rematch. she looked pretty good by the end of the game. a reminder is cnn's original series, "the sixties" the war in vietnam. can you watch it live, or set your dvr for 9:00 p.m. eastern. thank you so much for watching, im brianna keilar and now into the crossfire. today president obama announced a number of steps to prevent a terrorist takeover in iraq. >> unfortunately nothing he announced shows us he's moving out of george w. bush's shadow. the debate starts right now. >> tonight on "crossfire." -- chaos spreads in iraq. president obama offers u.s. military advisers. >> american combat troops are not going to be fighting in iraq again. >> the threat of terrorism has increased exponentially under this president's leadership. >> on the left, stephanie cutter, on the right, secubb. in the crossfire, representative

loretta sanchez, a california democrat and representative anna kinninger. an illinois republican. will u.s. advisers make a difference or draw america closer to war. tonight on "crossfire." >> welcome to "crossfire" i'm stephanie cutter. >> and i'm s.e. kup on the right. two members of congress, today president obama spent more time talking about what we aren't going to do in iraq. and why. than he did making a case that the terrorist takeover of the levant has serious implications for us at home. how sad, george w. bush may still in the white house because president obama can't seem to make any foreign policy decisions without thinking of him first, he often explains his inaction by way of his predeceasedpr predeceaspr predeceaspr

predeceas predeceasedor's mistakes. >> the military plan developed by the joint chiefs and that i believe is appropriate is proportional. it is limited. it does not involve boots on the ground. this is not iraq. and this is not afghanistan. >> and here was obama just today, on iraq. >> what's clear from the last decade is the need for the united states to ask hard questions before we take action abroad. particularly military action. >> look, we know that he thinks bush made mistakes. but this isn't 2006. it's time for obama to finally become his own person, and make the right decisions for america. and in iraq, bush's once again leading obama towards dangerous inaction. >> i have to say i don't get it. what is wrong with understanding the consequences of going to war before you actually go to war. >> absolutely nothing. >> and that's exactly what the president is doing. the strategic blunders, the greatest strategic blunder in the history of this country was going to war without knowing the

consequences in iraq. and that's going to impact not just this president, but presidents for decades. >> clearly. >> because george bush is going to be walking around the halls or living in the white house for decades. >> we'll see. >> in the crossfire tonight, representatives loretta sanchez, a california democrat and representative adam kinsinger, a republican from illinois. congressman, i want to start with you. here's the plan the president laid out today. 300 military advisers, increase in intelligence. additional equipment, american-led diplomacy to get some political reforms on the ground in iraq and position our forces for a military strike this is what i call a responsible approach. that we only come to by asking those tough questions. and you know it might not make for good tv or satisfy armchair quarterbacks. but it's responsible. what more would you do here? >> well-day air strikes and look, think it's a good start. i think it's a start that should have happened probably in january when isis took over

fallujah, we feel like we've been taken off guard and there's an oh my goodness, isis exists in iraq. it's existed for a long time. i agree with the initial steps, but meanwhile you have this blitzkrieg by isis that's going on, taking on city after city, beheading people and krauting their jihadist state. i think air strikes would stop the move of isis in the town. >> the problem is knowing where to strike. >> right. >> and that's part of what the capability is going to allow us to do. >> when we left in 2011, we pulled the plug on our ability to have intelligence and reconnaissance. i flew isr. i think developing the targets is good and if he's not strikesing because we don't have the intel, that's one thing. but if you have trucks moving out in the open. can you blow those up and freeze ice nis the towns they're in and stop the forward momentum. >> congresswoman sanchez, we

have reports that isis stole over $400 million from an iraqi bank, their flag is now flying over the country's biggest oil refinery and there are some reports that allege isis has seized saddam hussein's chemical weapons factory. which is frightening. isn't it as congressman suggests, a little late for intelligence forces on the ground? >> it's not too late for intelligence forces on the ground. first of all, this whole issue that isis came across, and is this blitzing sort of personality, if you will, a grouping, those do with the fact that they have been in the sunni belt of iraq. and so even the locals would prefer to be dealing with isis people, than they did with al maliki. al maliki really did not take the opening, the space that we made for him, that our military made for him, the taxpayers of this country made for him. to be able to work on uniting and working through this country. instead, by being so --

shiite-oriented and really not working through with the sunnis and the kurds, he created the dilemma we now find ourselves in. but i believe -- >> congresswoman -- >> withdrawing from iraq actually created one of the dilemmas we're in now? >> i think it did. we could have done a status of forces agreement. if you want to see what negotiating a status of forces agreement looks like, look what happens in afghanistan. it's been a year and we keep going back saying we want this, we want this. president obama said you don't want 3,000 to 5,000 troops? okay, then we're out. >> we couldn't get a status of force agreement in iraq when we had 150,000 troops on the ground under bush. bush is the one that signed the agreement pulling our troops out. >> he signed the agreement in 2011. >> the issue that this president didn't try hard enough is just ridiculous. >> again, it's easy -- to armchair quarterback and say -- how do you know, you weren't in the room when they were trying to get it done. >> i'll tell you, look. that's just -- you know, this

president tried other people tried. the administration has more than just a president who were in the room. the military tried. and they did not want to go there. and as a congresswoman, when you were a troop, i wouldn't put you in a country like that. without having a forces agreement like that. that is to protect you. >> well let's back up, let's talk about the status of forces agreement. bush signed it in 2011, to give the next president the authority to determine the future of america's role in respect. that's respectful. the president did not do that in a afghanistan. he signed it to the end of 2016 because he wants to end it in his jurisdiction. but that hasn't been signed yet. the president keeps going back to his credit, to the afghan government and saying sign this. karzai said no. he goes okay, we'll wait for the next guy, sign this. we think it's going to happen. that's what negotiating looks like. and the last point on that the rumors are we were offering 3,000 to 5,000 troops, the political cost to al maliki for 3,000, to 5,000 troops would

basically exceed what the troops could do. >> i want to bring up something that general petraeus spoke about, about u.s. involvement in iraq recently at a conference in london. he said and let's listen to this. >> if there is to be support for iraq, it has to be support for a government of iraq. that is a government of all the people this cannot be the united states being the air force for shia militias or a shia-on-sunni arab fight. >> i think you both would agree that we have to approach this very carefully. so we're not empowering one side ort other. the whole idea is to have a unified government. to end the sectarian violence. but congressman, this is a bit like detonating a bomb. you said we should have air strikes. who are we doing them on behalf of? >> we're doing them on behalf of

the people of isis. i agree with general petraeus. i would love to see a coalition government. the problem is and my concern, is that we can't wait until that happens before we now come in and stop the onslaught of isis. if we do, you may have a fall of the iraqi state. if the iraqi state falls, you'll never be able to build it back up. >> you have to take it into consideration in terms of how you're dealing with al maliki and many of the isis, isis is moving across iraq. a lot of sunnis are joining them. that's a problem. so we're having, we're joining shia and fighting sunni. >> congresswoman, not long ago, president obama and vice president biden were practically giddy about prospects for iraq. take a listen. >> iraq's not a perfect place. it has many challenges ahead. but we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant iraq. >> i am very optimistic about, about iraq. i think it's going to be one of

the great achievements of this administration. >> you know what, at the time they were absolutely right. iraq was a success story. and then we abandoned it. and now -- it seems as though, while they were happy to take credit for stability that by the way they did not create, now they want no responsibility for the ensuing collapse afterwards. it's all bush's fault. >> let's go back. that's not correct. look, i'm the one sitting here who took that vote on iraq. okay? i voted not go in. first of all, the information, if people really wanted to get to the information, they would have understood we should have never gone in that way. the way that we did that's the first thing. that was the bush administration and his people and they may be trying to rewrite history today. but if you really go back and take a look, we should never have been in that country. having been in that country, however there were some really tough things to get done. and we even put in the constitution, for example, vote for the kurds to actually take a

vote on how they would interact in this and every single time that these sentcom commanders who were running the show out there. would come before the committee and i would ask them what are you doing about article 140, what are you doing about unification, your know what their answer was? they would say god, congresswoman you've gotten to the meat of this thing and it's very difficult to do and we're going to get to this. and we left without ever having gotten to the real thing that we needed to do there. and that was, to work and making sure we left a government that was unifying the people. not pulling them apart. >> you pulled all your troops out. >> we pulled our troops out because there was no agreement. >> we're going to come back to this. after a quick break. next some advice to the would-be republican presidents who think they can do a better job than president obama. but first, today's crossfire quiz, when was nuri al maliki named as iraq's prime minister? was in t in 2006, 2007, or 2010?

we'll have the answer, when we come back. [ male announcer ] it's one of the most amazing things we build and it doesn't even fly. we build it in classrooms and exhibit halls, mentoring tomorrow's innovators. we build it raising roofs, preserving habitats and serving america's veterans. every day, thousands of boeing volunteers help make their communities the best they can be. building something better for all of us. ♪

that would be my daughter -- hi dad. she's a dietitian. and back when i wasn't eating right, she got me drinking boost. it's got a great taste, and it helps give me the nutrition i was missing. helping me stay more like me. [ female announcer ] boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a delicious taste. grandpa! [ female announcer ] stay strong, stay active with boost.

welcome back, here's the answer to the crossfire quiz, nuri al maliki was named iraq's prime minister in 2006. this afternoon president obama offered a responsible plan to help iraq's leaders fight a terrorist takeover. and as soon as he finished, wannabe presidents like ted cruz and marco rubio rushed to the senate floor to offer rhetoric, but no actual plan. they want us to protect americans. deal with the terrorist threat, and keep iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

those are all great ideas, and this is a doozy from last night when another wannabe commander-in-chief said -- >> specifically, what do we do now? lots of people are for airstrikes rurks for airstrikes? >> i think there are a number of ways, we don't have to signal all the things that we're going to do. >> i asked rick perry last night about a half dozen times, would he suggest we do in iraq. and never got a clear answer. so thanks to all the wannabe presidents for your glittering generalities and statements of the obvious, but being president means dealing with the details. and thinking through the consequences of military intervention. sadly, i don't hear any of that serious work being done on the republican side of the aisle. in the crossfire tonight, representatives loretta sanchez and adam kinzinger, congressman, with the exception of you -- >> i was going to say -- >> no offense. >> you're a veteran of these wars, you served in the air force, you still serve. and we honor that service.

but there is no bench on the republican side of the aisle absent just basically saying, let's send troops in terms of thinking of thoughtful, responsible foreign policy approaches to some of our greatest problems right now. >> i think that will come out in all fairness, when you saw president obama talk about his plan when he was running, he didn't have a lot of details, either. he just said no iraq -- >> he got it right. >> he called afghanistan the good war. now he's in a hurry to leave it i think we have a deep bench. it's going to be developed. it's pretty early. we still have jeb bush, chris christie, a lot of good candidates that as time goes on, they're going to develop their foreign policy chops. >> okay. >> congresswoman sanchez, the president has assisted over and over again that al qaeda has been decimated and the world is a safer place and i think a lot of us would disagree. he's fond of one particular metaphor to use when it comes to reasons why we should not be fighting terrorism abroad. take a listen. >> rather than try to play

whack-a-mole, wherever these terrorist organizations may pop up, we have to build effective partnerships, make sure they have capacity. >> you know, i remember playing whack-a-mole, and it's a fun metaphor, but it's not completely honest. that implies that that's not what's happening right now. these terrorist organizations are multiplying and expanding. they're not just in iraq. they're in syria, they're in the magreb, indonesia. isn't he being dishonest about how serious and wide ranging this threat is? >> look, threats are all around the world. and if we're smart, we understand that our military is just one of the tools we have in our bag of tricks to be able to handle situations. and, you know, our military is the best educated, the best equipped, and the best trained

that the world has ever seen. historically has ever seen. and so everybody's rush to -- well, just put the military in there. what they forget is that our military is also a scarce resource. and so we do have to work where we can to multiply the effect with other troops, with other people. we have to work on the diplomatic side. >> the military is scarce, but we're fierce and we're really good at what we do. and you cannot have diplomacy with isis or al qaeda or the taliban, which is a whole other issue. diplomacy doesn't work on people that are dead set on killing people that believe what we believe. you can't send an ambassador to isis. >> but there are economic situations, there's military strength which you can magnify in different ways. and you know, quite frankly -- i'm the wife of a veteran who

spent 23 years. he's a retired colonel out of the army. i'm going to tell you we have plenty of friends who are military families. they're tired of holding the line for the rest of us. we have got to get better about diplomacy. about our our friends in the world are -- >> if we could wish a world where there was no war, trust me, i'd take out the magic wand and wave it. the problem is what we're facing today is groups like isis, groups like lk lrk, groups that are metastasizing and killing people. >> what we're saying, guys, is that it's not one or the other. >> right. >> and it's a responsible approach is both. >> i agree. >> and that a way to fight terrorism is to develop some of these poor economies in africa, for instance, so people don't have to turn to terrorism. there are other options there. >> in the absence of economic development terrorism thrives. that's very important in the long-term. >> isn't that what you're saying. >> or sanctions, for example,

that we've seen work against iran to deter them from building a nuclear weapon. or when we follow the finance trail with respect to how some of these terrorists are financing their situation. actionable intelligence in particular is so incredible before we go in and send our military. >> do you think we're missing actionable intelligence in iraq? >> we are missing actionable intelligence for the very reason that my colleague said, that we moved out and we don't necessarily have everything that we know that we used to have on the ground. we need to go in and figure out real fast what's going on. >> real fast. >> it should have been january. >> hopefully not too late. >> always nice when the milk is spilt and said we shouldn't have spilt the milk. >> we want you at home to weigh in on today's fireback question. should the u.s. send military advisers to iraq? tweet and we'll have results after the break. we also have our outrages of the day. and today stephanie and i stand

united. >> it's true.

nobody ever stomped their foot and asked for less. because what we all really want... ...is more. there's a reason it's called an "all you can eat" buffet. and not a "have just a little buffet". that's the idea behind the more everything plan. it's more of everything you want. for less. plus, get the droid maxx by motorola for 0 down. get more with our best plans on the best network. for best results, use verizon.

humans. even when we cross our "ts" and dot our "i's", we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness with our auto policies. if you qualify, your rates won't go up due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human, and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car, we'll give you the money for a new one. call liberty mutual insurance at... and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life. so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423.

liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? female announcer: then don't miss sleep train's 4th of july sale.? right now at sleep train, save $300 on beautyrest and posturepedic mattress sets. plus, pay no interest for 36 months on tempur-pedic and serta icomfort. big savings and interest-free financing? these deals aren't just hot... they're explosive! don't miss sleep train's 4th of july sale. ♪ sleep train ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ that's why i always choose the fastest intern.r slow. the fastest printer. the fastest lunch. turkey club.

the fastest pencil sharpener. the fastest elevator. the fastest speed dial. the fastest office plant. so why wouldn't i choose the fastest wifi? i would. switch to comcast business internet and get the fastest wifi included. comcast business. built for business. now it's time for today's outrage. sometimes the stars align just right and a story emerges that can unite democrats and republicans in outrage. not so much outrage as amusem t amusement. and tonight is that time. >> in a new interview with national journal former montana governor brian schweitzer is quoted as saying men in the south, they're a little effeminate.

he also offers apropos of nothing that house majority leader eric cantor sets off his gaydar. >> what? >> and he likens dianne feinstein to a sex worker for the cia. >> holy overshare. did no one tell brian schweitzer he was thinking of running for president as a liberal? add to that his famous line about guns that he owns more than he needs and fewer than he wants. and i don't think there's a spot at the democratic national convention. >> he's been a guest host on this show. he was a good governor of montana and always refreshing in an outside washington kind of way, but on this he's over the line regardless of whether he's running for the president from the right, the left or from the left of left. >> apparently he just apologized on facebook, but guns, kgaydar and hookers shoo sure would have made an interesting platform. should the u.s. send military advisers to new york?

35% of you say yes, 65% say no. those numbers aren't very high. alts surprising when you talk about military advisers and not putting troops on the ground but it is reflective of how anxious the american people are of getting into another war. does public opinion matter in this? >> i think it matters. but also when it comes to foreign policy, america's more leery in general. it takes a leader to come out and make the case. that's what the president's got to do. he's got to make the case of what are these advisers going to do. americans paurt the idea of air strikes. they oppose reintroduction of troops. >> that's not a scientific poll. what would you say to convince them that sending in military advisers is a good idea. >> first and foremost we have to figure out what are the u.s. interests there. we sent those to our mission there. do we want disincident grace of

iraq? what does that look like? are whenning iran instead of -- it's difficult. >> but thanks to representatives loretta sanchez and adam kensinger. from the left i'm stephanie cutter. >> from the right, s.e. cupp. erin burnett "outfront" starts right now. the president says they're adviser, but is it mission creep? dozens may have been exposed to deadly live anthrax. dr. sanjay gupta is our guest. an "outfront" investigation police department under investigation for this. >> get on the ground now! get on the ground! >> let's go "outfront."