attacks. 13 years, two major wars, one continuing battle against terrorists. we've seen osama bin laden killed. hussein topple thousands of americas. our lives have changed over the 13 years. people say they're tired of war and also say they're deeply concerned about what could be the next major terror threat. many say they're impatient with the president's strategy so far to deal with it against to backdrop. president obama getting ready to speak. you're looking at live picres there. quick thought, jake tapper as we could hear what turns out to be one of the most important speeches of the presidency. >> i think it will be very important for president obama to define the mission. what exactly does success look like? is it managing the problem? turning isis into a managing problem, a regional problem. also he will need to describe what are other countries going to do? we already see the state

department with countries ranging from australia to the u.k. to the maldeves, what does that exactly mean? will other countries bring in troops, or support? and lastly there is a big homeland security component of this. because one of the reasons the polls are so high is that the american people are scared from the videos they have seen of the beheadings. and 71% of the people in america are convinced because there have been national officials saying this that there are isis cells in the united states. what is he going to do to keep the united states safe? >> all right, the president has been in the red room. heading to the blue room. the president will then walk into this hallway. you will see him walking in, in moments. the president will carefully address to the nation. a lot of audiences will listen, very carefully, including isis itself. >> my fellow americans, tonight

i want to speak to you about what the united states will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as isol. as commander-in-chief, my highest priority is the security of the american people. over the last years we consistently took the fight to terrorists who threatened our country. we took out osama bin laden and much of our country's leadership in afghanistan and pakistan. we recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in somalia. we've done so while bringing more than 140,000 american troops in iraq and drawing down our forces in afghanistan where our combat mission will end later this year. thanks to our military and

counterterrorism officials, they have the capacity to do great harm. that was the case before 9/11 and that remains true today. and that is why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. at this moment, the greatest threats come from the middle east and north africa where these radical groups exploit for their own gain. one of these groups is isol, the islamic state. let's make one thing clear, isol is not islamic, no religion condones the killing of innocents. isis is certainly not a state. they have taken advantage of sectarian strife and syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the iraq/syrian border. it is recognized by no border

nor by the people it subjugates, isol is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. it has no vigil in all who it slaughters in its wake. these terrorists are unique in their brutality. they execute captured prisoners, they kill children and force, enslave and rape women into marriage. they threaten with minority genocide, and in acts of barbarism they took the lives of two american journalists, sotloff and james foley. if left unchecked these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region. including to the united states. while we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, isol leaders have

threatened america and our allies. our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners, including europeans and some americans, have joined them in syria and iraq. trained and battle-hardened these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks. i know many americans are concerned about these threats. tonight, i want you to know that the united states of america is meeting them with strength and resolve. last month i ordered our military to take targeted action against isol to stop its advances. since then we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in iraq. these strikes have protected american personnel and facilities and killed isol fighters, destroyed weapons and given space for iraqi and kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. these strikes have also helped to save the lives of thousands

of innocent men, women and children. but this is not our fight alone. american power can make a decisive difference but we cannot do for iraqis what they must do for themselves. nor can we take the place of arab partners in securing their region. that is why i have insisted that additional u.s. action depended upon iraqis forming an inclusive government which they have now done in recent days. so tonight with a new iraqi government in place and following consultations with allies abroad and congress at home i can announce that america will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat. our objective is clear. we will degrade and ultimately destroy isol, through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy. first, we will conduct a systemic campaign of airstrikes

again these terrorists. working with the iraqi government we will expand our efforts to protect our own people and humanitarian efforts so that we hit the targets as we go on the offensive. moreover, i have made it clear we'll hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. that means i will not hesitate to take action against isol in syria as well as iraq. this is a core principle of my presidency. if you threaten america you will find no safe haven. second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. in june, i deployed several hundred american service members to iraq to assess how we can best support iraqi security forces. now that those teams have completed their work and iraq has formed a government we will send an additional 475 service members to iraq. as i have said before these american forces will not have a combat mission. we will not get dragged into

another ground war in iraq. but they are needed to support iraqi and kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. we'll also support iraq's efforts to stand up national guard units to help sunni communities secure their own freedom from isol's control. across the border in syria we have ramped up our resistance to the syrian opposition. tonight i call on congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. in the fight against isol, we cannot rely on the assad regime that terrorizes its own people, instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like isol while pursuing the political decision necessary to secure the crisis once and for all. third, we will continue to draw on our substantial

counterterrorism capabilities to prevent the attacks. we will redouble our efforts to cut the funding and improve our elements. counter the warped ideology, and stem the flow of fighters. in two weeks i will chair a meeting with the u.n. security council to further mobilize the community around this effort. fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization. this includes sunni and shiite muslims who are at grave risks as well as tens of thousands of christians and other religious minorities. we cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands. so this is our strategy, and in each of these four parts of our strategy america will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. already, allies are flying

planes with us over iraq, sending arms and assistance to iraqi security forces and the syrian opposition, sharing intelligence and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. secretary kerry was in iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity. and in the coming days he will travel across the middle east and europe to enlist more partners in this fight. especially arab nations who can help mobilize sunni communities in iraq and syria to drive these terrorists from their lands. this is american leadership at its best. we stand with people who fight for their own freedom. and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity. my administration has also secu secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. i have the authority to address the threat from isol, but i believe we are strongest as a nation when the president and congress work together. so i welcome congressional

support for this effort in order to show the world that americans are united in confronting. now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like isis, and any time we take military action there are risks involved especially to the service men and women who carry out these missions. but i want the american people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in iraq and afghanistan. they will not involve american combat troops fighting on foreign soil. this counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out isol wherever they exist using our air power and partner forces on the ground. the strategy of taking out those those who threaten us as well as on the front lines is one we have pursued in somalia for years and is consistent with the

approach i outlined this year to use force against anyone who threatens america's core interests, to mobilize partners wherever to implement the process. my fellow americans we live in a time of great change, tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. next week marks six years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the great depression. yet, despite these shocks through the pain we felt and the grueling work required to bounce back america is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on earth. our technology companies and universities are unmatched. our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. energy independence is closer than it has been in decades. for all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. despite all of the divisions and

discord within our democracy, i see the grit and determination and common goodness of the american people every single day. and that makes me more confident than ever about our country's future. abroad, american leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. it is america that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. it is america that has rallied the world against russian aggression, and in support of the ukrainian people's right to determine their own destiny. it is america, our scientists, our doctors, our know-how that can help contain the outbreak of ebola. it is america that helped remove and destroy syria's chemical weapons so that they can't propose a threat to the syrian people or the world again. and it is america helping the muslim communities around the world not just in the fight

against terrorism but in the fight for opportunity and tolerance and a more hopeful future. america, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. but as americans we welcome our responsibility to lead. from europe to asia, from the far reaches of africa to war-torn capitals in the middle east we stand for freedom. for justice. for dignity. these are values that have guided our nation since its founding. tonight, i ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. i do so as a commander in chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform. pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the middle east. and service members who support our partners on the ground. when we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here is what

one of them said. we owe our american friends our lives. our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people. that is the difference we make in the world. in our own safety and security, it depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for. timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the earth. may god bless our troops and may god bless the united states of america. >> speaking for less than 15 minutes, the president of the united states with very strong words going against isis, this new terror threat. the president saying the greatest threats to the united states right now come from the

middle east and north africa where he says that radical groups exploit grievances for their own game. he specifically cites isis and says he will not hesitate to take action against isol, as he calls it, in syria, this is a core of my presidency. he issues this warning if you threaten america you will find no safe haven. bottom line, the president getting ready to potentially launch airstrikes against isis targets not only in iraq but syria as well. anderson? >> wolf, thank you very much. we'll see wolf again at the top of the hour to continue the live coverage. we'll be back at 10 eastern. i want to bring in david gergen, strategist, donna brazil. david, you have big expectations. >> i thought the first part of the speech as he talked about

the attack on isis was strong and presidential, and serious. you could quibble with it, i am sure there will be disagreements, as a presidential speech it did very well. what surprised me was the second part of the speech when he started to talk about how well the country is doing with jobs and leading around the world. i think for an awful lot of people, america is feeling pretty blue right now. i think those kind of assertions don't ring true to a lot of people. i seemed to me it detracted from the main message of the speech. i thought he was on very strong ground, and when it came into question it was overall, how much should we believe from the speech? overall, i think the first part. >> i thought it was a strong speech overall, i agree with david, they dropped out one

paragraph. it would have been stronger. his description of somalia and yemen was very foolish, the rest of the speech was very strong, probably the most explicit pro-american speech he has ever made. i think he achieved a fair amount of what he needed to do to start this process. so i would say it is a pretty strong speech. i agree totally with his call to congress, congress should vote on this. this should be the american decision. not the obama decision. i have -- >> why is that so important to you? why do you believe that is so important? >> this is going to take a long time. and if it is only him it will be eroding very rapidly. it is easy for republicans to figure out how to attack him. if all of this understand this is a threat to america and we had better find after the bush years and the obama years we had had 13 years of trying, we had had better find an american strategy that we collectively stick to, we'll be a much stronger country and we'll be

able to endure the next five or ten years better. >> jake, do you think he defined what the strategy is? do you think he did that? >> yes, in a word, basically the four points, one expanding the air campaign, beyond the humanitarian issues and protects the americans in iraq and possibly going after isis and syria. that is the first time he said that. two, he talked about the increased role of u.s. military, training, imbedding, reconnaissance -- >> 475 more. >> you will notice he didn't give the overall total, but 475 more. and of course adding to the capabilities, protecting the homeland, the financing, funding, lastly, the humanitarian mission. again, he talked about leading a broad coalition. he didn't go into detail about that. there are some fact sheets coming out from the state

department. the national security council that -- given some details on it, such as -- i only had time to look at the first time, albania will be sending weapons to kurdish fighters. some countries will contribute a lot more than others but he is trying to make the case even though this is rather quickly done, we need to point out. >> it is also interesting, donna, he repeatedly stressed this is a counterterrorism approach trying to make a distinction between the wars in iraq and afghanistan. >> because he recognizes the country is weary of war. 13 million, trillions spent. the president, really, i think challenged us to come together as a country to fight this threat. to understand the nature of the threat. i thought the objectives that he laid out tonight were very clear. very concise, but i also thought his call to congress, for congress to get involved. to lend the resources and make

sure that this is not just the president's so-called war on isol, but the country itself. i thought it was a good speech and could begin. hopefully congress will pick up the phone and say, i'm with you. >> aren't there some in congress who don't want to really vote on this? they don't want to go on record? >> no, i think you will find that because the country has rallied, i mean, politicians often follow the country, and the country has decisively in the last two or three weeks, reached the conclusion that people who cut off the heads of american journalists are really bad. and the more they learn about them, selling women into slavery, slaughtering people, i think there is a growing consensus, there is a pretty beg margin, almost 6-1 in one poll today that said yes, you have to do something. so members are going to vote in the continuing resolution, is my guess, to support the president to be strong. i think he faces two big challenges. one is finding a lot better

outcome than yemen and somalia. this idea that the most we can do is bomb around the region and then leave behind the wreckage of mogadishu, a, it doesn't solve anything because you still have the wreckage. in both of the countries you have lots of terrorists running around so it is not a solution. the second challenge will come in two weeks. the president will chair the national security council in the united nations. are the chinese going to go along with this? the president mentioned the challenges to russia, he now has russia with a veto sitting in the security council. i think that meeting in two weeks is a big deal. >> don't you expect that what congress will do will be instead of the broad authorizing use of military force that president bush got after 9/11 or the vote to go to war in iraq there will be something small, such as all this discussion of title ten amending, allowing basically the

military to train the fighters as opposed to clandestine services, something small, maybe like a resolution stating support, nothing specific. >> my guess is, the resolution will be the congress supports the president in degrading and destroying isis without defining specifically what that involves. and frankly we would be foolish to say yeah, you can do this over here or can't do that over there because we don't know how the campaign will continue. >> the middle east has a long track record of defying the best laid plans. the way things look right mnow, three months from now can look different. >> that is right, newt gingrich is absolutely right saying that it is important congress vote on this so that this becausomes an

american project, not an obama project. we're not asking very much of them. but i think to go to your larger point, anderson, about the uncertainties ahead. this speech was a very strong speech. what the president is going to have to do is follow up with demonstrations that it actually will work. and to an extraordinary degree this whole strategy depends upon the effectiveness of our partners. we're not putting troops here. when we went and had the awakening and people are saying we're going to have another awakening. when we had that, we had a ton of american troops to make sure it happened. and here, we're depending on an iraqi government and army which has not come together in a way it was described tonight. they still don't have a defense minister or interior minister, these are partners that we have to make reliable. there is a long way to go. >> you had personnel in endless tea sessions with sunni tribal

elders handing over bags of money on the ground. it is a very different situation without u.s. personnel, again, to the general's point, this is not just happening in one country. this is trans-national. this is syria in the middle of a civil war. >> that is why the president was adamant that the iraqi government -- >> but when the president says they have already formed a new government, that is not really accurate. there are key posts, some of them the most controversial posts in iraq have been left unfilled. they may have new leadership. >> but nouri maliki is gone, that was have very important step for him to get away from the people. >> most politicians are afraid that american people can't stand the truth. probably churchill's most famous

speech was promising blood and toil. the president would be better served to say to the country, we are going down a road we don't know about. we are taking on an enemy who is evil. they will mutate and do everything they can to survive and defeat us. he did say there were real risks. i was actually surprised and proud of him. he said there were real risks, young americans are going to risk their lives to achieve it. we ought to drop this boots on the ground baloney, those americans who are needed to defeat isis, those americans are needed. we'll end up going there. and we will run the risks necessary to defeat them. >> and anderson, you make an excellent point, we talk about the best laid plans. obviously, without getting into a debate about the last war in iraq. the reason that isis exists is because of a lot of what happened in that war not going well and then also the withdrawal of u.s. forces. so i think what would be great is if there is a full-throated

debate about this in congress, not just among democrats who support the war going against isis and republicans who support the war going against isis, but democrats and republicans who oppose going to war. the kind of thing we didn't really see in the way it needed to be done back in 2003. again, i'm not comparing these. they're very different situations. obviously it would be wonderful if isis disappeared. >> we don't really need a national dialogue about how we ended up 13 years ago, thousands of dead americans, trillions, and the strategies didn't work. not the bush strategy, not the obama strategy. we need to have an honest discussion of how difficult are these enemies and how difficult is genuine military win going to be -- >> political, david?

>> let me come back to one other point about where we go from here and the partner ships we're trying to form. another challenge around the corner is whether we can in fact get the big hitters to come in as partners. it is very easy to get the u.k., but is saudi arabia going to be with us on this. is turkey going to be with us? what about the ae, the highly respected ambassador to the united states had an op-ed piece, the journalist representing the country's views if we're going to take on isis we ought to take on more seriously the groups threatening africa as well. the president started on isis and africa. and then focused on isis. the king of saudi arabia has not been happy with this president. they have had a rocky relationship for the last couple of years. the turks have had a rocky

relationship. we have real work to do to make sure these are reliable strong partners for us. and much is going to rest not on whether this is a u.s./european coalition, but whether it also has a very strong arab contingent with us. >> and i want to bring in the former press secretary, jay carney, very happy he joined us. thank you for joining us, also the former u.s. special envoy to northern ireland and the author of foreign policy begins at home. when you left your job, what is your position particularly on the president getting out of afghanistan to now being in the position of essentially launching an open-ended military campaign? >> well, i think the point you're making is absolutely accurate. that it is ironic, of course, given how the president was

elected. the policies that he laid out. that he is having to do this. but to answer your specific question yes, i could envision it. because i left in late june. and the threat posed by isis was already apparent. they had already moved dramatically across and into iraq and taken so much territory. and the counterattack had not yet begun. i think that any president has to play the hand he is dealt. and the president in this case, president obama even back when he was a candidate for office for senate made clear that he opposed going into iraq. but he didn't oppose war itself. or all war. and i think he has made clear that as president he is more than willing and able to make the tough calls to go after the most threatening terrorists in the world wherever they are. that certainly is demonstrated

by his record against core al-qaeda. against elements in yemen, and somalia, not withstanding what speaker newt gingrich said about those countries. and i think he made clear tonight in even more stronger points than i expected. about the strategy expected. and i want to play a little bit of sound. >> i made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. that means i will not hesitate to take action against isol in syria as well as iraq. this is a core principle of my presidency. if you threaten america you will find no safe haven. >> richard, the president again repeatedly saying this is a counterterrorism operation, this is not the war in iraq and afghanistan. but those operations in somalia

are relatively limited. al shabaab is not isis, yemen, this is a u.s. bombing campaign using other actors on the ground to actually fight. is that going to work? >> in and of itself, short answer is no. isis is a lot more than simply a terrorist organization. it is interesting today, the secretary of homeland security, jay johnson, described isis as yes a terrorist organization but also an insurgent army. and we have to deal with it in both dimensions. so what the united states needs is a bigger strategy, if you will. the good news is the president talked about expanding the purposes of the u.s. policies besides protecting the u.s. personnel and opened up the syria note that it will no longer be a sanctuary. but what is missing in the speech is any ground partner in syria. we're talking about building up the opposition in syria. that is a long, long proposition

and risky. the real question is what are we going to use to challenge isis on the ground? what are we going to use for air power? that is the achilles heel of the strategy and missing from the speech. >> what happens if assad actually does get overthrown in syria? is there a blood bath then. who takes over, who fillings s vacuum? i mean, you have seen it from inside. how confident are you to find that the so-called moderate syrian forces on the ground who actually can take on isis and can take on the assad regime? >> well, i think it is more possible now than it was. remember when the revolt against assad began, this was an organic protest that evolved into a war and a fight against the assad regime. and there was not an existing

army or force, rebel force and it had to be developed. and i think we as the united states through the last several years, of being very careful about engaging with rebel groups and knowing exactly who they were and what their goals and beliefs are, and then providing assistance to them, are in a better position now to assist them than in the past. >> but jay, is that actually true? i mean, early on, you had a lot more -- at least vocally moderate groups out there fighting in syria. and it really is in the last several months they have faced tremendous losses on the battlefield, not just to the assad gentlemregime -- >> i think knowing who they are, knowing who they are, the groups on the ground, fighting the

enemy, then finding the groups we have assisted and then they turn the arms against us and our allies. that process had to be careful. it is certainly imperfect. what richard said is true, that is the weakness of any strategy, because the absence of a ground force that can be successful in syria to counter isis and assad is a huge problem. but the question is what is the answer, it is not u.s. forces, surely. and you know the only answer has to be trying to build up some of the strengths of the moderate opposition. >> richard, what if assad does actually leave power in syria, what then? >> well, anderson, there are lots of things to predict. that is unfortunately unlikely to happen any time soon. i think what is more likely to happen is mr. assad will be the effective mayor of the areas of the country in the west and northwest. the real question is what happens in parts of syria close

to iraq, the big desert areas many of which are controlled by isis or other radical groups. there are alternative groups, to simply hope we can build ofup a secular opposition. working with the kurds, those are two forces we can deal with. secondly we can try to get some of the arab countries to consider, not simply introducing air power but possibly introducing their air forces alongside our air forces. that is something we want to look at. we also have to come up with a sense of strategy inside syria. and this gets to some very awkward questions, which is does the united states try to take on mr. assad and isis simultaneously. or do we essentially make it more sequential and prioritize.

saying the far more threat to the u.s. interests and the world is isis. that ought to be what we concentrate on. we don't concentrate on mr. assad in the short-run, rather we make him a long-term problem. >> arizona senator john mccain is joining us. you and i spoke last week, you said president obama had no goal, no strategy to destroy isis. what did you think about what you heard tonight? >> i think it was a very weak argument. i'm astounded that mr. carney should say that the free syrian army is now stronger. >> if i could, what i said is, we know a great deal more now about the opposition. >> come on, jay, we knew all about them then. you just didn't choose to know. we knew about them in syria. your boss, when the entire

national security team wanted to arm and train them that he turned them down, mr. carney after -- >> well, senator -- i think we have to agree to disagree on this. >> facts are stubborn things. the entire team, including the secretary of state said he want to arm and equip these people and he made the unilateral decision to turn them down. the fact he didn't lead a residual force in iraq, is the reason we're facing isis today. so the facts are stubborn things in history. and people ought to know them. and now the president is saying basically that we are going to take certain actions, which i would favor. but to say that america is safer, and that the situation is very much like yemen and somalia shows me that the president really doesn't have a grasp for how serious the threat of isis is. >> well, again, senator, we're going to have to agree to

disagree. i think on the question of the residual force, there was another player in that which was the iraqi government. it was the fulfillment of the previous administration's withdrawal plan c, and also the fulfillment of the president's promise to withdraw from iraq and not maintain a true presence, in perpituity, which is what the american people wanted. >> you are saying facts that are false. lindsey graham and i, we were in baghdad, they wanted a residual force. the president has never made a statement during that or after that he wanted a residual force left behind. the iraqis were ready to go. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified before the senate armed services committee that the number cascaded down to 3,500. that was not sufficient to do anything but to defend themselves. and you in your role as a spokesperson bragged about the fact that the last american combat troop had left iraq.

if we had left a residual force the situation would not be what it is today. and there would be a lot more -- >> senator, i can posit with great respect for you we can disagree. >> you don't have the facts, mr. carney. that is the problem. >> senator, i understand that you present the facts that you believe or true based on the argument that you have made for a long time, sir, that we should leave troops in iraq in p perpetuity. and that is what the president does not believe. he did what he felt was right for our country -- >> it is a bad decision. >> i certainly understand where we are today. >> jay, it is not a matter of disagreement. it is a matter of facts. and you have yours wrong and you distort distorted. >> jay, do you believe if a residual force had had been left on the ground in iraq that we would not be in the situation

now? >> anderson, i think it is basically a whitewash of history to suggest that there was not periods of enormous chaos and fighting and bloodshed in iraq when there were tens of thousands of troops fighting on the ground. that is a fact. it was true in 2004 and 2007. and it was true even when we had the highest number of u.s. troops on the ground. we cannot -- the united states of america ask our military to be a permanent occupying force in a country like iraq. we have to get to a situation where we can help build up and assist an iraqi security force, where we can put pressure on the iraqi political leaders to form an inclusive government, which they have taken steps to do as was noted earlier. and we can provide the kind of military support we're providing, an action we're taking against the threat like isis as is appropriate. but the idea of leaving a

massive u.s. force on the ground in iraq, not for ten years or 100 years, is not sustainable. and not what the american people think we should do. >> again, mr. carney misstates the facts. we had it won, the victory was there. all we needed was a force behind to provide the support, not the engaging combat. but to provide support. in korea, we left troops behind, not the fight but for a stabilizing force. mr. carney neglects the fact that thanks to david petraeus, and brian cochran rocker, we wo conflict, and then by setting a date for withdrawal and bragging about it -- >> excuse me, i think you have forgotten -- >> no, the date for withdrawal. they always contemplated an

additional date behind it. you can ask condoleeza rice, we didn't need to go through the iraqi parliament. all you had to do was have an agreement. >> senator mccain, let me ask you in terms of what you heard tonight do you believe the u.s. can fight the effective terrorism strategy, which is what the president is calling this with isis, without the u.s. military personnel on the ground? >> we -- this is another falsehood the president is pervaying. we already have boots on the ground, we need more. but we don't need them like the 82nd airborne to direct combat. we need to have additional support there and we need to help the -- the iraqi army rebuild its capabilities. but we don't have to have a ground combat invasion of the type we had before. but, the fact that at the didn't

leave -- we were not there before is a direct result we are paying a very heavy price for. and it doesn't mean in perpituity, but it does mean keeping it stable, which we could have done. >> americans who hear those words may wonder if that is the case why do we need to take action against isis, to that you say what? >> i say today we had a hearing and there was testimony from the counterterrorism people and the department of homeland security. there is twitter conversation where they are urging attacks on the united states of america. there is a great concern that our southern border and northern border is porous and they will be coming across. so is there a specific direct threat? no, but is there any doubt to what their goal is? mr. baghdadi, the day he left

prison camp said "see you in new york itself. >> and in terms of, you have been in syria, you met with syrian moderate opposition a while back, do you believe there are enough on the ground right now in iraq who actually have military capabilities that can actually stand up and fight against isis, against the assad regime? >> i do, but it is going to be very tough and it will be a heck of a lot tougher despite what mr. carney said than it would have been two years ago when it was recommended by his entire national security team. >> senator mccain, i appreciate you being on tonight. thank you very much, we have a lot to go, president obama laid out his strategy for degrading and destroying isis, describing the kind of military action it will involve and what it won't include. let's listen. >> isol poses a threat to people of iraq and syria, and the broader middle east. including american citizens, personnel and facilities. if left unchecked these

terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the united states. >> welcome back. here with -- richard haas is with us, jake tapper, newt gingrich, donna brazil, richard haas, you heard john mccain, what do you think what he said. >> it is always hard to rerun history, but if you're asking would it have been wise to keep a residual force in iraq, i think the answer is yes. it could have done two things, improved and trained the quality of the iraqi forces. and second, i think the mere presence there would have reduced some of the in-fighting. would it have been a solution? no, as long as somebody like mr. nouri maliki was in power you would have had all sort of sectarian friction. but all things being equal, would an american presence of

5,000 troops or so would have made a contribution? i believe yes, the same argument for not having all troops leaving afghanistan by the end of 2016 as is now currently articulated. >> jay carney, in terms of working with allies, how real are these coalitions? >> well, i think they're evolving, i think what is so important about what the president laid out tonight is the added actions that have to be taken to make the long-term progress against isol and isis, because it is not going to be successful just because we can organize military strikes against select targets in iraq or syria. it has to involve the direct participation of some of our key sunni allies. and without that, i think the strategy would be doomed. so i think when you see secretary kerry working the region very hard to that end, i think that is something that

will get less attention because of the drama of upping our military force. but in some ways it is even more important than the use of force. >> richard, one of the things we did not hear tonight was talk of a national time table, a time table for actual -- the increase of u.s. military advisers. of potentially bombing inside syria. this seems to be -- seems like there is no real specific time table. >> it could be a time table it doesn't mean that the president will announce it. you don't want to give the scale or the exact timing. the important thing we need to accomplish in syria and iraq as well is to check the momentum of isis. we want to send the message that its future success is not inevitable. that in turn will slow the flow of recruits, i believe. and i think it will stiffen the back bone of some of the forces now at times that are

intimidated. it is important the united states act decisively. i wouldn't assume because the president didn't go into detail about it that there are not plans for the u.s. military to act decisively. >> jake tapper, there is an argument to be made they need time to gather more intelligence on the ground in syria without an intensive u.s. presence there. our ability to pick out targets, to pick out targets that are actually effective against isis, that is a big question. >> the troops that are going to syria will be picking out targets. doing reconnaissance, and intelligence operations. if i could comment a second on the mccain-carney showdown we saw, which was interesting and illuminating for a lot of reasons. especially if you know jay and senator mccain as i do. and they have known each other for a long time. but one of the things that is

going on here is that it has been a point of great, great deal of frustration not just for senator john mccain but also for democrats, individuals who wanted president obama to act more decisively in syria and have been advocating that way for years. in addition, the people of syria, a lot of the people who have been active in the free syrian army and others, i know you know this, anderson. you have covered this a great deal over the last years. have been very frustrated. they do see the rise of isis as a direct result of the americans not filling the void. in addition, one of the reasons why you hear so many republicans harping on the president's use of the term jv to describe isis back in january in that interview with the new yorker, well, a because republicans love to attack president obama, but beyond that, it's because -- calling isis jv suggests that president obama did not think at the time that they really were to be taken seriously and here we are, president obama, it's

september, giving a major address in primetime talking about going to war with the organization. so there is a lot of i told you sos. not just with senator mccain and jay carnie this evening. but in statements from congressional leaders, republican leaders, this evening that are coming out being e-mailed saying thank god president obama finally sees the world as the way it is from speaker boehner. >> what about the jv comment. i talked to a writer from the new yorker who said despite what the white house had been saying over the last couple days and the president was saying, he wasn't specifically talking about isis. david remnick has little doubt the that was talking about isis, david remnick, followed up, the jv team just had taken over fallujah, was that a lack of intelligence, understanding of the threat, or were they a jv team back then? >> look, you can always go back, as president, or as a president's spokesperson and wish you had phrased your thoughts differently.

certain expressions can come back to haunt you. i think the point that he was making is it was not our view the united states's view at the time or administration's or view of the intelligence community that this specific threat or threats like it were at the same level in terms of the direct potential for on attack against the united states or our interests. that was the comparison or distinction he was making with al qaeda for example. but there is no question that -- i think the united states and, and a lot of the world, was -- stunned by the rapidity with which isis was able to move into iraq and take territory. and the -- the subsequent brutality that they have demonstrated in dealing not just with westerners and americans, but with populations there. and, it, it, that, those facts have -- have forced a reassessment of the kind of actions that we need to take and the seriousness of the threat. if i could, on the, so-called mccain carney show.

it is important to remember -- that, as i was trying to point out. they tried to negotiate with the maliki government in iraq, to maintain a force of american troops in iraq for the missions that senator mccain was just talking about. the iraqi government refused. >> point-blank president obama did want to keep a residual force there? >> yes, i spoke about it from the podium. he was absolutely open to that. that was our approximately sepo. it had to allow for the protection of our troops that we have to have. it would have been height of irresponsibility to maintain troops in that situation. look, maliki at the time wanted american troops gone. notwithstanding what senator mccain said and a lot of politicians did. and i think that's also --

>> jay, let me break in and say two things. first just as a logical point. you just now said the president by your own terms, apparently really wanted to have american troops there in perpetuity, although a minutes you pointed out. we didn't want troops out in perpetuity. you can't have it both ways. second, second -- this speech, really struck me as we are sitting here talking, you know, reality is a harsh teacher. this speech is closer to a george w. bush speech than it is to anything barack obama would have said between 2007 and this week. i mean, go through the speech, tell me what do you think dick cheney would not be willing to say that is in the speech. it is a remarkable moment of a president who didn't want to be doing this, being trapped in a world, i like the speech, i think it is a very powerful speech. but it sure is not the obama policy prior to tonight. >> but the iraqi government did not want us to stay there. with the kind of -- with the kind of guarantees that they

wanted from us. >> it is something that protects u.s. troops on the ground. >> they had unreasonable. >> senator mccain disagrees. he believes agreement could have been reached. >> to the parliament or not -- >> jay, jay -- >> if i could in responding to speaker gingrich. the distinction you might have heard, most americans may have agreed, the speech dick cheney would have given would have included dispatch of tens of thousand of troops for an in vags in -- invasion of a country which was the approach they took in iraq. the president disagreed with. he went out of his way to night to make sure the american people understood that was not what he was proposing in the strategy to deal with isis. >> there is something andersen that was resonant of george w. bush, that is the line "if you threaten america, you will find no safe haven." sort of reminded of "either you are with us or you are not."

remember george w. bush saying that. i do think there were some reluctant echos here. >> that is certainly a line. jay, you probably know better than i do. certainly seems to be a line the president has the saiden the past. >> certainly, formulations of it. not only said it. he has dem monstrated it in way that made some on the left uncomfortable. he has been relentlessly aggressive in pursuing terrorists that our government perceives as threats to the united states or our interests abroad. that has been a sustained campaign since the day he took office. i think that the language. i don't disagree with speaker's comment and others that the language was very strong, very direct. and i think that in contrast to some of the speeches that george w. bush had to make in the whak of 9/11, the attack was on ous and on our soil. tonight's speech after 13 years of military conflict the

president was having to explain why we were taking this acttion against a threat that was not at this time or is not at this time, literally at our doorstep. >> donna, do you hear from democrats or liberals, concern about the president moving this fast, moving forward, on an open ended campaign in iraq, potentially in syria? >> i think one of the greatest concerns that you have heard from democrats back in 2003, 2004, and you will hear again. don't commit us without an exit strategy. don't commit us without a clear strategy. >> there can be no -- the nature of the conflict defies an exit strategy. >> that's why i think the president laid out a very -- clear strategy, using -- you know, the boots on the ground, which i look to sike to say the who know the region, people from the region. i think some democrats will continue to be uncomfortable with the president's decision to even use air strikes in syria. i think it is a debate that we should have. following the iraq war. we should have this

conversation. and congress should be able to have a vote on it. >> to jake's point earlier, how do you know? you know, when -- when there is victory, so to speak. you can't define victory because you are not defining -- what it is. >> the argument, you destroy isis, another group, of islamist group, whether al qaeda in iraq, or al qaeda in arabian peninsula. >> so there is no end? >> do you think there is an end. >> the end will be much harder than it is. we need a national conversation that starts with the notion that radicalist islamism is much closer to ebola as a virus than it is as a national state problem. this is different than opponent we ever faced. it is worldwide. over 50 countries, sent total of 10,000 people to syria including

almost 200 from the united states. >> we should point out -- one thing, president obama, a small clause, a much bigger strategy is he talks in his speech, talked about countering -- isis' warped ideology. that is a specific discussion of trying to make sure that all of these, it is uncomfortable to talk about. but thousand of young muslim men who are flocking to syria and iraq, they think, call themselves the islamic state, are the strongest horse as osama bin laden's language. that they are no longer attracted to do that. >> what that is intimating, a war of idea as much as it is a war of military. that war of idea is in many ways, much harder to counter. >> you have your -- >> which are being supported by allies, saudi arabia, in pakistan, throughout the world. >> that's why it is not just a national conversation as you point to the speaker. it has got to be an

international conversationn't. e we have had the conversation in the united states. we continue to have it. we need to have it with the coalition. >> that's why the arab league is important. having the saudis involved. having the turks involved. >> a statement from the arab league is easy. stopping the fundi ining by sau arabia is hard. the guy, that was just taken out, the leader in somalia taken out by the obama administration and u.s. military a few days ago was educated in a pakistani madrasa, funded by saudi arabia and given a scholarship without saudi arabia funding that and giving the scholarship he would not have been a threat to the united states or africa where he was. >> want to point out tonight. viewers had the opportunity to actually sort of discuss what they feel about it, to respond in real-time to the president's speech, using microsoft's