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.

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 counterpart on thursday, and i will continue my own discussions with president putin. i've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, france and the united kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with russia and china to put forward a resolution at the u.n. security council requiring assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control. >> that's obviously a big shift from the all-out push for military action we thought as

recently a day and a half ago we'd be hearing about tonight. before secretary of state kerry made his remarks about syria handing over its chemical arsenal, before russia said good idea and put forth its plan, before syria seemed to say okay. and everybody was scrambling to figure out the parameters of a deal. how do we implement it, verify it, trust russia. it's all on the table. chief international correspondent christiane amanpour -- andrew sullivan, editor-at-large fareed zakaria and anne marie slaughter. andrew, what did you think of the speech? >> i thought it was terrific. i was moved by it, persuaded by it. i think it put the chronology in the right order. if we'd been told this spring watching assad doing these little chemical weapons and the gassiness there, this fall

because of american action the russians would be enforcing both the fact that syria has declared it has chemical weapons and that syria is actually prepared to join the chemical weapons convention, and that the russia is prepared to take the responsibility along with other members of the security council to enforce it, we would think it was a miracle. >> do you believe russia? do you believe -- >> yes. and here's one reason i believe russia. they have reason to be scared of those chemical weapons, too. because the one thing those rebels hate in that country is russia at this point. next on the line after if they were to gain power and some extremist elements would gain control of it, after the alawites and christians the russians would be the target of these weapons. putin gets to both take the credit and also control these weapons. and ultimately destroy them. i don't mind if it takes months or even years. at this point is assad going to use those weapons again? with russia and iran now looking at him, expecting him to abide by this? i don't think so. >> christiane?

>> i believe it's because finally diplomacy was enacted with the credible threat of force behind it. and having talked to many many people today, they believe that president obama during the g-20 made it very clear to president putin that this time he was serious and there were going to be military consequences as limited and targeted as he describes. but nonetheless, the threat of force worked. think how it may have been had this threat of force been used along with diplomacy many many months and years ago in this civil war. i also think that knowing the way that it's being programmed all over the world the speech it was being viewed in syria, they immediately put up a big banner. their headline in syria was that obama postpones the vote while he seeks a diplomatic solution. they never said that he's keeping his military posture, that they're ready to strike if he gives the order. i think that that's interesting as well.

i think that what andrew said, it's going to be very very interesting to see whether this is something that can be verified. i know you're going talk to david kay whether inspectors can go in in the middle of a civil war, and whether the russians are really going to police this in a neutral way or are they going to be the continued apologist for bashar al assad. >> do you think the president needed to go ahead and make the speech tonight? this was clearly a speech scheduled before, when military action seemed to be imminent. >> i think he wanted to make it. clearly he needed to shore up his position, that is the position that this was serious, this was a threat to international security, this was a threat to american security. i think at the end of the day, though, it has made his case much more difficult. and even though he made a very eloquent and intelligent speech as he often does, i think it would be difficult for me to believe that three or four weeks from now if we are haggling with the russians over the wording of a u.n. resolution and the russians say we don't want this phrase because it might imply the threat of force and the united states says no, no, no, we must have that phrase because

that is precisely what gives teeth to this resolution and those talks collapse, the president can go to the world and the american people and say, let's go and use force. >> you're saying he cannot? >> i think it would be tough. because what, the russians didn't agree to your particular wording? there is now the possibility of a diplomatic path. as andrew says, it maybe it will take weeks and months, and i think it will be quite difficult. because imagine -- remember the iraq inspections. those guys were going in there, it was incredibly -- >> we'll talk to david kay. >> they didn't have -- the country was not at civil war. >> right. >> so all i'm saying is two or three weeks from now can you say, remember that case i was making for war? let's come back to that. >> you don't believe that, andrew? >> no. i think if that were to happen and this initiative were to stall or falter if there was exactly the scenario you put forward, the president can say, i tried everything. we tried diplomacy. we didn't rush to war. that's the context. he doesn't want to go to war. if you can achieve your goal

without going to war, great. i think you were right, christiane, and i was wrong. >> you were opposed to military action until about a week ago? >> i still am basically. except obama has persuaded me this is such a horrifying thing -- >> that was a moving part of his speech actually the description of the children, the writhing, the scenes that we've seen in graphic detail. i think that was really important. as one who's actually covered the genocide in bosnia, in rwanda, who's been to iraq during the whole chemical weapons fiasco some the '90s, whose watched the u.s. deploy limited strikes, again we could talk to david kay about the success of those. it is really important to remember that this is a major moral issue, not to mention a major issue of american leadership and credibility around the world. and i think he made that pretty clear. >> i want to stick on the politics.

i want to talk to dana bash in a second. there was something he said talking to people on the left, talking to people on the right. let's just play that part of the speech. >> to my friends on the right, i ask you to reconcile your commitment to america's military might with the failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. to my friends on the left, i ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor. for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. indeed, i'd 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? >> a lot of the twitter response from conservatives they follow on twitter was this is a speech that is not going to change anybody's mind. i want to bring in our chief congressional correspondent dana bash on capitol hill. what are you hearing from representatives on capitol hill? >> so far sources in both parties are saying basically what you just said. that they don't think that ultimately this is going to change or at least initially this will change people's minds. one i was just told is that in the lunch that happened today with democratic senators and the president, some democratic senators were trying to get the president to actually play some of that video which he just described which we have seen on cnn and of course the government has put it out sort of officially now to try to make that point. and he of course said this is a primetime address. not for kids. but the moral point that he tried to hit home with definitely the one i think people were most happy about who support the idea of being more robust with syria. >> anderson, i think that while it may be true initially that people are not -- don't change their minds.

because the moral case is one i think americans understand. they feel assad is a terrible person. what is happening is gruesome and barbaric. he's killed people in an equally gruesome manner with conventional weapons. what i think was very persuasive to me as somebody who's been cautious about getting engaged in a very complicated civil war was the president's very disciplined way in which he said, this is not going to be iraq, not going to be afghanistan, not even going to be libya. in other words, this is going to be a very limited, curtailed strike that is meant to deter assad from ever using these weapons again. because it would be a sign that he would invoke the wrath of the united states and strikes from the united states. so he was very clear about saying, we're not going to get involved in this war. we're not going to escalate. this is not open-ended. that would be i think quite unsatisfying -- >> does anybody ever go into a war saying this is going to be a quagmire? >> you keep saying that. but there is precedent for these limited strikes.

and as the president said -- and it's true because we've seen it before, we've seen it in iraq -- that even a limited targeted strike by the mightiest military in the world will have disproportionate effects and consequences on a tin pot dictated in syria. >> that is why he's so concerned. >> correct. i would like to ask dana something. i interviewed congressman van holland today about this whole idea of a vote. i asked do you think there will be a vote. now we see the president has actually postponed a vote. he said he was putting forth a resolution that would have a 30-day grace period to allow the president's diplomacy to work and then after that to presumably get the power or backing from congress. i mean, at this point is there any hope that the president would win a vote? >> win a vote on something like that is much more of a possibility than what he initially asked congress for which is just a plain old authorization for force. that simply wasn't going to happen. and that is, let's be honest here, that is the big reason why the president came to congress

here today and i'm told even the republican lunch he attended with republic senators, he asked them to, quote, press the pause button. he doesn't want to have an embarrassment not just politically it would be bad for him but what you all are talking about. the whole idea of diplomacy would be undermined he think if there wasn't a credible threat of force. yes, that's the potential in the house, christiane. also something similar in the senate. i was just talking to senator bob menendez who said they're working on this. they are waiting to see what happens with john kerry and lavrov to see if this moves. >> i really wonder if the folks on capitol hill can figure out that it is actually the threat of force which has brought the possibility of a diplomatic solution and whether as frederik harper former obama administration official told me today if in their wisdom congress removes from the president this ability to keep the threat up this diplomatic initiative will be gone with the wind in his words.

>> why would it be gone with the wind? >> it's already in place. >> they don't have to do anything. just postponing the vote. >> that's what i want to know. whether that is making any impression up there. >> it absolutely is. and i think that even people who are against this, christiane, this idea of military force, are admitting that the only reason why the russians are in discussions is because of the threat of force. >> and you don't believe gentlemen, that if this threat of force was removed from the table that assad and the russians would simply fritter away and this would be gone with the wind? are you kidding me? >> there's no point in having congress vote now. they're postponing the vote. so what's the point of having the vote now? >> i'm not saying now. would they have a vote? >> the threat of a military strike is already done its work. >> what do you mean? >> it created this opening. the russians would not have blinked if he hadn't threatened the force.

>> it has to stay on the table, andrew. >> they've already made such huge concessions. i would make one other point about congress here. and obama's leadership and his style. he has come out and said, this is what i think. what he normally does is say, what do you think? what do you think? he's allowed russia, france, britain, even places like germany to contribute to this debate, and he's allowed the congress finally to exert their right to debate this deliberation and wisdom. that's a constitutional democracy. >> we'll talk about this more when we come back. we have the results of an instant poll coming up on the speech. all the angles and implications of what president obama said tonight. next i want to drill down deeper into the practicalities of some are calling the practical -- the impossibility of implementing a deal with the assad regime and dismantling the chemical arsenal in a timely manner.

and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts, and stole her hard-earned money. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft. and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified before it was too late. lifelock's credit notification service is on the job 24/7. as soon as they detect a threat to your identity within their network, they will alert you, protecting you before the damage is done. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. my years as a prosecutor taught me that we all need to protect ourselves from crime. in today's world, that includes identity theft.

it's a serious problem. we all have to protect ourselves. [ male announcer ] while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free. that's right. 60 days risk free. use promo code notme. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value free. don't wait until you become the next victim. ♪ ♪

we're back with the panel talking about the president's decision to explore russia's diplomatic lifeline out of the standoff with syria. can we trust the russians not to mention the syrians and make the whole thing work. joining me ann marie slaughter. former u.s. state department director of policy planning. who do you think of what you heard tonight? did he make the case? >> i thought he made a very good case. i really did. i thought he was very measured and he went point by point. >> you supported military action all along.

>> i did. i did. but he really engaged the american people. i thought it was very effect to say people have written to me and this is what they said and i'm listening and i'm engaging. i also think he made a point tonight that i've not heard him make that was very important. he started with world war i and he reminded everybody that our soldiers have died from poison gas. then of course he mentioned the holocaust. but then he made the point that if assad is not stopped he will use chemical weapons more, other dictators will feel free to do that, and our soldiers are more likely to come under gas again. and remember in the first iraq war, we thought that we were going to face chemical weapons. so he closed the loop about how it directly affects american security. >> let's talk about the reality, the logistics of actually doing this, securing these weapon sites, ultimately destroying them. i want to bring in experts to the table, david kay former

chief of u.s. weapons inspectors in iraq and now cnn analyst and on the state department's advisory board. david, thank you for being with us. walk us through how large an operation this would have to be and the kind of a timetable realistically that we're talking about. we're talking -- you and i talked in the 8:00 hour. you said between 500 and 1,000 inspectors. that has nothing to do with even maintaining their security, right? >> right. that's correct. look, the first thing to do is to have -- what are the rights of the inspectors. you have to have freedom of movement. communications, bring your own equipment. the obligation of the government to provide security and protection. then you get on-site. inspectors of chemical weapons have to come with protective gear. you're entering environments in which chemical weapons may actually be leaking, may be quite hazardous. you're bringing all of that equipment in. you're coming over a very long and insecure lifeline. right now it has to run in from beirut, lebanon by land.

so you're bringing all that equipment in. you've got to know where they are, then you've got to go verify that the statements by the syrian regime as to where the chemical arms are and in fact what type of chemical weapons is in each location is accurate and true. and you've got to provide some means of maintaining security of those sites after you survey them to be sure that they don't disappear the moment you leave. so you're providing -- you've got to provide 24/7 monitoring of every site that has chemical weapons and possibly the means of delivery of chemical weapons since they are so closely associated. that is a huge task. >> david kay, it's christiane amanpour. you obviously did this for years during iraq. is it even possible to do this in a state where there is a civil war, a hot war going on? >> well, look, all i can say is it's never been done in a state of this size in a civil war. i hate to say it's impossible actually because people told me it was impossible what we were

going to do in 1991. and i think we did a reasonable credible job of doing it. so i don't want to say no one can do it. it is a very, very tough job. they should not be underestimated. either as to the expense, the extent, or the time it's going to take. and quite frankly, what really worries me is the time that it's going to take to see if the syrians are really truthfully cooperating. this could be a long rope game. >> i think, david, don't you think that's the most difficult piece of this whether the russians and the syrians will create so many road blocks and obstacles in the negotiation? you could imagine a scenario on the ground that works. because after all, the danger is that what there's a civil war so the rebels would somehow attack the inspectors. but rebels have no interest in doing that because the inspectors are there to destroy chemical weapons that would be used against the rebels. so that piece of it strikes me as potentially doable. >> just getting into where the war is happening.

>> but won't the syrians hide stuff? won't they -- be unwilling to allow you the kind of free rein across the whole territory and landscape that you had in iraq? >> well, you never know until you test it. you've got to test and continue to test. really quite frankly i can tell you what the real difficulty is going to be, inspectors know this because everyone has had the same experience. policymakers who are committed to the policy and the achievement of a policy don't want to hear that the other side is violating it. because it can mean they were played by in this case the russians and the syrians. so you've got worry that you've got to prove these are real difficulties not just something that's an operational difficulty. a difficulty the syrians are imposing on you. that's really tough. i had a great deal of trouble in the early days in iraq of convincing my senior officials at the international atomic energy agency that the iraqis were really obstructing us. it wasn't that we were just

undiplomatic. >> they don't want to hear that. >> there was a difference in cases where the government is denying it has such things and you go in to prove it doesn't have any and when the government said, yeah, we have it and we want to get rid of it, that's a very different paradigm for this kind of operation. that's what you think about for somebody like libya who said we renounce these and we want to get rid of them, and you get rid of them. if the government is not serious about it you'll find out relatively quickly if that cooperation is not there. we can still act militarily. >> fareed is saying it's actually more difficult to act militarily. >> i think it's easier. you have to structure the deal right. it has to have good faith gestures right up front where he actually turns stuff over and there has to be like a 30-day timeline minimum. >> 30-daytimeline for what?

for turning -- >> for really reaching a deal that is then enforceable. >> david kay, does that make sense logistically? 30 days? >> i think reaching a deal in 30 days i think ought to be the minimum. but testing the deal. we simply don't have enough qualified inspectors to really -- you can test with a probably the number we have. and we haven't even discussed the issue of who are the inspectors? are the syrians going to accept americans and french and brits and germans and russians as the inspectors? are they going to want this nonexistent neutral inspection capability? >> at the heart of this, david, don't you think, leaving aside some of the logistics, what are the russians' intentions here? as andrew was saying, you can make the case this is a win/win for putin. he gets -- assad stays in power, in fact, he has to provide access. he's the conduit for all this. and the weapons get taken away. the russians have always worried

these weapons could fall in the hands of jihadist militias who would then use them in chechnya and other parts of the world where the tsarnaev brothers come from. if the russians are really serious they would like to see syria free of these chemical weapons because that removes the possibility of some kind of spillover, then they might actually cooperate. and they can press the syrians and they can say you've got to get real inspectors. i don't know if the russians are serious. >> will assad use these weapons while this is going on? if not we've already achieved a huge amount. we have basically stopped these weapons being used, which is the most important thing. and we've established the possibility of getting them destroyed. >> and you have to recognize, if they're gone, assad is weaker, right? assad uses these when his back is against the wall, right? he couldn't get these people out of these suburbs. would he be weaker if he allows in all these inspectors? >> absolutely.

>> you think that's a blow to his regime. >> i think he's weaker. i think we're actually negotiating. i think there has to be some kind of a cease-fire for make this work at least in some places. >> that presupposes they would agree to that. anne-marie, we don't have a major skeptic at the table table. there was a very -- >> andrew used to be the skeptic. [ overlapping speakers ] >> i am against an open-ended military action. >> i'm talking about the russian diplomacy. >> i opposed the authorization of force. >> not talking about force. what obama explained tonight if it is limited and not pin pricks but really limited to a few thing i could just about live with that. >> isn't everybody skeptical? >> well, i don't know. >> how about russians? >> max fisher in the "washington post" interviewed michael doran, the middle east expert at brookings. >> yes. >> he is scathing. he has tweeted eight truths about how obama and the

administration is being played by the russians. he says assad will never under any conditions truly relinquish his cw. he says that putin -- this is something i want to ask you. if it's not true that putin believed that the threat of force was going to be used an therefore came to this situation with syria, do you believe this would, mike doran is saying, putin, recognizing obama had boxed himself in provided him with an excuse to leave the battlefield with honor? >> no. i have a very different interpretation. which is i don't think that actually secretary kerry necessarily meant to put this out there. but that once he did, i think the syrians are so afraid of these strikes that they grabbed onto it, then putin grabbed onto it. and actually, i don't necessarily believe the russians have any intention of doing it. but that's where i think now obama's in a stronger position than he was. because now if they don't do it, then congress has to authorize the use of force. because then you're saying to congress, look, we're being played. you have to give me the authority to actually deliver on

my word. >> anne-marie, though, when we're doing this, it seems to me if you've drawn this red line and you feel that it's going to be limited as andrew says, why not just do it? why not have presented congress as he did with libya -- >> he didn't do it with libya. that's one reason he is doing it now. >> my point is he didn't go to congress, he presented them with a fait accompli. do the strikes the way two presidents did it with saddam hussein. if we're talking about two days -- >> david kay -- >> we can't have the legitimacy or the power to do it. the president who did that enacted strikes without the support of congress anywhere in the world could truly be reckless. >> david kay, great to have you on. you want to ask one more question? >> you want to ask one more

question? really quick? >> he's not going to stay around after the break? >> david can you stay for another few minutes after the break? >> of course. this is the most enjoyable thing i've done all day. >> i'm being told we've just gotten the results of our instant poll on the speech tonight. cnn is the only place you'll see it. john king will bring us that ahead. we'll be right back.

then don't miss sleep train's wbest rest event.st ever? you'll find sleep train's very best mattresses at the guaranteed lowest price. plus, pay no interest for 3 years on beautyrest black, stearns & foster, serta icomfort, even tempur-pedic.

and rest even better with sleep train's risk-free 100-day money back guarantee. get your best rest ever from sleep train. superior service, best selection, lowest price, guaranteed. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ welcome back. we're back with our panel anne-marie slaughter, christiane

amanpour, fareed zakaria. john king will join us on our instant poll reaction. we'll talk to david kay weapons inspector. christiane has a question she really wants to ask. >> i really want to ask it. >> actually, john king is here, cnn commissioned an instant poll of americans who watched this speech. what are the highlights? >> the highlights are, anderson, based on this poll this speech was not a game changer for the president. he's not getting as much as he wanted from speaking directly to the american people. let me give you some of the numbers to back up that. we asked people remember this is only a poll of people who watched the speech. we asked them, did the president make a convincing case in his speech tonight for u.s. military action in syria? look at the numbers. 47% say yes, 50% say no. so half of the american people say no. >> huge shift. >> john, everybody here is saying that's a huge shift. >> huge gain. >> he was down around 10% before. >> let me continue here. here we go. does the united states have a national interest in syria? that was one of the four key

points the white house said the president wanted to move the ball on tonight. we asked the people before the president's speech, does the united states have an interest in syria, yes, 30, no 65. post speech 39%, 60%. he moved the numbers some, not dramatically but some. thirdly this is an interesting one. i'd like the perspective of your group here. will the situation in syria be resolved through diplomatic efforts? a combination 65% say likely, very likely or somewhat likely, i'm not sure if that reflects their confidence in this new diplomatic proposal or their opposition to military strikes. so i know your group says that is a big difference. but again, did the president make a convincing case for military action? 47-50, the early indications we were getting from members of congress are much the same. still a lot more questions for the president. [ overlapping speakers ] >> that's an incredibly successful speech. look, why does washington always want there to be this major

stand, huge victory or huge defeat? these things take time. arguments need to sink in. people need to take some of these facts into consideration. people have lives to live, they need to think about the stuff. this is a process. obama is beginning to make the -- >> we always forget on tv people not on tv actually have lives. >> lives, other things to do. >> you have a life? >> a country like this is 50-50 split on a war, are people motivated to watch this? that's an overwhelming shift. now look, that doesn't mean -- i think most americans want diplomacy to work. >> i think everybody does. that's the key thing. >> the one that didn't move and i think it's significant was the one about is this in america's national interests. it moved a bit. >> about syria, not chemical weapons. >> right. but the problem i think he faced it, a tension in his speeches, he's trying to make the case that this is an absolute urgent necessity to do something.

but what he's proposing is what he keeps saying is a very limited military strike. something his secretary of state called unbelievably small. i think that tension where you're trying to drum up a great deal of support, a lot of americans look at it and say yes, it's a terrible thing. yes, chemical weapons are bad, assad is bad. is this in our national interests? is this something that really americans -- should americans die for this? >> no americans are going to die for that, fareed. why is it we can't get off this straw man? there are no boots on the ground. enough already with this. >> that's my point that he's trying to say it's in our core national security interests but i'm only going to do two days of strikes. >> but it will be enough. and he said critically that it will be enough. and this is what i want to ask david kay, because operation desert fox was a couple of days. i was there. saw cruise missiles going by me. hitting and it worked. >> what we're talking about here is a very limited action which

people could be happy with but they're not happy. and they shouldn't be happy. there is a disjungt here between the elites here all in their brains about chemical weapons, think about this, talking about this, a regular person wakes up and says we're going to war again in the middle east? >> we're not going to war again in the middle east. >> let's' listen to what the president said about this. >> 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 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. 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 tyranny and extremism. >> christiane amanpour wanted david kay. he's back. >> well, frankly, the president is right. americans are smart. they're empathetic. they understand that we cannot allow the highest crimes under humanitarian law to be violated with impunity. i don't want to live in a world where some dictator because we didn't hold the line is able with impunity to use chemical weapons. >> but what they're saying, why does america have to be the one doing it? >> america is not going there to do it. america has to do it. i'll tell you now why. because it is the mightiest military in the world, and it stands for principle. and it's the principle of

international humanitarian law, morality. >> the first principle of international law is you do not take military action except in self-defense unless authorized by the u.n. security council so the problems, christiane, that a lot of people have around the world is not with the cause, but the idea that the united states is prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman. that is the problem. i'm not saying as somebody who -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> let him finish. >> okay. >> i'm not saying this with any skepticism about the case. i think assad used chemical weapons, and he's a terrible person. >> they shouldn't be used. >> of course. around the world i was talking to a pakistani friend a couple of days ago. this is the issue. how is it that the united states when everybody else says no they say yes? there is a -- to use john kerry's phrase when he was

running for president, there is a question, can we put this to a global test? right now that's the problem. >> the global test if you like is being accepted by iran who saw iraq use chemical weapons against them and nobody did anything about it. [ overlapping speaks ] >> david kay, i need to ask you this. because many people pooh-pooh the idea and i really am genuinely interested in your evaluation of an operation that i covered, desert fox in 1998 in iraq, president clinton a couple of days of air and cruise missile strikes against iraqi facilities. did that make a material difference in your judgment after the fact in saddam's ability to manufacture chemical weapons and biological? >> i tell you, at the time of the strike i confess i was a skeptic, blowing up empty buildings in the middle of the night didn't strike me as terribly effective. i tell you, when i got in 2003 and we carried out a vast range of interviews with senior

officials, i interviewed tariq aziz personally because i've known him for years. their claim was that it fundamentally shook saddam's confidence. because those strikes were against the iraqi revolutionary guard, the secret police headquarters, the major supporters of his regime. and what he cared most about was survival. and he saw those institutions of coercion that he used to control the society and his own military being threatened. he said, ah, and he did draw back at that point. >> ladies and gentlemen, arrest my case. mr. kay, thank you. >> that's an incredibly important point. >> that's an incredibly important point. and the president also said, this is very important as well that, he did not believe it was not in his or his administration or his military's judgment that there would be retaliation and in fact he even said that a retaliation by assad would lead to his demise.

>> right. and no one's pointed out that the israelis have had four separate strikes without retaliation. >> a lot less noise than this. >> i think he was on strong ground there. that's a very important point. we've done this before and it has had a deterrent effect. >> the key thing is separating out, preventing the chemical weapons from being used or being lost. and affecting the entire syrian civil war. that's what the american people want the distinction to hold. they are happy, and i think would be prepared, and we see from the speech, interested in listen to get case for tackling the chemical weapons. look if the whole country went up in flames we'd have to go in any way to secure those weapons. so we have headache, anyway. >> let's take a quick break. david kay, thank you again for sticking around. next up reaction from a man who has seen and suffered from the syrian regime voice of truth in syria. been imprisoned by the regime more than once. we'll talk to him ahead. ork? neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair

has the fastest retinol formula. to visibly reduce fine lines and wrinkles in just one week. neutrogena®. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him.

[ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral to see a specialist. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from. we love to travel -- and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you thousands a year in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans

that will be here for you now -- and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is.

about yoplait's fall favorites. so we brought pumpkin pie and apple crisp back for a limited time. see? you really do call the shots. ♪ yoplait. it is so good. we are back with the panel on "ac 360." we don't want to get lost the reality syrian people are facing. and have been facing for more than two years. more than 100,000 killed, 2 million refugees. most recent obscenity the

chemical attack. here's what president obama said about it tonight. >> 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, imploring them to get up and walk. on that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits, a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. >> i want to bring in a syrian activist who for years was our voice from inside syria on "ac 360" risking his life to talk

about what's happening in the country. he's been detained at least twice. zaidune, thank you very much for joining us. do you believe the syrian regime, a regime which has lied repeatedly, which had said there would be a peace deal with kofi annan, a regime that said there would be referendums and had said there would be open protests allowed and was repeatedly lied over the last two years, do you believe they would actually be willing to give up chemical weapons? >> not at all. they are just playing with time. they are just buying time. this is a regime that if it says good morning, believe me, it is evening. it has been lying even over the weather news. it cannot be true by any means no way. >> so what do you think they're doing? >> the only thing that they just wanted, they are just buying time. just believe me. think of that. how can just inspectors go in? how would they move their equipment when there is a war inside?

when will the regime agree? the regime has been lying about chemical weapons for the past four or five decades saying it never had them. only a few months ago they were just denying we don't have chemical weapons. now we have them and they have the biggest stockpile in the world. now they admit that. >> so now they're not lying about chemical weapons. >> just to clarify they're not lying now about having chemical weapons? >> no. they admit they have chemical weapons. >> so now it's good morning it's still morning. >> no. maybe. in this case yes. but because this was just a -- please listen to me. please listen to me. >> for you is this russian diplomatic initiative, this is very bad news. because it muddies the case? it buys them time? it diffuses the momentum for military action? how do you see it?

>> let me just say one thing. is the diplomatic path now only about chemical weapons? what about massacring us for the past two years? just let me please continue. what about two years? we were talking about diplomatic path for over the past two years and no one was listening to us. everyone was just watching us. and now they are talking about a diplomatic path just talks about handing over chemical weapons. what about the bloodshed that has happened? what about tanks, what about jet fighters? what about the bombs that assad is using? is this okay? >> last week when we talked you did not support military strikes. you did not think -- >> and i do not support up until now. contrary to most of the syrian people who want this air strike because they are really tired of this bloodshed.

but the problem is now i'm just looking at what you talk about, i'm just looking at the diplomatic pathway. just talking about chemical weapons. >> yes, but don't you recognize that the threat of force has -- >> please -- >> that the threat of force has, "a," gotten assad just to recognize that he does have chemical weapons? and forced what may actually be a serious negotiation? we have not been able to engage in any serious negotiation for two years. but now with the threat of force we can. >> i do admit. but the problem is, the regime is lying about handing over. it will take them months if not years just to tell you where the weapons are. and they will tell you, sorry, we can't move into there because it's dangerous and so on. this is number one. number two, yes, i admit that holding the stick over assad's head has made him just admit that he has chemical weapons. but just let us look at this example. oh, yeah.

i'm irritated with some of these guys. i go and kill them with a knife and then i go and hand over the knife to the police station and then i go back to my previous work. >> yeah. >> now shg, tonight talk about chemical weapons. we should understand that there is an ongoing massacre in syria. >> i know there is. >> we should stop this dictator's cycle. we need to tell him, go away from this country. leave them. [ overlapping speakers ] >> part of your argument is that this will only let them buy time. buy time for what? what are you afraid that assad is going to do with this time? >> continue the war. >> just imagine what happens, what happens for 1 1/2 years. he will kill another 200,000. and meanwhile, meanwhile, he might just -- [ overlapping speakers ]

>> the question is, whether the american people should pay in treasure and cost of arms, why it's their job, why the american people in iowa, in indiana, in texas and all around this country, it's their job to solve this problem. why? >> well, because to be frank, andrew, president obama started this two years ago in saying -- >> because you are the superpower. >> there's that. but also president obama said assad must step down. >> we're not, actually. we have a huge military. huge military that's largely useless to negotiate a deal with most of the problems that we're dealing with. >> please please please. >> go ahead, zaidune. >> go ahead. >> please just let me ask you one question. everybody now says that there is chemical weapons inside. it will take a few months or one year just to finish the process. what happens if these chemical weapons are used by regime people or somebody from the terrorist groups to attack you guys?

that is not possible? please because you don't want to interfere right now and impose a political solution to end the mass keshgs massacre, not only the chemical weapons, you might suffer. the american people will suffer. everybody in the world will suffer. only because you are living a dictator. >> >> we've got a minute left. >> this is fundamental. this is a war that's gone on for 2 1/2 years. the united states with the voice of the president of the united states said, assad must step down. >> yes. >> is that out of the window now with this diplomatic initiative? is obama, assad, putin sort of inextricably linked now in order to solve the terrible problem of chemical weapons? >> no. i actually see this another way. we have said from the beginning that the only way out of this was a negotiated solution, that we don't see a military solution. and i think we could have had a military solution a year and a half ago. even i don't think we can have one now.

so i honestly think john kerry and the president from the beginning have said, look, it's force and diplomacy mixed. if we can get a deal on chemical weapons, we will then push very quickly to try to get a deal on a transition and to end the war. now, whether it works or not we don't know. i think the threat of force increases the chances we get that. >> another quick break we have to take. zaidune, thank you very much for your opinions and your courage. thank you. it's 100% real milk that's easy to digest so you can fully enjoy the dairy you love. lactaid®. for 25 years, easy to digest. easy to love.

that does it for this edition of "ac 360." ea"early start" begins right no. v a great day. what kind of world would we live in if the united states of america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way? >> the high-stakes prime time speech as the syrian crisis shifts by the minute. what changed overnight since the president made his latest case to the american people? my name is matthew cordle. and on june 22nd, 2013, i hit and killed vincent canzani. >> he confessed to the world that heil