there's a famous line in the ladies home journal she said that there's a myth out there that i don't dress well. she said i dress fine. i just don't look so good. well, you know, millions of american women -- first they chuckled. and then they felt kind of a pinch of -- because no one looks their best all the time. and also, the delicate subject, but she was following a first lady who was perceived as very much -- >> the epitome of fashion. >> exactly. in the jackie kennedy mold. and stylesically they were two very different women. and ironically, each one worked at the time. >> barbara bush came across more as first grandmother. >> that's true. and i think she cultivated that image. >> very deliberately. >> roz lynn carter. what she's implying here is that we as spouses have the

best interest of our spouse at heart and therefore we can be a trusted adviser. and that's making policy. >> but she's also speaking as someone who got burned. she got burned like abigail adams or sara polk in the 19th century she had an office in the west wing, for some reason -- >> she went as his ambassador to south america which didn't quite turn out to be as well received as they had hoped. >> she had attended cabinet meetings. i think -- and -- >> they had a close partnership in the white house. but there were some things that didn't go over well that she didn't do again. and other things that -- i mean, you know, her mental health initiative were very controversial. and then unfunded as soon as the reagans came in. >> one thing that's noteable about the carters -- and they won the election in this regard

-- is that they were not of washington. >> right. >> and four years later they fell victim to the same thing. americans periodically decide every four years they just want someone else. >> i'm thinking back in our first season of the deep learning curve of the women or families coming to washington who hadn't been of the culture. so here we have a 20th century example. >> but it's a difference. even eleanor roosevelt had to learn the proper procedures for making visits, and all of that kind of social custom. but that's not the same thing as kind of learning the legislative process or specific policies or thing that is we might associate with a first lady today. >> speaking of ross lynn and policy, i once heard her interviewed at the smithsonian. they did a series on previous

first ladies. and one of the thing that is she said was, yes, she did give jimmy a lot of public policy advice, and she said thank goodness he didn't take very much of it because i kept saying wait until the second term to do that. wait until the second term to do that. so she said i'm glad he didn't always follow my advice. >> in our first series, first half of the series we always talk about the whose white house -- close white house years of the women and how they live their lives. here we have two women who had long white house lives. how are they doing as former first ladies? >> i think they're doing well. after you hit mid century, or maybe the kennedy administration, very often what you see as the causes of the first lady become so intwind with her image that she keeps

that cause and that image through the rest of her life. i mean, we could talk about ross lynn and her commitment to mental health and we could talk about barbara bush and her commitment to literacy and her foundation, betty ford and her ommitment to sobe bright and additions and helping people who are addicted. so i think there's a whole line of first ladies that keep that gage and then do great things with it in the rest of their lives. >> they have a much broader range of opportunities. >> and availability. >> to influence, paradoxically, after they leave than their 19th century counterparts. >> but one of the ways they get to do that is by the creation of foundations where they continue, they and their husbands, to raise money from donors.

>> and that would be the libraries originally were basically academic institutions. beginning with jimmy carter, who really has reinvented the role of expresident and in some ways has created a platform for former ter as well, presidents seeing that he is out of office as an extension of their years in office. and that's totally different from the 19th century and it spills over to the first lady. >> well, we're going to look at another kind of partnership and that is a first lady intensely interested in politics and advising her husband. this is an audio clip of lady byrd johnson. are >> you want that one minute for my critique? >> yes, ma'am. i'm ready now. >> i thought that you looked strong, firm, and like a reliable guy. you looked splendid.

the closeups were much better than the distance ones. >> you can't get them to do it. >> i would say there were more closeups. during the statement you were a little breathless and there was too much looking down. and i think it was a little too fast. not enough change of pace. a dropping voice at the end of sentence. there was a considerable pickup in drama and interest when the questioning began. your voice was noticeably better and your facial expressions noticeably better. i thought your answer was good. i thought your answer on vietnam was good. i really didn't like the answer on the job because i think i've heard you say and i believe you actually have said out loud that you don't believe you ought to go out of the country this year.

i don't think you can very well say you'll meet him any time it's convenient. >> i'm glad she's not watching our -- today. >> he was never a television president. >> and i've heard it said from people in the administration that lady bird became much more pointedly critical of his performances when she knew he had been with another woman. >> so this was one way. >> so -- >> absolutely. who know fs that's really the case. but i think that's an interesting commentary. >> we also should explain the source of that audiotape. l.b.j., one of the presidents who recorded all of his phone calls. >> and we owe it to mrs. johnson for making those available. the idea was they would be sealed for 50 years after the president's death. and the former director of the johnson library who had been a

presidential speech writer and enjoyed the trust of both the johnsance, went to mrs. johnson and whatever in the 80s or early 90s, whenever, but basically they moved that up. and so -- >> so that scholar ks have access to. >> c-span listeners. and actually, the other thing is it's done wonders for johnson'so posthumemuss reputation. >> we should say that all of them are on our website that you can listen to. they're also on the l.b.j. website. so you can hear presidential power being exerted. >> it's the johnson we almost never saw. the real johnson. >> which of the other modern first ladies were that much of a political partner? that interested in the mechanics of how their partner was presenting themselves? remember from the auto biography, she was out on the campaign trail with him, fairly on in that process.

what other first ladies had that much interest in the electoral process and nuances of it? -- ll, in that famous starting off by asking mrs. ford. she said you can be anything you want. and he said all right. do you ever sit your husband down and say jerry you weren't very good today? and she said all the time. and i know for a fact because of my current work when he dumped nelson rock feller for vice president at the end of 1975, she said jerry you're a damned fool for doing it. that's betty ford's candor, part of what he loved and treasured. >> i think her input was very important in that same way. what she thought about the nixon pardon and how she said, if we don't do this it's going to -- the country is going to

continue to tear apart. >> she said herself she had tried unsuccessfully to get a woman on the supreme court but she did get a woman in the cabinet. so we know from her own words that she was a significant lobbyist. >> absolutely. >> and that's the first job in the modern era. >> you made reference when we talked about roosevelt about her command of all the media available at the time. we are going back to the dawn of the 20th century and listen to low hoover about the depression and girl scouts. what i want to do is use this as a launching pad for talking about the media and how it changed and how it changed the role. inaudible]

>> throughout the series we've been recording firsts, the first time the american public ever saw and heard a sitting first lady. so there we have film. and as the century progressed, then radio, then television and today the internet and then social media. how has this changed the role and how have first ladies used the burgeoning mass media to affect their time in the white

house? >> i think lou hoover was very aware that this was something quite new for the first lady. and she had set up in the white house and also at the presidential retreat in that administration in virginia these studios where she could practice talking with the american people. and so i think she was very ell aware of how this would be added as a way to communicate with the american people and how important that was. >> she is a transitional figure. >> yes. >> one reason that we don't have a more vivid impression of a pretty remarkable woman is that she didn't do more of that. her agenda -- >> and she certainly didn't do a lot of self-promotion. >> no. her whole agenda, even more than his, was redefined by the great depression.

it's almost as if she took the vail. she had been such an activist public figure, and of course life in the white house was pretty dour. and she slipped into the more aditional role of protecting her husband. >> i think that she did continue her commitment, however torks advocacy for women and she did that through the girl scouts and through promoting what today we would call physical fitness. and she was very committed to those. but that didn't have in that particular time period a political cannottation in the way that it would now. she just thought this was something that was important to o and that women going into -- girls growing into womanhood should be prepared for the realistic world. and she talked about what's the role that young women can play

for the depression and so forth. which she saw a little bit of there. >> and as we cover the arc of the american history we saw that as the media grew they understood that the first family was of enormous interest to the american public, sold magazines, newspapers. >> sold the administration. >> to that point, how did first ladies grasp the power that they had to shape their image? > two opposite examples. bess trueman who didn't have press conferences, who in some ways -- >> didn't want to. >> -- was seen as turning the clock back, never saw as being in the white house. had tremendous. >> i have nothing to say to the public was what she said when asked. >> on the other hand, as a more sophisticated version of that,

jacqueline kennedy was not a political first lady and yet she created an indelible impression. >> and boy did she know how to wield power. of the white bs house as 50 or 60 million people did that night. it was a turning point. it was a highlight in the successful use of the media to fashion a nonpolitical image which nevertheless had political benefits. >> and today it's 24/7 social media and now unmediated conversation through social media of what's happening in the white house. how has that changed the role? >> i think you have to be very careful of every word that comes out of your mouth or is typed by your fingers in some way. i think it's -- you know, you just have to be on your toes every moment. but at the same time it's more

intimate. >> first lady michelle obama can go across the river to virginia shopping in a target store. there are social media photographs of that which show her as a regular person. so the team around her and the first ladies themselves are learning to harness this power. >> well, they will have to learn how to harness it or they will become a victim of it. >> exactly. can you think of any examples in history of people who failed to harness it and then became victim? >> good question. you know, it was something simpler. i'm not a great fan of social media and the minutia. >> what i'm doing right this moment. >> but you know what, it's interesting because the popular culture evolves. in the 1950s, maimie eisenhower, although seen as very much a traditional figure, as every bit as much a fashion

role model, a cultural icon as jackie kennedy was just a few short years later. >> in the next administration. everybody copied. >> television was the internet of its day. >> she was always on the best dressed list. which looks a little strange to us now opposed to jacqueline. but in her day she was thought to be one of the best dressed women in america and she continually made the best dressed lists and used the top american designers and promoted their products. >> but very personal detail, ike had some real health problems throughout those eight years which in some ways made it much easier for a first lady o adopt the more traditional protective stance. >> they're examples perhaps of lesser known of the 20 that we're about to explore.

we found in the first series there are quite a few lesser known first ladies that we introduced. who were the unknown gems? >> grace cool guest:. i put her at the top of the -- the best first lady you know nothing about. you know, we can all agree we scratch our heads how she ever stayed married to him. i mean, who was, you know, a very difficult. >> controlling. >> man in many ways. it was only after his death that she got to coif her hair and go up in an airplane and do the sorts of thing that is everyone else got to do. but she was as warm and outgoing as he was dour and reserved. >> and her nick name was sunny which will give you an idea of her personality. >> and the opposite.

>> exactly. >> who else would be on your list? >> probably edith roosevelt. i don't think many people -- they all know about teddy. and everybody knows about eleanor and franklin. but i think mrs. roosevelt who really in many ways set up the modern first ladies' role for the 20th century people know very little about her. >> and then there's another category, which is first ladies ho are burdened with media images that may have little to do with who they are. you think of pat nixon and to some degree nancy reagan who really had a very tough time of it the first two years she was here. and i think with the passage of time people realize just how great a role she played behind the scenes. >> i think that's true. >> with some very good advice

in personnel matters and other things as well. >> one of the other things that we will be able to do in the second series with the modern age, not just seeing here the first ladies but also seeing some of the children of the white house. we talked about them. we have a clip of some of the children. steve ford, you know well having worked on the ford library creas. we're going to listen to him and talk about interventions with his mother. >> dad led that intervention and, you know, my memory of that is very clear. we walked in the door that morning, all the kids. and dad surprised mom. he took her hand and said betty, we're here because we love you. the kids want their mother back, i want my wife back. and those interventions are tough. that is tough, hard, hard, hard work. lots of tears, lots of crying, lots of raised voices, a lot of

hugs, then raised voices, denial, not denial. it goes back and forth. dad never gave up. he kept holding her a hand. we love you, trust us, and we woke her up. she did the work. that moment, that morning, nobody ever thought there would be something called the betty ford center or any of that. we were strictly fighting to get our mom back, fighting -- dad was fighting to get his wife back. to see the other side of that months, years later, for her, after she had had sobe bright for a while, felt comfortable enough to put her name on a treatment center, to see that treatment center today is probably i think about 90,000 people have gone through there, nonprofit, and her mission of affordable health for those who

need it to transform their lives to get healthy, to get sober. she was very proud of that. >> that clip in a nutshell sums up the difference one of the real differences between the 19th century and the 20th century can you imagine having that degree of intimacy, that degree of knowledge of the intimate life of a first lady of a presidential family of projecting it into millions of homes, of having millions of people care? i mean, that connection that the media allows to happen, the emotional bond, adulation, and its opposite, are something that were a force in the 19th century. >> you also list ton that and are reminded that we talk about these folks as enormous public figures. but they are human beings living personal lives as well. how does that play out with some of the other women that

we're going to be looking at during the second half? >> i'm thinking of pat nixon. i've always thought of pat nixon as the kind of tragic figure. i don't think she was ever given enough credit for what she did during the nixon administration. she basically picked up jacqueline kennedy's restoration of the white house and wanting to bring back original paintings and pieces of furniture. and it's pat nixon who brings back more antiques, art, and original if you knowishings into the white house than -- furnishings than any other first lady. they think of jaclin kennedy immediately but know almost nothing of the role pat nixon played. and i think that she was in her later years so overshadowed by what happened with the nixon

resignation that it was very difficult for her. and i think his handlers in the white house didn't have a proper pretionation of what an asset she could have been all through the nixon administration. >> we know that for a fact. we know that again, the classic east wing-west wing rivalry probably reached its zeenyitsdz or depth felt during the nixon haledermans ople especially, weren't on very good terms with mrs. nixon. and they certainly didn't appreciate what she could be. the asset that she was and could have been. but you generally think, she is a mona lisa of modern first ladies. >> that's very true. >> she's just very enig matic figure. >> and you don't get much until julie writes her book. >> julie's book is wonderful.

i remember asking the people close to her, the word shy was often used. and someone who knew her very well said she wasn't shy. she was self-efacing. and there's a difference between the two. but a self-efacing modern first lady is almost in some way as contradiction in terms. >> in the first series -- i'm thinking about the group of women i refer to as the vick torn fainting ladies. we had a number of first ladies who struggled with life in the white house. >> struggled with life. and death. >> and loss. >> yeah. and politics. you know, i do think generalizations. but i do think certainly in the modern era we think of the president and first lady as a team. they are a political partnership. >> and they get into this knowing what's ahead.

that was not the case with franklin and jane, for example. in the 19th crntry. >> or even martha washington and george. certainly she rose to that occasion. but i don't know that she ever thought, well, who would have thought when they got married that there would be a revolution and a total change of government. >> there's one thing that maybe has not changed in years, her famous line of feeling more as a prizznr of state than anything else. and i'm sure every modern first lady at some time or another sympathizes with that. >> so it's become a more accessible prison, if i can use that term, and perhaps grander in some ways. >> much more visible. much more invaded by the media. much more theatrical.

much more scripted. and unscripted. >> at the same time. >> yeah. >> you referenced pat nixon and the contribution she made to the white house itself. that's another role that's been important. and throughout the series also had an important partnership with the white house historical association. >> thank you jacqueline. >> that's the final theme i want to turn to, which is the first family as custodians of the white house. our first is going to be edith roosevelt. they were responsible for an enormous change. talk about what she did to the white house today. >> she turned it into a home as opposed to an office building and all sorts of other things. the white house you see today is partly jackie kennedy's and partly pat nixon but mostly edith roosevelt. it was edith roosevelt who basically said -- because they had lots of children and they

were all rambunctious. >> and husband. >> exactly. so basically she divided -- there are people before edith roosevelt. >> she creates the west wing. >> she creates the west wing and clearly defines the rezzdns from a working office area. but then the residence she takes that to -- george washington could have walked into teddy roosevelts white house and recognized it. she took it back to the classic sort of federal style. out went the stained glass windows of the victorian brick brack and it became a much more elegant in a very simple way. >> i think both she and teddy roosevelt were aware of the image of the, to use a very overused phrase, the imperial

presidency, that the united states had in fact arrived on a world stage and they need add kind of classical setting in which to conduct politics and diplomacy and that's how they set up the white house as this kind of stage for him to wield power. >> do you know -- reimagine the white house. $475,000. >> of course, in today's money. >> that's true. >> times have change add little bit in the dollars over time. the other influential custodians, the trueman's had to move out. what was bessie's role in that? >> the time in the blair house and all of the entertainment was their formal entertaining was in the washington hotel because there was nowhere else that they could entertain youmplet both referenced jaclin kennedy. for our younger viewers what

did she do for the white house? >> jacqueline kennedy reportedly when she went for her tour with maimie eisenhower came away appalled. she thought the white house looked like a third rate summer hotel. out of she decided pride that it was a patriotism. she was going to restore the house. bring back the best of the past and make it a show case for the very finest. >> and that was i think a way to exert a kind of cultural influence that was commensurate with the status of the united states in the 60s. the n, the economic power, military power, and i think jacqueline saw that to go along

with it was needed this cultural influence of the united states. that was what she was doing. and a stage again for her husband's conduct of politics and diplomacy. >> eevep more than j.f.k. who we all think of as really the first television president and a president whose style, the kind of ironic wit was absolutely perfect for tv. but she was a real tv star. >> and she was the one who image it had administration. >> one of the things that we have been doing all along the way is gatsering the material and putting it on the website which is available. lots of additional material about the first ladies. these programs have also been highly interactive. we have a twitter feed first ladies, we mix in twitter comments. we have a facebook page. both of you have made your

professional careers very interactive. you're always speaking in front of groups taking questions. what in your memory is one of the most intriguing or most frequently asked questions about first lated eas when you appear in front of an audience? >> i would say the question that i am asked most is who is your favorite first lady and why. >> or who is the worst person, believe it or not. mostly you get asked was mary lincoln really crazy. >> yes. that i got on every tour i ever took. >> was she a raving crazy lady. >> or was she really bad or as burdensome on the president as legend would have it. >> our twitter feed and facebook questions were much more nuanced than those. and we do invite folks for the next 20 weeks to be part of this process, take part by making telephone calls. we'll have phone numbers on the

screen throughout the series, send us a comment and be part of the learning process making it much more interesting for all of us. so what was your answer? >> i said that by some of her symptoms that today's doctors would probably diagnose her as manic depressive. they probably would put her on litsdzium, send her to a 12-step program, and she would fit right in with modern society. >> she could go to the betty ford center. >> and your answer to who was the worst first lady? > i'm more galant than that. there's some questions that just because they're asked don't have to be answered. >> well, we have one more video as we run out of time here, and this is a 19 32 and it is our first, first lady of the series edith roosevelt post whoice but still involved in g.o.p. politics.

inaudible] ♪

>> speaking in support of herbert hoover. >> such an odd appearance. you don't think of her as being politically active in the years following his death. it suggests that internal family dynamic. remember, the roosevelts didn't always get along. but it was remarkable that on the eve of an election which everyone realized was lost she would go to so public a venue to declare a breach with the other roosevelts. >> but they were of different parties. so suggest party loyalty more strong than family? >> i don't think of edith roosevelt as a party -- as a partisan figure. it's just so uncharacteristic. >> what i saw, and the quality

of the video was a section. >> yes. >> i'm losing my voice. but set the stage. what are you looking forward to as we close in season two from this woman edith roosevelt to michelle obama? >> growth in role, growth in he influence, continuing professionalization of the ffice of the first lady, and much better media savvy. >> growth, if possible, but hange unavoidably. the media is clearly adom nant, increasingly dominant criteria for every first lady. >> but in the end they're the endless biographiccal human

stories, which are not limited to the 19th century or the 20th century or media or anything else. 's how these people endure and prevail. of the very rough world politics which they may or may not have aspired to be part of. and the history that they influenced in the process. >> and as nancy reagan said, it is a bully pull pit and you would be an idiot not to use it. >> that is something new. that is a very 20th century thing that the first presidency has been for a long time but that the first lady job likewise. that's recent. we give credit to these two folks at the table for

encouraging us to do this. we're learning a lot along the way and invite our viewers to take the journy with us. take it through president's day 2014. lots of learning and interesting women ahead. thanks to both of you. >> thank you. >> before season two of our series first ladies begins, the newsium is focusing on america's first ladies how the media has covered them and how the first ladies have tried to craft their image.

join us live today at 2:30 p.m. ere at c-span. yesterday we heard from u.s. ambassador to the u.n. samantha power. she spoke in support of u.s. military action in syria to pre vent president bashar from using chemical weapons. this is 20 minutes. >> as you know my topic today is syria which presents one of the most critical foreign policy challenges we face. syria is important because it lies at the heart of a region critical to u.s. security, a region that is home to friends and partners and one of our closest allies. it is important because the syrian regime possesses stores of chemical weapons that they have recently used on a large scale and that we cannot allow to fall into terrorist hands.

it is important because the syrian regime is collaborating with iran and works in lockstep with thousands of extremist fighters from hezbollah and syria is important because its people in seeking freedom and dignity have suffered unimaginable horror these last 2-1/2 years. but i also recognize how ambivalent americans are about the situation there. on the one hand, we americans share a desire after two washes which have taken 6,700 american lives and cost over $1 trillion to invest taxpayer dollars in american schools and infrastructure. yet on the other hand, americans have heard the president's commitment that this will not be iraq, this will not be afghanistan, this will not be libya. any use of force will be limitd and tailored narrowly to the chemical weapons threat. on the one hand we share an abhorrence of the brutal

tactics. yet on the other hand we are worried about the violent extremists who while opposed have themselves carried out atrocities. on the one hand we share the deep conviction that chemical weapons are barbaric, that we should never again see children killed in their beds, lost to a world they never had a chance to try to change. on the other hand, some are wondering why given the flagrant violation of an international norm it is incumbent on the united states to lead since we cannot and should not be the world's policemen. not withstanding these complexities, not withstanding the various concerns that we all share i'm here today to explain why the cost of not taking targeted limited military actions are far grater than going forward in the manner president obama outlined. every decision to use military force is a difficult one. it is especially difficult when one filters the syria crisis

through the prism of the past decade. but let me take a minute to discuss the uniquely monstrous crime that has brought us to this across roads. what comes to mind for me is one father saying good-bye to his two young daughters. his girls had not yet been shrouded. they were still dressed in the pink shorts and leggings of little girls. the father lifted their bodies and cried out, wake up. what would i do without you? how do i stand this pain? as a parent, i cannot begin to answer his questions. i cannot begin to imagine what it would be like to feel such searing agony. in arguing for limited military action in the wake of this mass casualty chemical weapons atrocity we are not arguing that syrian lives are worth protecting only when they are threatened with poisoned gas. rather, we are reaffirming what

the world has made plain in laying down its collective judgment on chemical weapons, there's something different about chemical warfare that races the takes for the united states and raises the stakes for the world. there are many reasons that governments representing 98% of the world's population including all 15 members of the u.n. security council agree to ban chemical weapons. these weapons kill in the most gruesome possible way. they kill indiscrim natalie. they're incabbleable of distinguishing in between a child and a rebel. and they have the potential to kill massively. we believe this one attack claimed more than 1400 lives, far more than the worst attacks by conventional means in syria we assess that although he used more chemical weapons than he had before, he has barely put a dent in his enormous stockpile and the international community

has clearly not yet put a dent n his willingness to use them. president obama's secretary kerry and many members of congress have spelled out the consequences of failing to meet this threat. if there are more chemical attacks we will see an inevitable spike of the flow of refugees in the region possibly pushing lebanon, turkey, jordan or iraq pushing past their breaking points. the fourth largest city is already the refugee camp. half of syria's refugees are children and we know what can happen to children who grow to adulthood without hope or opportunity in camps. the camps become fertile recruiting grounds for violent extremists. and beyond syria, if the violation of a universal agreement to ban chemical weapons is not met with a meaningful response, other regimes will seebling to acquire or use them to protect or extend their power,

increasing risks to american troops in the future. we cannot afford to signal to north korea and iran that the international community is unwilling to act or willing to tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction. if there are no consequences now of breaking the prohibition of chemical weapons it will be harder to muster an agreement.al people will draw lessons if the world proves unwilling to enforce the norms against chemical weapons use that we have worked so diligently to construct. and israel security is threatened by instability in the region and its security is enhanced when those who would do it harm know that the united states stands behind its word. that's why we've seen israel supporters in the united states is come out in support of the president's proposed course of action. these are just the sum of the

risk of inaction. but many americans and some members of congress have legitimately focused as well on the risks of action. they have posed a series of important questions. and i would like to use the remainder of my remarks to address a few of them. some have asked, given our collective war we'reieness, why we cannot use nonmilitary tools to achieve the same end? my answer to this question is we have exhausted the alternatives. for more than a year we have pursued countless policy tools short of military force to try to dissuade assad from using chemical weapons. we have engaged the syrians directly and at our request the russians, irans sent similar messages. but when scuds didn't quell the syrian rebelion, assad began using chemical wapses as the united states concluded in june. faced with this growing

evidence of several small scaled subsequent attacks we redoubled our efforts. we backed the u.n. diplomat process and tried to get the parties back to the negotiating table recognizing the best way to reduce all forms of threat. we provided more humanitarian assistance. and on chemical weapons we assembled and went public with compelling and frightening evidence of the regime's use. we worked with the u.n. to create a group of inspectors and then worked for six months on the logic that perhaps the presence of a team in the country might deter future attacks. or, if not, at a minimum we thought the shared rived base to cast vince iran loose a regime that was gasing its people. we expanded and accelerated our assistance, we supported the

commission of inquiry. russia, often backed by china, has blocked every relt vanity action in the security council, even mild condemnations that did not ascribe blame to any particular party. in assad's cost benefit calculus, he must have weighed the military benefits of using this hideous weapon against the recognition that he could get away with it because russia would have syria's back. and on august 31 he staged the largest attack in a quarter century while u.n. inspectors were sitting on the other side of town. it is only after the united states pursued these nonmilitary options without a i cheeving the desired results of deterring chemical weapons use that the president conclude that had a limited military strike was the only way to prevent assad of using chemical

weapons. i'm here today because i believe and president obama believes that those of us who are arguing for the former limited use of force must justify our position, accepting responsibility for the risks and consequences of action. when one considers pursuing nonmilitary measures we must similarly address the risks inherent in those approaches. at this stage the process is stalled because one side has just been gased on a massive scale and the other side so far feels it has gotten away with it. what would words in the form of belated diplomat condemnation achieve? what would the international criminal court really do even if russia or china were alto allow a reference? would a drawnout process affect the immediate cal clugs of assawed? we could try again to pursue economic sanctions.

but even if russia budged would more asset freezes, travel bans and travel restrictions convince assad not to use chemical weapons again when he is a pipeline to the resources of hezbollah and rirne? does anybody believe that employing the same approaches will suddenly be effective? of course this isn't the only legitimate question being raised. should this be used? the answer is of course yes we could if we would if we could we would if we could but we can't. every day for the 2-1/2 years of syrian conflict we have shown how seriously we take the u.n. security council and our obligations to enforce international peace and security. since 2011, russia and china have vetoed three separate

security coibt council resolutions condemning the syrian regime's violence or promoting a political solution to the conflict. this year alone russia has blocked at least three statements expressing humanitarian concern and calling for humanitarian access to besieged cities in syria. in the past two months russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the generic use of chemical weapons and two statements expressing concern about their use. we believe that more than 140 people were killed in damascus on august 21 and the security council could not even agree to put out a press statement expressing its disapproval. the international system that was founded in 1945, a system we designed specifically to respond to the kinds of horrors we saw play out in world war ii has not lived up to its promise or its responsibilities in the case of syria.

and it is naive to think that russia is on the verge of changing its position and allowing the security council to assume its rightful role as enforcer of peace and security. in short, the security council the world needs to deal with this urgent crisis is not the security council we have. many americans recognize that while we were right to seek to work through the security council, it is clear that syria is one of those occasions like kosovo when the council is so paralyzed that countries have to act outside it if they are to prevent the flouting of international laws and norms. but these same people still reasonably ask beyond the security council what support does the united states have in holding assad accountable? while the united states possesses unique capabilities to carry out a swift limited and proportionate strike so as to prevent and deter future use

of chemical weapons, countries around the world have joined us in supporting decisive afpblgts the arab league has urged international action against syria in what it cause the ugly crime of using chemical weapons. the council has said syria is responsible and we need a firm response to avoid that attacks place place in the future. the islamic cooperation blame the syrian government and called for decisive action and 11 countries at the summit today called for a strong international response and noted their, quote, support for efforts undertaken by the united states and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. as i have found over the last week, the more countries around the world are confronted with the hard facts of what occurred the mow more they recognize the

steep price for impunity could extend well beyond syria. the president's decision to seek congressional support has given the united states time to mobilize additional support. there's no question that authorization by our congress will help strengthen our case. one of the most common concerns we have heard concerns less on the how but on the what. some americans are asking how can we we sure that the united states will avoid a slippery slope that would lead to full scale war to syria? on the other hand, others are asking if the u.s. action is limited, how will that have the desired effect on assad? and these are good and important questions. the united states cannot police pever crisis any more than we can shelter every refugee. the president has made it clear he is responding militarily to a mass casual chemical weapons incident. any military action will be a

meaningful, time limited response to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again and to degrade its ability to do so. from the start of the conflict the president has consistently demonstrated that he will not put american boots on the ground to fight another war in the middle east. the draft resolution before congress makes this clear. president obama is seeking your support to employ limited military means to achieve very specific ends to degrade assad's capacity to use these weapons again and deter others in the world who might follow suit. and the united states has the police republican as a country to maintain these limits. limited military action will not be designed to solve the entire syria problem, not even the most ardent proponents believe that peace can be achieved through military means. but this action should have the effect of reinforcing our larger strategy for addressing

the crisis in syria. by degrading assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons we will limit his ability to strike by conventional means. in addition, this operation combined with ongoing efforts to upgrade the military capabilities of the moderate opposition should reduce the regime's faith that they can kill their way to victory. in this instance, the use of military forces can strength an and nrnljies to achieve a negotiated settlement to the underlying conflict. let me add a few thoughts in closing. i know i have not addressed every doubt that exists in this room in this town in this country or in the broader international community. this is the right debate for us to have. we should be asking the hard questions and making deliberate choices before embarking on

action. there is no risk free door number two that we can choose in this case. public skepticism of foreign interventions is an extremely healthy phenomenon in our democracy, a check against military use in our military power. the military people elect leaders to exercise judgment and there have been time when presidents have taken hard decisions to use force that were not initially popular because they believed that our interests demanded it. from 1992 from the bosnian genocide started to 1995 that president clinton launched the air strikes that stopped the objected to id action there. the house of representatives reflecting public opinion voted against sending troops. there is no question that this deployment of american power saved lives and returned stability to a critical region of the world and a critical

region for the united states. we all have a choice to make. whether we are republicans or democrats. whether we have supported past military interventions or opposed them. whether we have argued for or against such action in syria prior to this point. we should agree that there are lines in this world that cannot be crossed. and limits on murderous behavior, especially with weapons of mass destruction that must be enforced. if we cannot summon the courage to act when the evidence is clear and when the action being contemplated is limited then our ability to lead in the world is compromised. the alternative is to give a green light to outrageous that will threaten our security and haunt our conscience, outrageous that will eventually compel us to use force down the line at far greater risk and cost to our own citizens.

if the last century teaches us anything, it is this. thauch thank you so much. >> today on c-span, "washington journal" live with your tweets and emails. then we speak of military action in syria. limited force is authorized on the regime. >> coming up on "washington journal" we'll take your calls and look at today's headlines, followed by the foreign policy initiative director robert zarate. and code pink protested during congressional hearings on syria

this week and talk with the group's goals. then a look at the g-20 in russia with the economics reporter of the "wall street journal." "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp.2013] >> the following days will be tv appearances which twoling -- follows the address on tuesday. when it comes to a vote in the house, of the 296 houptive members who voted to give george w. bush the authority to invade iraq in october of 2002, at least 75 of those remain in the house. this is "the washington journal" for september 7,