that does it for this edition of "ac 360." later we're back with another show tomorrow, basically. another panel. see you again starting at 8:00 eastern with "ac 360." crisis in syria decision point with jake tapper starts now. have a great night. >> what began as a case for striking the regime turns into a cautious embrace of russia's plan to get syria to give up its chemical weapons. >> it has to be real. it cannot be a delaying tactic. >> what about that russian plan? will it work? what has the syrian regime ever done to earn the trust? and if president obama thinks it's such a worthy idea, why wasn't it his plan a? sunrise in damascus.

how did the president's speech land in the potential target zone. how did the president's speech land in the potential target zone. >> we'll go live to the middle east. this is "crisis in syria, decision point." good evening, everyone. i'm jake tapper. welcome to "crisis in syria decision point." a speech in a nation that does not want to go to war by a president who does not want to go to war. tonight president obama moved to primetime on channels all across the cable box. he sought to bring understanding to his strategy for dealing with syria. when the president first announced this speech five days ago there was no way he was going to say this about russia's plan for syria to give up control of its chemical weapons because the plan did not exist before yesterday. >> this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force. 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've spoken to the leaders of

two of our most closest allies, france and the united kingdom. we will wok in consultation with russia and china to present a resolution to the u.n. security council to get assad to give up its chemical weapons and destroy them. >> giving an iffy thumbs up to the russian plan today and no one in the american public heard about until 36 hours ago. he argues this would not have been the option without the threat of military action by the united states, a threat the president says must not waiver. >> i've ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. >> so did the president make his case to the american public? did he make his case clear? we've had our pollsters working overtime. we already have a very good indication of how the speech landed with viewers. right now we're breaking these brand-new exclusive instant cnn-orc polls.

we asked, did the president make a convincing case to strike syria? the responses were aboutly split, 47% yes, 50% no. 32% said they felt more confident in his leadership. 16% said they were less confident. 52% no change at all. perhaps the most interesting question of all. we asked this before and after the speech. would u.s. air strikes on syria achieve any significant goals for the u.s.? before the speech, 30% yes they would, 66% no. after the speech, 36% said yes, air strikes would achieve significant goals for the u.s., 58% said no. so he didn't really move the needle very much, at least not in this instant poll. for the rest of the hour we're examining this critical moment in american foreign policy. i want to bring in senator lindsey graham republican who says u.s. must take a much stronger stance against assad. gloria borger, chief congressional correspondent dana bash and chief white house correspondent jessica yellin.

do you think the president's speech will have any impact on voters in your district skeptical of this plan? >> i thought the moral case was very persuasive quite frankly and compelling. when you ask yourself when this is over, what do i remember? i remember that we're an exceptional nation, that what assad did violated the basic laws of humanity. and if we don't act who will. and they expect us to look the other way and we can't afford. to so here's the takeaway for me. after the leader of the free world made such an impassioned plea for moral outrage and inn a response, it's impossible for him not to react if diplomacy fails, not to act. so if diplomacy fails he's painted himself in a corner. the leader of the free world can't say all these things at the end of the day do nothing. >> one thing i read in your twitter feed, of which i'm an avid reader as is america.

>> you need to get a life. >> is that you don't think he made the national security case. what is the national security case? >> well, look at it this way. iran. one line about iran. of all the things they worry about changing the world for the worst, it's not syria it's the iranians getting a nuclear weapon. how can you mention syria without talk about the iranians? the ayatollahs are sizing us up. if we get syria wrong it will the end of the world. the iranians are going to take this as a weak american response in syria and they're off to the races to their nuclear weapon. >> senator, part of the reason i think you would agree that the president wanted you all just to hold off on this vote on authorization is because the votes weren't there. is that fair to say? >> probably. >> so do you think the president said anything that will persuade any of your colleagues, maybe enough of your colleagues to support any kind of military strike, even if it's just sort of the teeth to back diplomacy? >> i think he probably stopped some democratic bleeding.

right now i don't know what the vote totals on the democratic side, but we could probably muster double digits on our side at best. but this is a process. this is the first step. if it's 50-47 that's progress. >> well when you said though that he's backed himself into a corner? >> yes. >> he's got to act. so say the u.n. falls apart, which i think you -- >> i can't believe that's a possibility. but let's assume the russians are not the beacon and hope of mankind. >> okay. let's stipulate that if you want. so if you assume that it's going to fall apart as you do -- >> i'm willing to try, actually. >> you say he's backed himself into a corner. does he have to go to congress? >> there's probably a reason 225 times president didn't come to congress. i don't know if i'd come to talk to us. quite frankly the president has mismanaged this from day one about what we're trying to do, goals we're trying to achieve. i think he made an unbelievable compelling case we need to act

here and unbelievably small response we're going to give. if i'm the president i would act after the speech if diplomacy fell apart and wouldn't come back to congress. >> he does his credibility as a world leader is completely shot. you can't address the world and talk to your enemies and your friends in the tone he did and do nothing. >> was it a mistake not to lay out a time frame for diplomacy to work? >> don't worry. the congress will help him there. if two weeks from now we're still talking about what the inventory in syria is like for the chemical weapons, known is going to be able to tolerate that. >> you don't think he's shown exceptional patience to date? >> what i think is the president really is trying to do -- force does matter. i don't think we'd have this conversation without the threat of military force. i really believe the president's right about that when the foreign relations committee passed the resolution, i think assad and russia took this a bit differently. >> let me ask you a question. a senior white house official

told me this was the goal for the speech. he said the purpose of the speech was to acknowledge the public's misgivings, to address them. he went through the list. we did not expect to swing public opinion. the idea was to spell out in detail why chemical weapons in syria matters, long time threat to the u.s., why the international community led by the u.s. should respond and why the russian diplomatic initiative would never have come forward without the threat of military force. >> three out of four. i think the one thing he forgot to tell us what happens if this war goes on for a year. does it matter if the king of jordan is a victim of the civil war? i think it matters a lot. does it matter that iraq -- >> talking about the civil war or the u.s. involvement? >> i'm talking about the consequences of this. >> talking national security. >> national security. what happens if assad is winning a year later? is it a civil war or is it something greater? clearly it's a civil war with catastrophic regional consequences. losing the king of jordan is a high likelihood if assad is winning a year from now.

iraq is falling apart mainly because of syria, not completely. >> why do we lose king of jordan? >> because of refugees. one reason we're going to lose him, he's told me and senator mccain i've got 600,000 syrian refugees, 40,000 new syrian kids in jordanian schools and he's hanging on by a thread. if he has another 400 or 500,000 he's gone. >> you're making the regional argument you and others that they were concerned the president didn't make. it wasn't that long ago seems like six life times ago you were standing on the president's driveway frankly track him and saying that he should have been out there talking about this on a more broad level. >> i'll continue to trash him in that regard. >> i'm sure you'll be invited for dinner. >> in all seriousness you were trying to extract leverage out of him with this particular situation by getting him to do even more, arm the rebels. is that now completely off the table? narrowing to chemical weapons? >> people don't want to get

involved in the mid east anymore than they have to. but tomorrow is the anniversary 9/11. could you imagine the night before 9/11 we should be talking about what should we do if there's a chemical weapons attack by assad what should be the response? >> you're saying 12 years ago it would have been a no-brainer we go in? >> i'm saying that we're losing the lessons of 9/11 that iraq -- there's a lot to be learned from iraq. but it can't overshad dote lessons of 9/11. they're pretty simple to me. safe havens for al qaeda are forming in syria. they're beginning to form again in western iraq and iran, the biggest prize of all is to stop their nuclear ambitions. and the way we're handling is this makes it more likely iranians will get a nuclear weapon and there'll be more safe havens. >> one of the cons the president actually laid out is that the rebels, if you had armed the

rebels as some of you had wanted or the rebels end up triumphing as a result of some kind of intervention that you're handing over authority to bad guys. >> i thought the president did a pretty good job of knocking that down. the one thing i can tell everybody at this table and anybody still his tong this debate there are 35 million syrians. the likelihood they're fighting to get rid of assad to be ruled by al qaeda is zero. are there al qaeda members filling in the vacuum? yeah, most of them are coming from iraq. there's indigenous problems and they're foreign fighters. i have no concern whatsoever that al qaeda will win by force of arms at the ballot box in syria. are the rebels mixed? are they radicals within the rebels? will it be a confusion mess the day after assad falls? yes. but to say that this -- our nation shouldn't help the opposition because al qaeda is present in syria will lead to an al qaeda run nation is to me just not plausible. i thought the president did a

pretty good job talking about that. >> have you convinced members of your own party? >> when i hear my party say we'll be the air force for al qaeda. i say have you ever actually been to the region? have you sat down and talked with them. if ted said that i'm talking about ted cruz. the idea syria will wind up under al qaeda control is not plausible. the idea there'll be a blood bath after assad falls is realistic. the longer it goes the worse it gets. this is not about replacing assad from al qaeda from our point of view. >> let's take a break. please stand by. coming up is it a diplomatic option or escape hatch for the administration? whether syria can really be trusted to offer up its chemical weapons stockpile. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in.

with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. ♪ [ male announcer ] the parking lot helps by letting us know who's coming. the carts keep everyone on the right track. the power tools introduce themselves. all the bits and bulbs keep themselves stocked. and the doors even handle the checkout so we can work on that thing that's stuck in the thing. [ female announcer ] today, cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everyone goes home happy. [ female announcer ] todi tthan probablycareing themoreanyone else.andhing. we've had this farm for 30 years. we raise black and red angus cattle. we also produce natural gas. that's how we make our living and that's how we can pass the land

and water back to future generations. people should make up their own mind what's best for them. all i can say is it has worked well for us. like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪ identity thieves. they can find your personal information and do some serious damage. like your birthday or your mother's maiden name. you need a new friend. lifelock.

we scour billions of data points every day, and if we discover that any of your personal information is misused... lifelock is there. call us at 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today.

welcome back to "crisis in syria decision point". just when it seemed like obama administration had used one red line after another to paint itself into a corner, then comes the third option of diplomatic plan suggested by secretary of state kerry and pounced on the plan by russia. could it just be a stall tactic to get u.s. off syria's back? joining me now is cnn chief national security correspondent jim schiutto. >> the case for a diplomatic solution the third option may be no easier. emptying syria of its chemical stockpiles in the middle of a civil war all brokered by its biggest backer and arms supplier russia.

that's why i've been hearing the kind of skepticism i have today from administration officials. one u.s. official telling me there's quote a grudge recognition you can't ignore the deal, but that doesn't mean we'll ultimately accept the terms. >> on the day senators were going to start voting on authorizing force against syria, secretary john kerry will instead go to geneva to talk peace with his russian counterpart. >> president obama will take a hard look at it. but it has to be swift. it has to be real. it has to be verifiable. it cannot be a delaying tactic. >> turning russia's proposal into a reality is already facing its first hurdles. russia says it would be unacceptable to blame the syrian regime for last month's chemical attack and insists any resolution must come with a renunsiation of force by the u.s. >> translator: you can't really ask syria or any other country to disarm unilaterally while military force against it is being contemplated.

>> they say that will orange strengthen diplomacy. >> nothing focuses the mind like the pros peck of a hang. >> looming over the negotiations, deep distrust that the syrians are truly committed to giving up their chemical weapons for good and that russia is committed to making them keep their word. >> when you see the plane loads of russian arms flying into damascus on a daily basis, tons and tons, when you see the russian veto time after time of any resolution in the security council, i think is ample reason to to be skeptical. >> but practical obstacles to ridding syria of chemical weapons may be even more imposing than the diplomatic. syria has 1,000 tons of numerous chemical agents, including ingredients for mustard, sarin and vx gas. in six known sites and many more unknown, now likely dispersed and hidden as the u.s. has

considered strikes. all this in a country in the middle of a civil war. >> this is one of the largest chemical stockpiles in the world. as you say it a number of sites. and dispersed already from those sites. >> yes. >> reasonable time frame to reliably put them all in one place and get rid of them? >> it will take weeks to get inspectors there, to conduct an initial inventory, to secure the site will probably take several months. destroying the weapons, that will take years. >> those estimates do not account for the fact that syria is also a country at war with the difficulty of even the simplest tasks is magnified. inventory weapons, transporting them, destroying them and keeping inspectors safe. these are some of the questions secretary kerry and his team, now including a pentagon wmd expert, will be addressing and testing with their russian counterparts in geneva. jake. >> thanks, jim. back with us to dig deeper into this third option is republican senator lindsay graham along

with our panel, dana bash, jessica yellin and gloria borger. senator graham, you have already stated you don't trust the russians. i have to say the number of members of congress flocking to embrace this plan from putin, not to mention members of the administration, i can't help but feel that there's a certain desperation there to get out of this pickle as opposed to a real optimism that this could work. am i being cynical? >> no. >> well, yes. but maybe deserved so. but let's look at in all honesty, do you believe the russians have been affected by the threat of a strike in syria? i think that's a possibility. why not try it? everything that the peace outlined is true. but if you could secure the weapons in a couple of months, i don't care if it takes a couple of years to destroy them, the world would be better. john and i have been pretty hard on this, right? >> john mccain? >> yes.

so i'm just here to tell you that no matter what you hear from me, i don't want any more war than necessary. i've seen what it does to people. and if there's one in 100 chance that this could yield a result to get the chemical weapons off the market, even though it would leave him in power, i would be willing to take that. but we're not going to wait for weeks or months. this has got to be done pretty quick. >> i shouldn't there be a timetable? >> yes. >> so what should it be? >> i think a couple of weeks. i think britain, france and the united states should introduce a resolution, challenge the russians to put up or shut up. listen to their suggestions to change it and have a vote. not let this draw out, draft up a resolution, a united front by the three countries i named and tell our russian friends and colleagues how would you want to change it? tell me in 24 hours. then let's vote. >> putin said no threat of the use of force, though. >> well again, that makes the cynic in jake come true here. i never really believed this was

a reality. but i'm willing to try it. >> and how much of a position should congress have? and i know you're working with several of your counterparts, democrats and republicans, to come up with a modified authorization to deal with diplomacy. >> you only have one commander in chief and one secretary of state. now i know. why as much as we've criticized these guys, could you imagine 535 of us doing this? so at the end of the day, i think you will see if there's a serious pathway forward in the united nations, a resolution of force that will have an exit ramp, an off ramp for u.n. action if it really comes to pass. >> but why is it worth engaging this at all now? respectfully, they have had two years. they've had more than two years. if they were serious about doing this, they've had plenty of time to come forward. >> why is it it if you could take 1,000 tons of whatever the number is of chemical weapons off the market away from assad, deny hezbollah and maybe al qaeda elements that could overrun these cachets it would be the best couple of weeks.

>> you just said you don't trust them. >> there's a lot of things i don't trust. at the end of the day let's try it. the goal if we could successfully defang assad and take the chemical weapons off the market, it would be a great outcome. >> can i get back to jake's point, though, which is that -- i think. i don't want to put words in your mouth -- that this would sort of be in everyone's mutual self-interest to get this off the table in congress so they don't have to vote, get -- you're shaking, nodding your head. get it off the president's docket. he's got a lot of other stuff to deal with, right? is this kind of mutual maybe get it off russia's docket? >> i think there's a mutual benefit to try to see if this thing can end better than us ending today. if you could have a pathway in the u.n. let's try it. but fit fails then i think the president could look everybody in the eye, i've tried everything i know to do. i even tried to work with the russians. when lindsey graham says he's willing to work with the russians that shows you we're

trying to do everything possible to get these weapons off the market and avoid -- >> it's not phony it's real. >> i'm telling you if it fails. a couple of weeks ago it clearly is not going to happen, after this speech i cannot imagine the president of the united states after saying the things he said tonight, the answer is that he used these weapons and we didn't do a damn thing about it as a nation. can you imagine how that would play out in the world with the case being made tonight and all the things he said? nothing ever happened in syria? >> so game it out for us. let's say it doesn't work out which i think we can all agree the odds are it's not going to work. we all hope it will but it probably won't. then what? >> then president has to use military force to strike syria. >> without congress? even after he's talked about the constitutional democracy? >> in my mind he has no option. he can't hide behind us. >> could he get a vote by congress? could he get the authorization from congress? >> i don't know if he moved the numbers tonight in the house, it seems highly unlike will i. >> -- unlikely. >> in a few weeks. >> anything's possible.

i'm assuming right now that two weeks from now the house will not authorize. >> you had dinner with the president and the vice president a couple of days ago. can you give us a behind the scenes anything we should know about their thinking? >> the president is working really hard and taking this really seriously. he really is. >> that's a republican senator. >> it sounds like the kind of thing that -- go off the record and say the president's awesome. >> it's hard work. [ overlapping speakers ] >> the easiest thing for me politically at home if obama says a i say b. when bush made mistakes in iraq i said hey, i think this is a mistake. at the end of the day, i note president has screwed this up in about 1,000 different ways. but name the time when some things haven't been screwed up in foreign policy. this is not the first time. but this may be really at the top of the list of how to screw things up. i think he really is trying to find a way to get the answer right. but after tonight's speech,

there is no other right answer. if diplomacy does not achieve the desired result, of taking these weapons off the market, he must act. and if i was in syria tonight and i heard this speech, i don't know what it's going to do here in america. but if i'm assad i've got to believe after tonight i'm going to get hit. >> all right, senator lindsey graham, thank you so much for coming in. we appreciate it. gloria, dana, jess, stay with me. coming up it's morning in the middle east. morning in syria. senator graham was just talking about. how is that part of the world reacting to the president's new rhetoric? we'll go there and find out next. my mantra?

always go the extra mile. to treat my low testosterone, i did my research. my doctor and i went with axiron, the only underarm low t treatment. axiron can restore t levels to normal in about 2 weeks in most men. axiron is not for use in women or anyone younger than 18 or men with prostate or breast cancer. women, especially those who are or who may become pregnant and children should avoid contact where axiron is applied

as unexpected signs of puberty in children or changes in body hair or increased acne in women may occur. report these symptoms to your doctor. tell your doctor about all medical conditions and medications. serious side effects could include increased risk of prostate cancer; worsening prostate symptoms; decreased sperm count; ankle, feet or body swelling; enlarged or painful breasts; problems breathing while sleeping; and blood clots in the legs. common side effects include skin redness or irritation where applied, increased red blood cell count, headache, diarrhea, vomiting, and increase in psa. ask your doctor about the only underarm low t treatment, axiron. i want you to know stuff i want you to be kind. i want you to be smart. super smart.

i want one thing in a doctor. to speak my language. i don't want you to look at the chart before you say hi...david. quiero que me hagas sentir segura. i want you to be awesome. that's the doctor i want. at kaiser permanente, we want you to choose the doctor that's right for you. find your perfect match at kp.org and thrive.

day is just beginning to break in the middle east where president obama's speech on possible military strikes in syria will no doubt dominate the headlines. welcome back to "crisis in syria decision point." i'm jake tapper. so did the president's words sooth concerns in that region over what could happen if the u.s. is forced to act, or did they only heighten the uncertainty about what lies ahead? let's go to cnn's arwa damon who is live from beirut with reaction. arwa, what are you hearing? >> reporter: good evening, jake. the issue for a lot of people here is that even though military action may have been averted for now, many do believe that there will come a day when it is going to become an inevitable reality. that being said, the president's speech happening here at around 4:00 in the morning, syrian state television not broadcasting it. but they did run a ticker saying that president obama had asked congress to delay its vote and

that the united states would be giving diplomacy a chance. that is what a lot of the headlines we're seeing in lebanon are saying as well that, this russian proposal is at least going to be give an try. this paper also has a nice little diagram about where syria's possible chemical stockpiles might be. another also addressing the issue of how again the americans would be giving the russians a chance and yet another bringing up the issue about a u.n. resolution under chapter 7 and how the russians would not necessarily go for that. now if we talk about the syrian opposition's reaction to all of this, interestingly facebook pages that we've been monitoring continuing to broadcast or upload clips of the suffering happening inside, but no real direct reaction to obama's speech. but an activist they was speaking to a few hours before the speech took place was so utterly dejected about what had happened, he's been living under siege. and he's been wondering why it is that if the u.s. can pressure the russians to pressure the syrians to disclose their

chemical weapons program, why that same kind of pressure can't be applied for example to at least try to enforce a ceasefire or at least try to put some sort humanitarian corridors into place. >> arwa damon, thank you. what about the united nations? president obama said he plans to give u.n. inspectors their time to report their findings on the august 21st attack. odd turn from a week and a half ago when it seemed like the white house could barely wait for them to get out of syria to strike let alone wait for that report. nick, there was a security council meeting that russians ended up postponing, what happened and what do we know about this draft being put forward by france? >> reporter: it's been a remarkable day of diplomacy. almost hard to stop your head from spinning as you try to keep track of it. french put forward a draft resolution which russians would never sign. suggesting those responsible for

the august 21st attack should be put on trial, blaming the syrian regime for it and saying there would be serious consequences if chemical weapons weren't handed over fast enough. the russians called for a 4:00 consultation from the u.n. security council to put forward their text. they then withdrew that meeting citing changing circumstances from diplomats i've reported. reuters putting out a draft of the french resolution, 15 days for syria to declare all its chemical weapons stockpiles. also it says there will be necessary measures if they fail to comply fast enough. that's a pretty standard term from chapter 7 in the u.n. charter which you'd have to normally resort to for humanitarian means in a crisis like this. suggestions perhaps of further p 5 -- permanent 5 security council meetings tomorrow. but all eyes really on the

russians and this meeting in geneva between john kerry and sergei lavarof. what they can do to bridge the pretty substantial gulfs between their two positions. >> nick payton walsh, thank you. the president waited more than two years to get into the conflict here. arwa raises a really interesting point from the activist from whom she spoke. we've all had this discussion about what's the difference between the 100,000 people killed in syria before the 1400 were killed by chemical weapons. the president obviously make the case that chemical weapons don't distinguish between a soldier and an infant and they can kill massive amounts of people at the same time. but the activist makes a point. if the u.s. can get involved and the russians can get involved to get rid of these chemical weapons, can't they stop the bloodshed? >> they can. if the desire is there. and the problem that we have seen over the past two years or maybe not the problem but the issue is that it's been so complicated and it has been a very difficult thing to get

frankly president obama to do. and we talked about this last night. that there were members of his cabinet, hillary clinton and others that we now know, who were arguing to get more involved, to be more aggressive in helping the rebels that they could verify were not members of al qaeda and so forth. and there was not a desire to do that, or at least that wasn't the conclusion of the commander in chief. >> what's interesting is that president obama in not wanting to arm the rebels, not heeding the calls from lindsey graham and john mccain and secretary panetta and secretary clinton, was trying to avoid this exact show that we're doing right now. >> they haven't said, i told you so at this point. >> except for maybe mccain. >> it's written all over their faces. he was trying to avoid getting us involved in something like this. and he was able to until the chemical weapons got involved. >> and look, he's still -- i mean, i have to say, i don't see what senator graham saw. i thought the speech tonight could be summed up as never mind. i mean, i really don't think that this was a speech saying

he's definitively going to strike syria. and he's looking for a way out still. but there's a good chance that -- i mean as you pointed out, if the diplomacy works great. if he can find another option, great. the president is clearly trying to make this point still. but he does not want to go to war. >> have we forgotten the red line, however? this is a president who had a red line. the red line was chemical weapons. chemical weapons are outlawed, illegal. >> right. >> violate international norms. >> syria's not a signatory to that. >> right but as the president said tonight, an affront to our humanity. he said we know assad is responsible. and when he talked about the morality of not being able to just sit and watch this because we are america after all? then i sort of -- i see what lindsey graham is saying, which

is that having made the moral argument to the country, how do you then walk it back and say, never mind? >> absolutely. the only way he could get to never mind at this point, given what he said tonight and given the gyration that is we've seen over the past week, is if he's somehow successful at the u.n. somehow successful with the russians. if that doesn't happen he can't -- i don't know how he can say never mind. >> he wants more of a coalition. he wants more allies. he wants more time to bring more people along. i'm not -- i could see a scenario absolutely where in the next few -- he creates a diplomatic opening and it doesn't work out and there is a strike by the u.s. but i think that there was enough wiggle room created here where we don't necessarily think this will happen. >> david kay said this takes a long time in iraq it took years. there was a deal we'll let the inspectors in it took literally years before the conclusion was drawn, okay, saddam's not really actually serious about this.

this could theoretically. >> that is because they weren't there? >> that's a whole other thing. although he was claiming they were. >> they weren't. maybe that's why it took so long. >> there's a danger here also of making it seem too simple, right? we're going to strike. we're going to find the chemical weapons. and we're going to get rid of them. and that will be it. that will teach assad a lesson. so there's kind of a danger when you talk about the moral imperative, then you have to also be able to say, okay, this is what we will achieve and degrading assad's capability may not be enough when you have such a huge moral argument then why not just degrade assad? >> we have to take a very quick break, dana, jess and gloria please stick around. up next some more poll numbers from our instant poll. plus the president has made his case to the nation. congress is in a holding pattern. so now what? we'll discuss what happens tomorrow when we return.

so, i'm working on a cistern intake valve, and the guy hands me a locknut wrench. no way! i'm like, what is this, a drainpipe slipknot? wherever your business takes you, you can save money with progressive commercial auto.

[ sighs ] [ flo speaking japanese ] [ shouting in japanese ] we work wherever you work. now, that's progressive. call or click today.

welcome back to our special "crisis in syria decision point." tonight the president laid out his case and how to handle syria. after the speech cnn and orc conducted an instant poll to gauge the public's reaction.

here is what we found when we asked speech watchers if they favored approach the president described in his speech. 61% said they favored his approach. 37% say they opposed it. look at this. we also asked whether the president made a convincing case for u.s. military action in syria. 47% said yes and 50% said no. that would seem to suggest perhaps they didn't think he was making that case. all the people who supported his view of what he was proposing. finally we asked watchers if u.s. has a national interest in syria. before the speech 30% said yes. 65% said no. after the speech, 39% said yes, u.s. has a national interest in syria. 60% said no. again, he didn't move needle very much when it came to the issue does the u.s. have an interest in that. secretary of state john kerry leaves tomorrow night for geneva where he will meet with his russian counterpart to discuss russia's plan to get syria to give up its chemical weapons. a senior administration official told john king in that meeting

the u.s. will demand verifiable time lines and procedures for putting those weapons under international control. another senior administration official told john that any discussion of scheduling votes on this should wait until after kerry's meeting. let's get back to our panel. gloria borger, jessica yellin, dana bash. so dana, kerry, the next thing we know that's going to happen is kerry on thursday will be in geneva. i guess he leaves tomorrow night. what's going on on capitol hill? have all the votes just been tabled for now? >> yes. >> they're all done for now? >> not done. the president reportedly said inside a meeting with senate republicans on capitol hill, press the pause button. the senate majority leader canceled what was supposed to be a big classified briefing tomorrow to give an update on syria. he basically said what's the point? we need to wait. anything we're told now about the strategy diplomatic or otherwise could change on a moment's notice. so absolutely that was the message that the president gave

today. he probably didn't have to say it really very explicitly because we knew that yesterday when reid canceled the vote, at least delayed it, he didn't do that on his own. that was in consultation with the white house. we need to be realistic here. it wasn't just because he saw diplomatic movement. he didn't want to have a vote that was going to lose. >> they were going to lose. >> in the senate? >> yes. anywhere. both houses. so it was in everybody's self-interest to hit the pause button. i spoke with the senior administration official today who said, we support the pause. and i said you support the pause or is it your pause? and that's a little murky, right? who asked for it first? >> a senior obama official said we support the pause? >> the congressional pause, right. >> as if it wasn't their request. >> exactly. >> everybody wanted the pause. [ overlapping speakers ] >> they're not clear about what they started or what they favor

at the back end. they're a little bit murky on beginnings, middles and ends at this point. i think that's fair to say. >> right. and i think it's in everybody's self-interest. it works for everyone, right? >> okay. so let's say john kerry comes back from geneva and there's some discussion still going on. obviously it's not going to -- there's not going to be a fight there. they're going to -- it's a diplomatic meeting. there'll be some discussion. then what? >> i was told by a senior democratic senator tonight after the president's speech that they probably have about at least a two-week window. maybe a little bit less but maybe a little bit more. about a two-week window to give the diplomatic process a little bit time to work in. that time they're going to continue to work on what we talked about with lindsey graham, the kind of modified operation to say the keep the teeth of military force in but still pressure the diplomacy process. >> a bipartisan measure being discussed now. >> both houses the house and the senate.

the bill players in the senate including lindsey graham and bob menendez the chairman of the foreign relations committee. all being done -- what it would do is, well, it's not written yet so it's very murky. >> theoretically. what it would do is it would first of all make clear that assad did use these chemical weapons. but more importantly, it would say that the u.n. assad would have to through a u.n. process give up those chemical weapons. if not the threat of military force is still there. that's effectively what it would do. >> but they're not voting on military force. >> the thing to keep in mind is that that is an initial idea. they haven't written it and they will not really write something until they see what happens at the u.n. [ overlapping speakers ] >> remember when the president said before the election, to the russians i'll have a lot more flexibility after the election? all those ideas are coming back into play now.

people are talk about the president and how this is getting a little bit into politics now. and the president has -- he's getting into a new kind of very uncomfortable territory for him if this drags on beyond two weeks. >> getting into uncomfortable? >> in terms of politics. in terms of politics. >> there might be limited support for what he's doing. >> it's limited. he might have gotten a little bump out of tonight's speech. but i don't know how long-lasting it will be. and don't forget, he was given a speech tonight to a public that does not support the use of force. he's been dealing with the congress. by the way i've never seen him talk to as many members of congress as we've seen him. including on the health care reform as he's done over the last week or two. so he's got everything on the line here. he is pursuing a policy he knows is unpopular. and if he does strike, as lindsey graham believes that he will, which could be likely if

the u.n. fails, then he will be doing something that is directly contradictory to what the public wants him to do. now one might argue that it's presidential leadership. >> right. i mean there's a historical record of presidents doing things like this that are limited strikes that the public doesn't want them to do and then public comes around. >> right. >> it has happened. >> because they end up supporting the troops. they end up supporting the action. and again, the moral argument he made, i don't think anybody quarrels with that, right? >> we have to take a quick break. coming up, president obama came in as the closer in the campaign to sway public opinion on military strikes in syria. was his speech the biggest turning point of the day? stay with us. just by talking to a helmet. it grabbed the patient's record before we even picked him up. it found out the doctor we needed was at st. anne's. wiggle your toes. [ driver ] and it got his okay on treatment from miles away.

it even pulled strings with the stoplights. my ambulance talks with smoke alarms and pilots and stadiums. but, of course, it's a good listener too. [ female announcer ] today cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everything works like never before.

like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business.

♪ man: [ laughs ] those look like baby steps now. but they were some pretty good moves. and the best move of all? having the right partner at my side. it's so much better that way. [ male announcer ] have the right partner at your side. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. go long.

vo:remember to changew that oil is the it on schedule toy car. keep your car healthy. show your car a little love with an oil change starting at $19.95. welcome back to our cnn special "crisis in syria decision point." we have a lot of major developments today. the russians postponed their vote in the u.n. president obama made his pitch directly to the american people in primetime. secretary of state john kerry announced plans to start talks in geneva on thursday with russian diplomats. gloria what was your turning point of the day? >> my turning point was when putin came out and said you

cannot have the threat of the use of force. america, you need to take that off the table. i thought, okay, fine, it's over. >> so it's not real at all. >> it's not real. >> is of course the threat of force according to obama is the only thing that got us. >> only thing that got us to the table. he said you have to take it off the table. i thought this u.n. thing is a charade. >> dana bash you turning point. >> can i say this story is so remarkable that every day the turning point can be completely opposite of what it was going to be? having said that, the fact that john kerry's successor in the united states senator, ed markey, a loyal obama democrat, announced -- felt the need to announce this morning he would vote against military authorization is remarkable. that's a turning point to me because it was so telling. when i saw that i said this is never going to happen right now with mainly change in the politics of this issue. because it's just not going to pass the democratic-controlled senate. >> safe seat forever ed markey's

seat. >> yeah. obviously a liberal state of massachusetts. regardless the fact he is sitting opposite of john kerry the guy who was in his senate seat making these pleas this is the right thing to do. he said i don't think so. >> he voted present in the commitee. >> courageous. >> maybe he felt like he had to take a position is all i'm saying. i'm trying to come up with a -- i'm being sweet. a nice guy. >> you've you've such a nice guy. >> jessica your turning point for the day. >> when the president decided to tack on the diplomatic option to the end of the speech and give himself a way out. we knew it was coming, but for me that's meaningful because i don't think this president is actually afraid of the use of force. we see him unflinching in his use of drones. but i think what he's concerned about is the broader implications of striking syria for the middle east. i think this is a president who looks very far down the road and worries about long-term consequences of use of force there. and that is what keeps him awake at night when he this about

striking syria. so when he backs off he backs off because this could have far-reaching con consequences. >> at the end of the day he doesn't want to do this. >> if he doesn't it's not because he's afraid of striking, he's afraid of commander in chief powers it's what it could lead to. >> dana, jessica, gloria, thanks for joining us tonight. you can catch me weekdays monday through friday at 4:00 p.m. up next president obama's address on the crisis in syria anchored by our own wolf blitzer. have a good night. [ male announcer ] away...

is as much about getting there... ♪ ...as it is being there. ♪ [ birds chirping ] away is where the days are packed with wonder... ♪ [ wind whistles ] ...and the evenings are filled with familiar comforts.

find your away. for a dealer and the rv that's right for you, visit gorving.com.

we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. we're less than 90 seconds away from one of the most critical moments of the entire obama presidency. i'm told he'll say they are prepared to launch targeted and limited air strikes against syria without