterly ridiculous. >> you want to get your gun. a farmer wants to keep people killing from each other. we have people in iowa who are blind applying for weapons and allowed to have them because it's their right. no it's not. >> can i talk? >> yes. >> once we have start having cases of blind people shooting people we can have that debate. >> you don't think that's going to happen? >> it's been fully legal in most states right now. gun owners are responsible. we take training and storage responsible. >> you think we can have responsible blind gun owners. yes or no? >> yes. let me tell you why. you can rack a shotgun and never shoot it and scare the hell out of the criminal. am i allowed to say that?

i went with two blind people down to the d.c. police. you have to take a vision test in d.c. you would love d.c. 17 steps -- >> i do love d.c. i love america my problem is not with america or americans or any of your magnificent states. my problem is with the gun lobbies saying it's perfectly okay for legally blind people to be marching around with guns. it's ridiculous. >> the gun lobby is not doing that it's the disability groups. because they say why should they not be allowed to have guns. >> emily gets her gun but a obama wants to take yours. emily miller, good to meet you. i look forward to your twitter following giving me a hard time for the next three weeks. we'll be right back.

tomorrow night president obama is supposed to make the most important speech on syria. i will be here with wolf blitzer and the rest of the cnn team with immediate reaction. that's all for us tonight. ac 360 later. the new show premieres right now. . good evening. breaking news tonight. a new sign that a vote on using force against syria would be the vote that the president would lose, when a seemingly unhand remark by secretary of state john kerry changed the conversation about the situation in syria. also, george zimmerman's wife says he was threatening her with a gun. mark o'meara will join us later tonight. also later tonight, why some marathon swimmers are raising questions about diana nyad's epic swim from cuba. we will tell you about that coming up.