the president authorizes military force against islamists in iraq but promises it will not escalate beyond air strikes. >> i will not allow the united states to be dragged into fighting another war in iraq. >> trouble at home, too, a frustrated president promises executive action on immigration and other issues. >> the american people don't want me standing around twiddling my thumbs. >> with his poll numbers down again democrats are running away from him. >> taking new positions on big issues. >> i haven't proposed targeting or eliminating aid to israel. >> really? then explain this. >> to be precise end all foreign aid including the foreign aid to israel as well, is that right? >> yes. >> evolution or is flip-flop a better label. "inside politics," the biggest stories sourced by the best reporters now.

welcome to "inside politics," i'm john king. thanks for sharing your sunday morning. with us to share reporting and insights maeve reston, manu raju, peter hamby and maggie haberman of politico. u.s. war planes over the skies in iraq with a green light to target islamist terrorists, their orders issued about i a president to counts ending the iraq war as his proudest achievement and insists he's not about to start another. >> american troops will not be returning to fight in iraq because there is no american military solution to the larger crisis in iraq. >> why? this is a question a lot of people are asking, why did the president clearly reluctant do this? the white house says it's for humanitarian reasons, to protect americans. lot say if you're going to go in, do something more decisive than this. >> absolutely, there's a huge debate over that as we see that roll out over the next couple of

months. lot are arguing he should have gone in sooner, should have done more than he's dealing with everybody on the left who doesn't want further engagement in iraq and it was so interesting in his statement this week that you just saw that hesitance and the fact that he did not want to be in this place. >> he spent as much time, did he not, explaining what the aviation assets for now but i'll say the troops, the military, would not do, as much as what it would do. >> the emphasis was there are no boots on the ground. we are not reengaging but we are going to order the strikes or allow for these strikes. this is a very difficult line to walk. he clearly does not want to be recommitted and yet here we are again and here we go again and it's very difficult to be halfway in. there is this sense and this has been talked about a lot over the course of the end of last week that if we have to go back in because if we don't support the kurds, if we lose the kurds, iraq is really lost. right now this feels to a lot of his critics and even to some supporters as a bit of a half measure. >> this does seem in keeping

with his foreign policy vision over the last couple years, the whole small ball, hit singles rather than home runs, low-risk humanitarian efforts. michael crowley had a good piece in "time," how we went into bengha benghazi, we are americans, we have to do this but then you have republicans like john mccain and marco rubio saying we need bigger measures, we need to go in hard and attack assets in syria and across the region. >> let's focus on the president, manu. peter is right, the american people are with the president when he says no combat troops no, big military interventions in the middle east but pretty much anywhere in the world. except they don't support what he's doing otherwise. look at the nbc/"wall street journal" poll this past week. how is the president degree with russia and ukraine, 23% is his highest mark, civil war in syria, 18, israel and hamas, the border crisis 11%. few months back we thought

foreign policy was his strong suit. >> ran on that in 2012, that was his calling card taking pair of billi osama bin laden. the second term is kick dictate events outside of his control. in a lot of ways the white house seems powerless to deal with this, hurting his approval ratin ratings, what is putting the senate at ris this can fall. he's not nearly as popular as he has been, almost as unpopular in his presidency. >> 86 days from the midterm election, we don't know whether it will go bad or relatively well. how does it play out in a political year? let's add rick perry, the governor of texas, clearly wants to run for the 016 republican presidential nomination he told the conservative gathering on friday he supports the president but he went further, said we should use our assets in particular aviation assets to remove the threat of isis, not contain it, but to remove it. it is very appropriate for us to be the hunter and them to be the

hunted. marco rubio, the freshman senator from florida also looking for the republican nomination says we need to go outside of iraq, we need to strike the supply routes from syria, leadership and front line military units from the air, we should target the oil refinery in syria using to fund their operations. is there a mood in the country beyond the hawks in the republican party for bombing targets in syria? >> i don't think so. we haven't seen any evidence of that yet but you know, this is certainly the line that they've been arguing for a long time and it allows them to make the argument obama is weak on foreign policy and gives them examples about the chaos around the world and they can use that they want. >> the hawkish views of republican parties dominated in a lot of ways particularly among the base and the party establishment and these guys who are running are probably going to run can show some leadership on the issue, show sort of that tough, they can sort of define themselves differently than say rand paul for instance who polls show is a leading contender in

2016. >> it will be interesting to see what clinton makes of all of this and how she talks about it over the next couple of weeks but she, of course, will also have to separate herself from the president on foreign policy. >> which i don't think you'll see her try to get ahead of the president on foreign policy either. she's been careful about that since she left foggy bottom, she's waited until he comments and then she does a chaser shot. >> i was going to say she has to do that because unlike rand paul and marco rubio she's a known commodity around the world. the world listens to what she has to say. >> we've seen her poll numbers come down in recent weeks and i think some of it has been a lot of people believe part of it is the pounding, nonstop who people hear about her record, benghazi, bengha benghazi, even if they don't think anything happened they don't understand it. you see the world on fire when you turn on the tv, you know she was secretary of state, she's tied to foreign policy. >> to the world on fire argument, the public polling, even the republicans saying use

air assets, none are saying putting troops on the ground. sometimes presidents have to do things contrary to public opinion, if they see a threat around the world, something that has to be done, sometimes november act outside and one of the criticisms of this president is that this has built up to this crisis point because he didn't do anything for so long that he could have dealt with it when it was a forgive the metaphor, a smaller fire. >> also year bill clinton at a private event at the mccain institute or foundation, whatever the mccain thing is, he was speaking to what he thought was a sort of closed event but there was some audio of it and talked about mccain's position on syria, which was much more aggressive and talked about his own presidency, how he had made mistakes of listening to the polls or you need to be careful about listening to the polls, that members of the house who will stand up and chest bump. at the end of the day, they are not the president. it was clearly a contrast. >> even though hawks don't want to have a debate in congress other this, if you brought this issue to congress it would blow

up and probably would not pass any use of military force. we saw that happen in syria last year as well. >> this is going to play out one way or the other as the president goes on vacation. he's supposed to go to martha's vineyard, and he's going to come back to washington for a couple of days to do some work. they said he wants to have some meetings. clearly sensitive you don't want to be on vacation the entire time when there are so many crises around the world. rand paul then and now. will his shifting positions help or hurt him? this time raising awareness about als disease. >> here we go. there is ice, okay? come on over here, plenty of ice and water. here we go. this is sick. here we go, ready. okay, here we go. whoa!

at humana, we believe the gap will close when healthcare changes. when frustration and paperwork decrease. when healthcare becomes simpler. so let's do it. let's simplify healthcare. let's close the gap between people and care. this is the first power plant in the country to combine solar and natural gas at the same location. during the day, we generate as much electricity as we can using solar. at night and when it's cloudy, we use more natural gas. this ensures we can produce clean electricity whenever our customers need it. ♪

welcome back. how do we know rand paul wants to run for president in 2016? go to the puzzle and the map, this tells you he wants to run for president in 2016. this is since the 2012 presidential election. iowa four times, south carolina five times, new hampshire two times, that would be states one, two and three on the republican presidential nominating calendar

and so far these travels seem to be paying off. latest poll of republicans, who do they want to be their nominee, rand paul in second place, at the top of the pack with chris christie, that's good for a guy who hasn't run for president before. as he does run, is he trying to expand beyond his tea party and libertarian base changing his positions on some issues to get more establishment support. this is just over the border into nebraska during an iowa trip this past week, the question is why, senator, do you propose cutting off aid to israel. the senator doesn't like the question. >> you can misstate my position and then i'll answer the question. that has not been a legislative position, we have never introduced anything to phase out or get rid of israel's aid. >> he's not in favor of cutting israel's aid. how does he explain this, this is january 2011 in an interview with my colleague wolf blitzer. >> i don't think funding both sides of an arms race particularly when we've got to borrow the money from china to

send it to someone else, we can't do it anymore. the debt is all-consuming and threatening our well-being as a country. >> just to be precise end all foreign aid including the foreign aid to israel as well, is that right? >> yes. >> you saw he said yes. peter hamby he says he hasn't changed his position and if you say he's changed his position he was willing to cut off aid for israel you're wrong. how can he say that? >> rand paul is really good with semantics. he is good wod word play. this week he said hillary clinton set up a jihadist wonderland in benghazi. you see this theme emerging among conservatives that he kind of says what he needs to do in the moment, whether it's a media interview or campaign appearance or fund-raiser to appeal to a specific crowd but that overall he sort of shifts positions and he's hard to pin down, and because of his sort of libertarian roots this is a real challenge for him heading into the presidential race, just sort

of like being clear on where he stands on it. >> and what he's been trying to do obviously in states like iowa is to build this coalition, balancing both libertarian interests and evangelicals and israel's right at the tension point for that issue. and so it makes it a really tough one for him, traffic with evangelical pastors, talking more about israel now and that's really important for him if he's going to reassure the base and the donors in the republican party that he's not an isolationist on foreign policy, which has always been the criticism. >> when i talk to republican senators about this, they say we like rand paul a lot, he's saying the right things, trying to expand the party's tent and appeal to a new coalition of voters who the republicans think they need to take back the white house but i hear time and again the biggest concern is national security. he's going to have to pass that test and israel is the key, one of the key aspects of that. if he can change his position, even if he admits he's wrong, maybe he needs to say that "i

was wrong" and say that i think this is the right way to go, that could bring people back. >> i think voters especially, maybe not the chattering class in washington but voters give you credit. who in the life has not changed their opinion on something? who in their life doesn't learn new information and change their mind. the more i've studied this i've evolved. >> you hillary clinton had the problem with npr on gay marriage, she wouldn't just say i evolved on this. on this one he could absolutely just say i have evolved but my perception and peter, you have a sense of this, too. my perception of rand paul has trouble saying the words something like i made a mistake or i was wrong. that does not seem to be something he is able to do. he's really the candidate for the 2016 field that you see putting out the most by way of ideas, he's most interesting to look at but you can't say voters you can believe your lying ears. >> we perceive of chris christie

being stubborn in part because of his temperament. rand paul doesn't have the temperament so he's gotten away from the stubbornness. >> he's a straight shooter, someone who calls the issues as he sees them. willing to challenge his party in lily white, iowa, and say we have to appeal to people who don't look like us or else we're doomed as a party. >> compare his 2010 campaign to what his 2016 campaign is, they are so much different. he was running on a hard core tea party platform, term limits, making sure every bill has things that relate to the constitution directly. those aren't things that he's talk being now as he's try igto show he's not his father. that's one of the big things. >> right. >> they tamed that network and show he's not the same guy as his father. >> his father would not get caught like this. that is the big difference. >> he's framing this bold talk around issues that are palatable, like he's against surveillance. who isn't against the government surveillance and intrusion into

cell phones. he likes to talk about that, mandatory minimums and sentencing reform, the republican party has been talking about it for a couple of years. bob mcconnell in virginia, now in legal problems apparently, you know, paul ryan was talking about that, chris christie was talking about that. he's not taking super bold positions sticking the thumb in the eye of his party. >> we learned about candidates whether they will or won't admit they changed their mind stylistically. he's in iowa with steve king at an event and two undocumented folks in america without documentation approach steve king. watch rand paul sitting at the table. >> and arizona is the university and i know you want to get rid of dak.

>> otherwise known as get out of dodge. th th leave in hamburger behind. >> he talks about creating a bigger tent republican party and reaching out to minorities, confronted with a moment where he can have an honest conversation with somebody in front of the cameras his staff swoops in and pulls him away. >> you can't imagine chris christie pulling away from that conversation. he's been much better about -- >> you can't imagine chris christie hanging out with steve king. >> that is another point. one of the complaints about rand paul, can he prove he can have a functional strong operation. there's a rag tag band quality to his team for a long time and he's trying to do a lot of hires, stepping up and be more professional and have a different type of team but that is the thing and we were talking about this before, to your point about christie wouldn't be there. you got to know if you're sitting there in an open air

area with steve king with cameras this could happen. >> you'd want to be president, you can't put yourself in those positions or you get caught in one -- >> he's wearing the striped party shirt. >> is that what that was? >> yes. >> all right, everybody, sit tight. tomorrow's news today is next, our great reporters get you out ahead of the coming big political news.

before we go let's head around the table and ask our reporters to share a nugget or two from their notebooks. maeve? >> we talked how the iraq air strike issue would play out for the president. what will be fascinating to watch is how it plays out in these senate races where we have vulnerable democrats who do not want to talk about this issue. they know they have got their core democratic voters who don't want a greater incursion into iraq and will republicans have an opportunity to go after them by trying to tie them to obama's "weak" foreign policy. it will be interesting to see, you didn't see a race for any senators to jump in and comment on it this week. >> remarkably quiet. yes. >> lisa murkowski is making a big gamble in alaska, not running for re-election this year but will be in 2016. what shoo he is doing is bashing

the democratic incumbent senator mark begich, running for re-election, and she's trying to show she doesn't work in a bipartisan manner with mark begich, refuting any suggestions that they work together as a team. this is a risk for murkowski. when it comes time for 2016 she has to run as the bipartisan moderate at a time when the conservatives are angry with her for a number of votes she's been taking over the years. watch for murkowski to navigate this line but still try to refute begich's suggestions they work in a bipartisan manner for one big reason. if begich loses and republicans take majority she could become chairman of the energy economy, a powerful perch. >> a little self-interested play here. >> phil rucker had a fun piece in "the washington post" this woke about bruce braley in iowa, the senator candidate who had a dispute over chickens over a property at his vacation home. it touched on an important

theme, though, democrats are actually more scared about losing this race than they were a few months ago and republicans feel really emboldled, outside republican spending on the race quintupled over the last month. outside groups are looking into going heavier because of braley's self-inflicted wounds and rand paul has another trip to iowa in september/october to help the republican nominee. race the republicans think is still on the table >> big shakeup on that campaign a month ago amazingly. so in the fight to replace john walsh in montana, which manu and i wrote about this last week, there is some concern amongst some republicans that walsh, that the hit on walsh for lack of a better way of putting it in terms of the plagiarism scandal was landed too early. it gave him enough time to get out, give democrats to find a replacement candidate. most democrats don't think this

is in play anymore but left a bit of wiggle room some republicans are not comfortable with. they would not have minded seeing him in for another week. >> conspiracy theory. >> like the ashley judd thing in kentucky. >> exactly. >> i'll close with this, peter just noted, iowa has been getting most of the spotlight for the 2016 hopefuls this past week, including this weekend but new hampshire is about to take back the spotlight. chris christie visited twice this summer. he just scheduled a third advise nit early september after the primary. bobby jindal going back to new hampshire, trying to put together a three-day consecutive trip to do public event and all-important behind the scenes work with activists as well and rick perry already due to appear in september, he's trying to add another day to his trip. again some more public events and the private meetings trying to line up support, presidential politics never stops. >> you're just trying to get back to new hampshire. >> i love it. why not? any time.

that's it for "inside politics" this week. thanks for sharing your sunday. see you soon. "stoochb with candy crowley" starts right now. the president thrusts the u.s. back into the skies over iraq, but for how long? today -- >> this is clearly very, very ineffective to say the least. >> as the third round of bombs falls on isis targets in iraq, we talk exclusively to senator john mccain on the threat to u.s. shores. plus -- >> we can help, we can advise, but we can't do it for them, and the u.s. military cannot do it for them. >> the president's first national security adviser, general jim jones, and khalilzahd weigh in on whether it's too late t