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 u.s. ground troops

and not like the wars he'll say in iraq and afghanistan. also, we'll get reaction from americans across the country that watched the president's remarks in the cnn instant poll. public opinion, as you know, is firmly against intervention in syria. the president will now explain why he believes what is happen income syria is in the u.s. national interest. the president walking into the east room right now. my fellow americans, tonight i want to talk to you about syria, why it matters, and where we go from here. over the past two years what

began as a series of peaceful protests against the oppressive regime of bashar al-assad turned into a brutal civil war. over 100,000 people have been killed. millions have fled the country. in that time, america's worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the opposition and shape a political settlement, but i have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan. the situation profoundly changed, though, on august 21st when assad's government gassed to death over 1,000 people including hundreds of children. the images from this massacre are sickening. men, women, children lying in rows killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth

gasping for breath. a father clutching his dead children, i'm ploring them to get up and walk. on that terrible night, the world saw in grew some detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity declared them off limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war. this was not always the case. in world war i american gis were among the many thousands killed by deadly gases in europe. in world war ii, the nazis used gas to inflict horror of the holocaust. because these weapons can kill on a mass scale with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world spent a century working to ban them. in 1997 the united states senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical

weapons. now joined by 189 governments that represent 98% of humanity. on august 21st, these basic rules were violated along with our sense of common humanity. no one disputes that chemical weapons were use in syria. the world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas. more over, we know the assad regime was responsible. in the days leading up to august 21st, we know that assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas and distributed gas masks for troops and fired rockets into 11 neighborhoods the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.

shortly after the rockets landed, the gas spread and hospitals filled with dying and wounded. we know senior figures in assad's military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods of the days that followed. we've also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin. when dictators commit atrocities, they depend on the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory, but these things happened. the facts cannot be denied. the question now is what the united states of america and the international community is prepared to do about it because what happened to those people, to those children is not only a violation of international law, it's also a danger to our

security. let me explain why. if we fail to act, the assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. as the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. over time our troops would again face the prospect of chemical war fair on the battle field and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain the weapons and use them to attack civilians. if fighting spills beyond the borders, these weapons could threaten allies like turkey, jordan and israel and a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions and enbolden assad's ally arran which must decide to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or take a more peaceful path. this is not a world we should accept.

this is what is at stake. and that is why after careful deliberation, i determined that it is in the national security interest of the united states to respond to the assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. the purpose of this strike would be to detour assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade the regime's ability to use them and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. that's my judgment as commander in chief. but i'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional dem mac see. so even though i possess the authority to order military strikes, i believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to the security to take this debate to congress. i believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with congress and i believe america acts more effectively

abroad when we stand together. this is especially true after a decade that put more and more war making power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops while sidelining the representatives of the critical decisions about when we use force. now, i know that after the terrible toll of iraq and afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited is not going to be popular. after all, i've spent four and a half years working to end wores, not to start them. our troops are out of iraq. our troops are coming home from afghanistan, and i know americans want all of us in washington, especially me, to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. it's no wonder then that you're asking hard questions.

so let me answer some of the most important questions that i've heard from members of congress and that i've read in letters that you've sent to me. first, many of you have asked, won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? one man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in iraq. a veteran put it more bluntry, this nation is sick and tired of war. my answer is simple. i will not put american boots on the ground in syria. i will not pursue an open-ended action like iraq or afghanistan. i will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like libya or kosovo. this would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective, detouring the use of chemical weapons and degrading assad's capabilities. others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out assad.

some members of congress said there is no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in syria. let me make something clear, the united states military doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. i don't think we should remove another dictator with force. we learned from iraq doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. but a targeted strike can makes a sad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons. other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. we don't dismiss any threats, but the assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military, any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. neither assad or his allies have interest in ed la case that

would lead to his dismiez and israel can defend itself with overwhelming force as well as the unshakable support of the united states on america. many of you have asked a broader question, why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after assad may be enemies of human rights. it's true that some of assad's ocho phone innocents are extremist but assad will draw strength if people see the world doing nothing to present innocent civilians from being gassed to death. the majority of the syrian people and the syrian opposition we work with, just want to live in peace with dignity and freedom, and the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that

strengthens those who reject the forces of tie randy and extremism. finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force? as several people wrote to me, we should not be the world's policemen. i agree. and i have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. over the last two years my administration has tried da plom see and sanctions, warnings and negotiations but chemical weapons were still used by the assad regime. however, over the last few days we seen encouraging signs because of the threat of military action and talks i had with president putin the russian government indicated aness willingness to push assad to give up.

they admit that i had have the weapons and said they join the chemical weapons convention, which prohibits their use. it's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the assad regime keeps its commitments, but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because russia is one of assad's strongest allies. i have therefore asked the leaders of congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. i'm sending secretary of state john kerry to meet his russian counter part on thursday and will continue my discussions with president putin. i've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, france and the united kingdom and we'll work together in consultation with russia and china requiring assad to give up

chemical weapons and ultimately destroy them under international control. we'll also give u.n. inspect tomorrows the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on august 21st and rally support who agree on the need for action. meanwhile, 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 and i give thanks to the military and their families for incredible strength and sacrifices. my fellow americans, for nearly seven decades, the united states has been the anchor of global security. this is men doing more than forging international agreements, it has meant enforcing them. the burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a

better place because we have born them. and so to my friends on the right, i ask you to reconcile your commitment to america's military mite with the failure to act when a cause is so plainly just tonight my friends on the left, i ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. indeed, i would ask every member of congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack, and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the united states of america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

franklin roosevelt once said our national determination to keep free of foreign warps and foreign entitlements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideas and principles that we have cherished are challenged. our ideals and principles as well as national security are at stake in syria, along with leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used. america is not the world's policemen. terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong but with moderate effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death and there by making our own children safe, i believe we should act. that's what makes america different.

that's what makes us exceptional. with humility but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth. thank you, god bless you and god bless the united states of america. almost exactly 15 minutes, the president of the united states doing his best to try to convince a very skeptical american public that what is happening in syria right now is, in fact, in the national security interest of the united states. we have complete analysis of what is going on. jake tapper is with us. jake is the correspondent of cnn and anchor of the lead. jake, did the president make the case to a lot of americans who don't see this as a major national security threat to the united states that the u.s. has to maintain that credible threat of military force in syria? >> well, i mean, one of the things that was so interesting about what he did this evening is he specifically addressed doubts, specific doubts, six or seven questions about why should

we get involved? i've never heard a president talking about the need to show force, going through all the different arguments ticking down. so i don't know if he successfully made his case to the american people. according to polls the american people are convinced assad did this and it was wrong but don't want to get involved. he addressed specifically what if this is a slippery slope, what if the assad regime retaliates? why aren't others stepping into the fray? why does it have to be us? why aren't we seeking other solutions? this was a speech specifically to a public that doesn't want to go to war and in fact, it sounded like a president who doesn't want to go to war. >> he certainly doesn't want to go to war but wants the threat to hoover over the discussions taking place now. newt gingrich is here, stephanie cutter, gloria borger. newt, if there is an opportunity for some sort of peaceful solution to destroy syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, it

was in part, if not largely, the result of the threat of u.s. military force. >> i think that helped, although, i think kerry's description of unbelievably small attack probably didn't, you know e threatens russians. >> you heard the president saying the united states military does not do pinpricks. >> go back and look at dropping two bombs. the american military does what the politicians tells it to. if they say pinprick, they do pinprick. it's -- >> you just heard the commander in chief say it would not be pinpricks. >> let me say three quick points. this speech was a mistake. if you're going to ask the congress to wait, you don't burn up an evening speech. you have a press conference in the afternoon. you say i have decided to follow up on this and if i need to, i will report to the country if in fact, the initiative fails. it's hard to do two speeches and two weeks.

giving the speech tonight i think was a mistake. >> hold on to that second thought. let stephanie cutter react to that. was the speech tonight a mistake? >> absolutely not. newt, there is no reason why he can't give two speeches. i think the country was calling for a speech like that. if he made a persuasive case, the clearest case why we must act. in terms of a pinprick versus a small attack to address newt's criticism, i think the president is right, the military doesn't do pinpricks, and the whole purpose of describing what this mission is is secure the american people no boots on the ground and open-ended war. this is a targeted strike to detour and degrade a dictator that poisoned his own people. >> the challenge of being a historian in the city is a pinprick, i can go through 20 pinpricks. put that to one side. two big things on the speech i found very confusing.

one is franklin roosevelt went to war when the japanese attacked pearl harbor despite every politician, he could not convince american people, the polling numbers are overwhelming, fdr wouldn't have given the speech. fdr would have been cautious because he didn't oppose 85% of the people. second, as a republican, i want to say it bluntly, as a republican i'm sick of this president and his allies miss stating history. the congress voted to go into afghanistan, iraq, john kerry and hillary clinton voted to go into iraq. let's not pretend there was no legislative branch involvement in the last decade. >> the thing that struck me tonight about the president's speech was as jake said, he went through all the cons, okay, and the big proof course, national security but he made the moral argument about why america is exceptional.

we are different from everybody else. we have the burden of leadership in this country when it comes to people gassing their children, and he said there by saving our own children in the process, but i think the moral argument is something nobody would sort of quarrel with him about. we -- right? we all understand that, but the question that i have is did he explain the back and forth in his own mind about this? because if we do have this moral need to defend the world, then why didn't he just do it? right? why didn't he use -- >> i think he answered that, gloria. he made it clear that we're stronger as a country when we act together and going to congress, was a way to do that, that send a signal to the world particularly if we weren't getting a u.n. security counsel resolution we were acting as a country. >> it's fascinating, wolf, you notice to the speakers point, i

don't know if he burned a speech or not, whether it was right or wrong. but the president to give a speech to the american people talking about potential military conflict, when that happens military action is point a. this president said it's plan b. stand by, we might have to do this. we'll give diplomacy a chance. that is rare for a president to say i'm trying to prepare you for plan b. listen to this. in part, to stephanie's point, could he have give an press conference? maybe. the president often acknowledges the arguments of the other side and the opposition has grown -- >> hold your thought -- >> talked about it -- >> hold your thoughts. i want to alert our viewers. cnn has been doing instant polling with people watching the president's speech. we'll have the results of what the american public, people who actually watched what they think. i want to bring in now a keep member of the united states house of representatives. elijah cummings, the president

was speaking to you -- you have not made up your mind. >> he was not only speaking to me. >> did he convince you he was right? >> i thought he did a very good job and i still haven't decided. i got to tell you, it was not a wasted speech. as a matter of fact, i told the president to make this speech. i thought he made a great moral argument. i -- you know, this whole idea that our troops could be gassed, that is very significant. i mean, you don't hear that too often. that's real. it would be unfair warfare. what i wanted the president to do and i think he did it is why this is in the national security interest of the country. i like the fact he acknowledged iraq. i told the president when he came to the congress, he did not only come to us, he came to our constituents. when you got 90% of the constituents saying no -- >> in your district.

>> and 77% for the president, voted for the president, you've got to address my constituents, too. the other thing he did was there is a question of what are the objectives? one was to degrade, degrade the capacity of assad to use weapons. i don't think he dealt with the second piece. if he does not completely degrade his capacity, then what truly is the deterrence? i think he hit on it -- >> what else does he need to do to convince you, a great supporter of his -- >> he has to show me -- >> that you will vote in favor of the authorization? >> he has to make it clear to me and i thought he did a pretty good job here tonight, that there will not mush into something else. my constituents are tired of war, painfully tired. they saw what happened to iraq. they went to iraq. this is what they told me.

not only did we go on troops but spent a trillion dollars, we lost men and women, the first people to be killed from iraq was from my district. >> did you vote to authorize the war in iraq? >> no, no. >> you voted against it? >> that's right. >> so you want to vote against any military authorization -- >> not necessarily. the one thing we were elated about today is the russian proposal. i understand what the president is doing. we need to give the president credit. they wouldn't be talking, these russians wouldn't be talking if it weren't for the president who made a decision. keep in mind he made a decision and said i want to bring the country with me. that decision had a great bearing on the russians and syrians, but i got to get past, wolf, it might get into something else. >> in other words, there would be unintended consequences. >> that's right. >> and an escalation of this war

and once again, u.s. troops would be on the ground -- >> 11 years, a trillion dollars, people killed, that's what our folks are worried about. i think that's the worry whether it's republican district or democratic district. to be frank with you, in my district i only maybe talked to three or four people out of 2 or 3,000 that are for it. i think he probably swayed some people, but, you know, trying to -- when you've got the backdrop of iraq, when you've got a colin powell who people trust, one of the most trusted men in the world to come with inaccurate information, and a lot of my constituents say we trust and love the president, are you sure that information is accurate? it seems that the public now from all the polls is convince that assad did use chemical weapons. i think the president painted a great picture of what happened is a horrific picture but great

picture. >> elijah cummings, i sense there is a lift but you're not there with him yet? >> no. >> thank you for joining us. newt gingrich, what do you think. we got a congressman that is undecided, a liberal democrat who loves the president of the united states but not yet ready -- >> i thought congressman cummings, i think you can take that interview and show it around the country and capture where the american people are in any district. people have come to the conclusion that said that assad is really bad. 80% of the country believes assad did use poison gas. they think it's a terrible thing and yet, i think part of it is something you have to talk about which is this country is tired. we've been through over a decade of war and very hard to convince people that we'll somehow magically --

>> stephanie, you worked with the president for a long time. if he's not yet able to convince elijah cummings he's right, he has a road ahead of him. >> the congressman reflects where the country is. as newt said, this is a country that's war weary. we've been at war for a long time and the president is bringing them to an end. it's right for the american people to approach this with skepticism. the president has been -- tonight he gave a great speech to layout why the u.s. must act. why it's in the security interest and what the consequences are if we don't. >> this is -- the president did not spend a lot of time in this speech talking about the unintended consequences of going to the u.n. for example, which would be the russians saying you have to eliminate the use of force. kerry going on -- >> that apparently got blown up today. >> right, and that got -- and that got blown up today but in

factoring in how people feel about it, they say okay, now we'll take this to the united nations and i bet if you polled americans on the u.n. -- >> iraq was supposed to be quick and limited and americans don't see any good come of it. egypt everyone was euphoric, libya looked good for awhile and benghazi. they say can we do any good? >> we have an instant poll. we'll report on what the american public that watched the speech. what they think. the continuing coverage goes on now. piers morgan picking it up, piers? thanks, wolf. when we come back we'll speak with one of the harshest credit ticks on syria, ran paul but right now i'll bring in menendez who says bashar al-assad is a liar. what is your reaction to the president's speech tonight? >> well, i think the president went step by step in directly

responding to the concerns of the american people, and i think effectively made the case as to why those concerns are either unfounded to some degree in some cases, can be met in other cases, and the reason why it is important to be able to respond to the use of assad's use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians beyond syria and in context of other people in the world who may have access, as well. >> if the president feels strongly about these atrocities like what happened to the nazis in the second world war, it prompts the question why has he not taken action so far? he has the power to do so. >> yes, i personally believe under the war powers act he could have action that wouldn't extend beyond 60 days and would have to come to the congress after that. i think he's made the case that

we are stronger as a nation in our resolve internationally, as well, when we have the support of congress behind the president and such inaction. i think that that is what he has tried to do and i think that tonight, hopefully, the american people river vetted now on this issue have an opportunity to hear their concerns and hopefully say to their members of congress that under these limited circumstances, i can understand why the president needs to proceed. >> my colleague jake tapper just tweeted a speech to a public that doesn't want to go to war by a president who doesn't want to go to war. and that is certainly the impression that i got listening to him. if this vote eventually takes place and he was to lose it, he still has the power, if he wants to, to take the action he believes is necessary but boxed himself into a difficult corner now, hasn't he? >> look, i believe number one we'll have to see if this effort is real.

i'm skeptical but hopeful at the end of the day and we'll test the resolve of both russia and syria in the united nations security counsel, i believe, relatively quickly. and then the world will understand that all the diplomatic efforts we've led for the last two years, which have been vetoed by russia, whether russia and syria are serious in this regard and if not, i think the strengthened the president's hand for the vote that would be pursued in the congress. >> you called assad a liar and i don't think there is a huge amount of trust in vladimir putin and these are two people the american administration appear to be trusting in the use of chemical weapons. a rum state of affairs, isn't it? >> look, piers, number one is i do believe i called assad a pathological liar. here is someone who told us he never had chemical weapons and now admits he does. here is someone who said no

attack took place. we know an attack took place. so i'm not depending on assad. but i am depending on the international community with a binding resolution at the security counsel, it will be beyond assad's word but have the force of the international community saying you committed to this, you need to do it and if not, there are consequences to it. >> to remove the amount of chemical weapons assad is believed to have, if you play by the book according to the u.n. inspect tomorrow's guide, could take up to ten years. >> well, access to those weapons and securing them to destroy it may be different but access to those weapons and i believe being able to harness those weapons in a location or locations in which the international community can secure them, as they seek to destroy them is a critical movement forward.

and so, i don't think that that should be a deterrent to our effort to get a binding u.n. security counsel resolution. the real question is whether russia, which i read some reports today is beginning back off a security counsel resolution that would have the force of the international community and i believe would probably have sanctions for serious unwillingness to compile to what the counsel pass would be very significant, and i believe the only reason we're even talking about the possibility of syria submitting to this and russia being behind it is because of the use of credible military force on the table and the russians recalculating about what the consequences to assad would be, and their own interest, otherwise, i doubt very much after two years of veto by russia at the security counsel and assad denying he had chemical weapons, that we would be at this point today. >> the russians obviously have a

lot of positive reaction from the americans today and last night by suggesting that they were going to be orchestrating some kind of deal over these weapons, but then late today, they make it pretty clear they would veto anything that did not involve america saying we will not use any military action regardless. i -- america can't sign up for that and you can't avoid reaching the rather chilling conclusion america may have been played here by the russians for russian self-interest. >> first of all, i don't think it's about american impotence but the global community impotence if they see the russians are unwilling to have a binding security resolution. if there is a security counsel resolution with chapter seventh authorization to strike against syria if syria doesn't compile with turning over chemical

weapons and letting u.n. inspectors total free access to them and ultimately acquiring those weapons would be an international response at that point. >> thank you very much indeed for joining me. >> thank you. should we trust the russians to broker a deal? i'll ask the former chiefs i'll ask the former chiefs weapons inspector in iraq. isrean corn chowder. i mean, look at it. so indulgent. did i tell you i am on the... [ both ] chicken pot pie diet! me too! [ male announcer ] so indulgent, you'll never believe they're light. 100-calorie progresso light soups.

it would run on the most affordable energy source available. it would charge overnight. every morning, you'd wake up with a full tank, ready to go. if the car was invented today, it would be the 100% electric nissan leaf. with over 200 million gas-free miles driven and automatic hov lane access, the question isn't "why electric?" it's "why gas?" [ male announcer ] the 100% electric nissan leaf. nissan. innovation that excites. now get a 2013 nissan leaf for $199 a month. ♪

the russian government indicated a witness willing to join the international community to push for assad to give up chemical weapons. they admitted they have the weapons and joined the chemical weapons convention which prohibits the use. it's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed and any agreement must verify the assad regime keeps it's agreements. >> talking about russia's proportional for syria to surrenderer the chemical weapons. syrian state tv is broadcasting the president asked congress to postpone a vote and focus on diplomatic efforts to deal with the syrian crisis based on the proposal.

syrian tv did not broadcast president obama's speech. joining me now is cnn analyst, and also with me is presidential historian. welcome to both of you. david kay, i suppose the key questions if you go along with the russian plan to have syria surrenderer the weapons, is how much of this stuff do we think they have? how long realistically would it take to get it degraded or their ability to use it and how many inspect tomorrows in the middle of a terrible civil war can you safely put on the ground to do this work? >> those are all very good questions and arguely unanswerable since we don't know what the real russian plan or u.s. will sign up to that the russians propose. look, we know roughly the size of the syrian stockpile in tons of both classical mustard agent and nerve agent.

sarin and the much worse agent vx. we're talking about ton quantities. you're right, it's a difficult environment. i would say it's an environment without parallel for international inspectors to operate in to find, determine, verify the truthfulness of a syrian statement as to what they have and where it is and then to even think about moving onto the dismantlement, degrading, destroying the chemical agent itself. how much it would take? look, this is a civil war going on. a lot of what it takes is going to depend on what the security situation, but even if he removed the statement that there is a civil war going on and you were talking about ton quantities scattered around a large country in which you depend on the host country to tell you where they are and you're going to move to verify and check, you're talking about a very large number of inspectors and don't forget, right now the only way to safely

get into syria is through beirut, lebanon and a very long and unsafe road trip and you're talking about moving not only inspectors but all the equipment they require to operate safely. >> dave, nobody i think disputes this is a real mess, and an incredibly difficult situation for president obama and his administration. let's start with that we all agree on. i can't help but feeling he's been dictated on his zigzag policy. one the british last week losing the vote, cameron losing the vote the first british prime minister which was humiliating for him but removed a key ally for president obama and secondly, the sector of iraq in the back of his mind he's thinking we can't get into another iraq. are these two things slightly paralyzing the president right now?

>> i don't know if they are paralyzing him now but seems like they did for awhile. certainly cameron and the fact there is no nato there. bill clinton went into kosovo but had nato. 41 went into the first gulf watch. it's feeling lonely being president obama. brought it to congress and doesn't get the results in the polls here but has an opening with diplomacy and can he do true diplomacy? after reagan called him the evil empire -- >> it's not just putin, is it? he's got to trust putin, whose got to apparently brings a sad on board. we're trusting somebody who mideast in the american administration think is a terrible liar. how does that work in reality? >> it will be tough, but i think the question is what is in it for putin? he's been vilified as mafia and

thug. maybe he wants a noble peace prize and worried about syria's chemical weapons and falling in the hands of islam and the situation in chechnya. we might have a common interest, the united states and russia in getting rid of the chemical weapons and putin can go to assad and say get rid of the chemical weapons, cool down the international scrutiny and we'll continue to fund your civil war, fund your regime in many ways, but don't use chemical weapons. >> that brings me to the next point which is clearly that putin's interest is keeping assad in power, but the american administration always said they believe really, regime change and the rebels succeeding without really it seems to me understanding who these rebels are. >> it's true but remember, the cold war was long with russia and the metaphor was scorpions in the bottle, the united states and russia. there are many times it could have blown up in berlin and didn't.

the cuban crisis in last-minute deals dealing with jupiter missiles on turkey. we got to remember as much as we're an enemy of russia, there is a bit of friendship and alliance and can we get it nailed down? >> does it matter president obama changed his mind quite regularly how to deal with syria if in the end he makes the right decision? >> if we come out okay on the cuban missile crisis, dean thought it was a mess the way john f kennedy dealt with it, sandwiches coming in, crazy meetings, should we bomb or not? in the end we got a result in the cuban missile crisis. the proof about barack obama's handling and nobody is saying this is a case study. it's been a mess, but if the end result is getting rid of classes of chemical weapons and reducing that in syria and not having a war, one might say the president pulled a rabbit out of his hat.

>> david kay, there is a wild theory that perhaps a lot of assad's big stash of chemical weapons is the missing stash that we never found in iraq with saddam hassan. he shifted it to syria. is that plausible? >> it's not at all plausible and something i dealt a fair amount with over the last ten years. look, saddam had lousy sarin. it was unstable. it really had lack of lethalness compared to the syrians. the syrians have first-class sarin developed with the help of the soviet union among with other countries. they didn't need saddam's lousy chemical weapons. >> where did they get it? do they make it themselves or buy it from places like russia? where did they get a large amount of sarin or whatever it may be? >> they got the basic technology how to make it and mate it to rocket artillery during the

soviet union and from czech. it's come from a wind number of states and those from the eastern european area. once you understand the process and you've got it down, the all manufacturing i hate to say is too easy. it was presecond world war as insecticide. it's the name of the three scientists that developed it. it's a standard chemical process. the soviets improved it and in fact, syria has the improved product. >> david kay and doug brinkley, thank you both very much indeed. when we come back senator ran paul moments away from his speech. he's live here on cnn. stay with us. [ male announcer ] this store knows how to handle a saturday crowd.

♪ [ 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.

watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the united states of america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way? >> president obama's glum message to members of congress tonight. i want to go back to washington now where wolf blitzer is with senator rand paul, one of the toughest critics of president obama's syria plan. >> thank you for joining us. tell us what you liked about the president's speech first. >> i think he made a good point atrocities occurred, there was something awful that happened. the gas attacks, you can't watch them without having a great deal of sympathy to the people. my first response is this guy deserves death. >> bashar al assad? >> yeah. but the president's plan is to leave assad alone. >> do you think he should go in there and try to kill him? >> i think his plan though is to spare assad, to least regime in

place, but at the same time he says someone must pay for breaking this international norm but he's really not willing to actually make assad pay. i think assad should pay, either through an international tribunal or something. i think he can't remain there. >> targeted assassination. >> i'm not really saying that. i'm arguing what the president has planned is not going to accomplish what he says he's going to accomplish which is to punish assad for this. i think assad personally will not be held accountable for this. i also think that even if the diplomatic solution occurs, that he still may not be accountable because i may still leave him in place. >> you hope this russian initiative works, right? >> i do. i think that the military option it has no clear military objective. i think if we bomb assad it will be more likely that the country becomes more unstable, refugees become worse, perhaps israel gets attacked, and i think also the real danger to bombing assad is that the chemical weapons may

become loose within the country and may be taken over by either terrorists or al qaeda. >> the president has a different analysis. let me play a clip from what we just heard from the president. >> get involved at all in a place that's so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after assad may be enemies of human rights. it's true that some of assad's opponents are extremists. but al qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. >> go ahead and react. >> well, i agree with part of the statement, al qaeda draws strength from chaos. but i think there's more chaos if we bomb assad. if we destabilize the assad regime there'll be more chaos and we will essentially be the allies of al qaeda. so the chance that al qaeda either takes over chemical weapons or becomes a more dominant influence or actually

takes over syria are greatly enhanced by us bombing assad. i don't think he makes any sense by saying we're going to bomb assad and hurt al qaeda. it's going to help al qaeda. >> if this russian initiative works and for some reason the syrian regime under assad agree to destroying their chemical weapons the russians can convince them to do this in. >> maybe. the alternative those who have been wanting to bomb assad for three weeks we would not have gotten this. >> so you welcomed his decision to go to congress. >> absolutely. that's the constitutional manner. >> is there any resolution you could vote for? >> if american interests were involved. american soldiers, american business, american citizens, a direct threat to an ally, a nato ally, israel, all of those things. there's a lot of american

interests in the middle east that i would say. >> a lot of people in israel are nervous right now. they have gas masks, worried about what's going on in syria. >> i think they're more at rest particular we bomb assad. >> explain that. >> so far assad is preoccupied in his own country and he hasn't had a chance to reach out or lash out at other countries. if we bomb him or corner him i think there's more of a chance he lashes out against israel. if you were to say i'm an oddsmaker what are the chances that a gas attack is launched on tel aviv if we attack assad i think they're greater. if we don't attack assad i think they're less. that doesn't mean he gets off scott free. i'm saying if we bomb assad you're going to create more chaos in the middle east. >> this sums up what i think about this really. is not the base you can message from president obama's speech tonight that to any dictator, when you slaughter your people just don't use gas?

>> when you slaughter your people repeat the last part of that? >> don't use gas. and then that will be fine. isn't that the subliminal message here? >> the thing is he's killed 100,000 people with conventional weapons. so that's the question even if the gas leaves the country, which would be a good idea to have it under international control, the slaughter still goes on. he still has a great conventional weapon advantage in syria. he remains in power. my whole point is that the president's moral message about this being a horrific thing, which it is, you still leave the same guy in place. i think the doctrine for a military when you get your military involved should be that the country should be completely behind you and that you should go in to win and it should be with reluctance that we go to war, and it should be with an overwhelming force with the entire country behind you. we've had that on occasion but we don't have that here. the country's overwhelmingly opposed to us being involved in this civil war. >> senator rand paul, thank you very much. wolf blitzer, thank you for your excellent coverage as always tonight.

cnn's complete coverage of the president's speech continues now on "ac 360" later. making the case for a military strike on syria promising it would neither be too big nor too small but crucially signalling his willingness to accept russian proposal for a diplomatic way out. >> over the last few days we've seen some encouraging signs. in part because of the credible threat of u.s. military action as well as constructive talks that i had with president putin, the russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing assad to give up his chemical weapons. the assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said they'd join the chemical weapons convention which prohibits their use.