>> steve: have a great weekend. ted, happy birthday. >> brian: i don't care what kind of birthday you have, ted. bill: good morning, everybody. president obama will hold a press conference out of russia. and there is so much to talk about. there are questions whether he will get the backing from here at home. whether it's the leaders of the country he's gathered with in st. petersburg. i'm bill hemmer. martha: good morning, i'm martha maccallum. the president will speak at the g20 before he leaves

st. petersburg. bill: it may be all smiles when they pose with the g20 leaders. will there be takers for military action? does he come out of this meeting with support behind him or not, do we know? >> that's a good question. that's one of the things we would likely hear from the president later this hour if he does have any dpains or has any supporters. i would expect him to talk about the international support he has been able to get. he will attempt to make his case to a sceptical congress here. >> reporter: the leader of turkey says the leaders of the g20 summit accept the need for some sort of operation against syria. what are we learn being how he

will sell this case to the american people when he comes home? >> that's a good question. there is a plan in the works for the president to give some kind of address to the nation early next week, maybe tuesday as congress gets serious about voting up or down on a resolution to back the military force. the president will have to make the case. it will be jarring for the american public who for more than two years have watched these images come out of syria but haven't heard the president of the united states very engaged on a detail elf will be hasn't been selling the case for intervention. now he switched the past couple weeks. he's going to make the case it's in our national interest. on a humanitarian level there is a moral case to do this and he will argue there is some urgency. it's a jarring change from the

way we have seen the president address syria for the past two years. bill: you are saying it's not even close right now to passing congress. >> i think it likely goes down. precisely, if you talk to members of congress, they are getting phone calls from constituents running 10-1, 15-1 against any intervention under this president in syria. it's hard for the president to make a case in part because he hasn't been making one all along to get them to vote against what they think their constituents' desires are. bill: thanks so much. martha: this fox news alert, the state department is ordering u.s. diplomats out of beruit due to security concerns there. the state department repping u.s. citizens in lebanon and

southeastern turkey limit their travel. meanwhile there is a new video obtained by the "new york times," and it's raising a lot of questions about the rebel fighters in syria known as the opposition. there are many groups that fall under that category. the new york times came out after this photo was published and said the video is from last year, from 2012. the video is far to graphic to show you on television but that's the still image. it shows rebel fighters standing over captured syrian soldiers. the video shows the men standing over the shirtless men with guns as the camera rolls. these men were summarily executed. what are people in beruit being told at this hour? >> reporter: u.s. embassy

employees and non-essential embassy employees are being evacuated. i.s. citizens are being urged to leave lebanon. this comes down to the risk of retaliation. remember lebanon is mostly controlled give the militant group mes poe la. and an ally of syria, many hezbollah fighters are in syria. and the iranians have vowed revenge that could come in the form of a hezbollah attack on israel and it could come in the form of u.s. interests in lebanon. the 1980 bombing of the embassy in lebanon and the marine barracks. there is a lot of history here. the lebanese security forces don't have a lot of control over hezbollah and what it might do. there is intelligence on the ground that says hezbollah might be planning something and the

iranians may be looking at other avenues to respond to a u.s. attack on syria, maybe u.s. interests in iraq. maybe targeting something with a car bomb that that would have a catastrophic effect. martha: the rebels on the front of the "new york times," what .we know about the rebels operating in syria? >> reporter: that's the problem. the video the "new york times" has uncovered is what many of us covering the story have seen, the rebels committing atrocities that are just as bad as what the government is doing. summarily torturing and executing people. this goes to the question of who

are the rebels? on the other side conceivably inch better financed and much better equipped and much better run are jihadists that are taking over the fight. they are much more interested in an islamic state and sharia law than any kind of free and democratic country. martha: that's the big dilemma when we look atition and the rebels. let's try to answer that question for you. we'll do that later this hour as well. the pentagon estimates there are 1,200 rebel groups operating in syria. republican senators john mccain and lindsey graham support the group leland just mentioned. the free syrian army were formed by army defectors from the syrian army who were intent on

deposing bashar al-asaad. we'll speak with their leader. he will join us to explain how he sees his organization and how he believes he can keep them separate from al qaeda. stay tuned for that. that happens moments away. the opposition forces claim they have 100,000 fighters. bill: assets in the region have not changed much. you have four naval destroyers in the eastern mediterranean. they are equipped with 100, maybe 200 tomahawk missiles. they could go up the suez canal if needed. all would be with the target in sight here, the country of syria. the u.s. military. the assets are in place. they are ready to go if congress

approves it. if the president gets the green light. jennifer givein with the b52 bombers and b1 bombers could all take part as well. coming up a bit later major general bob scales is going to give us a reason why the pentagon has been asked to change the military battle 50 different times over the past several weeks. partly because assad is moving things around. martha: he wrote a scathing editorial. we'll tell you about that as well. a military strike in syria has not proven to be popular. it also does not appear at this point to be very popular among the american voters. at town halls we are hearing them speak out. people around the country. they spoke to senator john mccain who has been one of the most outspoken supporters of a

strike. listen to what happened to him in this exchange. >> i'm opposed to having a single american boot on the ground. >> are you willing to state -- >> you have lied. you cannot [inaudible] like you did in syria. >> it's bigger than that. america has so many options. the syrian people should get involved. the syrian people in this country should be involved in this decision. >> what is the life of an american serviceman worth? >> there is no con step place of putting a single american man or woman serviceman in place. i'm telling you it's not. it's not going to happen. >> we cannot afford to turn

syria into another iraq or afghanistan. i beg you. martha: very emotional town hall there. that being expressed all across this nation in different ways. the senator's support of the syrian rebels has not escaped controversy. when he visited syria in may he was spotted with rebels who reportedly played a role in kidnapping some shiite muslims but he disputed that suggestion. there is a lot of gray matter in this. bill: he sent out a people on twitter with people who were supporting a strike. "free syria" is what they were saying on their shirts. what do you think we should do about syria. send thee send us a tweet @billhemmer and at martha

maccallum. a congressman who once supported a military strike on syria has changed his mind. bill: fire breaking out on a bus filled with a high school football team. how they managed to make it out alive. >> oh, my god. i'm hoping the car behind me is a police officer. oh, my god. martha: a dramatic 911 call leading to this arrest. two teenagers are being called heroes. [ female announcer ] at 100 calories, not all food choices add up. some are giant. some not so giant. when managing your weight, bigger is always better. ♪ ho ho ho ♪ green giant

♪ ho ho ho nascar is about excitement. but tracking all the action and hearing everything from our marketing partners, the media and millions of fans on social media can be a challenge. that's why we partnered with hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center. hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights

that help nascar win with our fans. i got this. [thinking] is it that time? the son picks up the check? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. martha: gun restrictions are being put to the test. colorado is holding its first recall election. the issue is to force out two state senators who support

strict gun laws in that state. >> who the hell are they coming to colorado telling us how to run our elections. >> it's important that we as patriots stand up for the rights our forefathers gave to us. martha: many feel those state senators ran on one platform and acted another once they got into office. bill: a lawmaker and u.s. marine veteran has changed his mind on syria saying he no longer supports a military strike on damascus. sir, good morning to you. you were for this before you were against it. now, you do not believe action should be taken in damascus. a lot of explaining to do. why? >> first and foremost what's

changed is the president's leadership has degrade. he came out strong as awcht s. marine and member of congress i wanted to support our commander in chief but it seems like he has done just about everything he can to bungle this. i have lost faith in our commander-in-chief to handle this crisis in syria. bill: was there one moment. >> it's combination, bill. first and foremost when i first came out for the support i said there were two concerns that the president had to deal with. one was the timing issue. i wanted him to call us backer to a special session and have congress act immediately before assad starts moving his cache' of weapons to hospitals and mosques and schools. that was number one. second i said it had to be a meaningful strike. it had to be quick, it had to be serious and it had to send a message. that would be the only way we

could restore our credibility in the region. the win deth -- the window to re our credibility has closed. i think when he steps back from his red line comment it was a sign and a symbol to the american people that he is not keeping the leadership role as the commander in chief he was playing initially and he is losing his resolve. add to that his inability to garner international support. he failed on that level as well. i think it's a lack of leadership and i don't have faith the president and this administration can handle this crisis appropriately and it will end up costing us more and great think -- it will greatlyout whay outweigh any benefit. bill: you are a no vote.

anything that can chang your mind? >> senator mccain is afriend and i have a great deal of respect for. if we do strike and we find a warehouse with sarin gas stockpiles and the roof is torn off. are we going to leave that sarin gas there or are we going to send in my beloved marine corps or navy seal to the secure the area? i think it answer is yes. it still means boots on the ground, it means american troops in harm's way. i think the president's call that the american people were with him. but as his revolve wayneed re -s revolve waneed, i don't think the american people have the heart for this. bill: you mentioned the red line

from two days ago and last august. >> i didn't set a red line, the world set a red line. >> we have made it very clear to the assad regime but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole punch of creme cal weapons moving around or being utilized. that would change my calculus. that would change my equation. bill: hearing those comments changed your mind. but we expect to see the president within 30 minutes in st. petersburg, russia. if he comes out publicly and has the support of world leaders behind him would that change your ca --your calculus? >> you have to add the unknowns. you don't know who is on the ground. who is involved with the rebels.

how many al qaeda groups, hezbollah. we could go on and on. the level of danger of getting involved now has increased over the last 72 hours at best. so again there is no easy answer here. i admit this is a very, very difficult situation. but i think the president has made it more difficult than it needed to be. i think he put us in a difficult situation. now he's passing the buck to the congress. and i don't think the congress or the american people think it's the right time to strike syria. bill: apparently the vote in congress would not even pass. pass. representative grimm from new york. martha: the push to get global cooperation in the g20. we are learning president obama and the french president

francois hollande have had a meeting on getting cooperation on syria. there are reports we are working to confirm that the president and putin spent 20 minutes together but are no closer on syria. ♪

how long have you got on your battery? just about two days. with up to 48 hours of battery life, it's the longest lasting 4g lte smartphone. the new droidmaxx by . when endurance matters. droid does.

bill: the labor department reporting 169,000 jobs add in august. that's fewer than expected. the unemployment rate dipped a bit, but the number of americans working or look for a job is at its lowest rate in 35 years. dews of walmart workers joining a protest against that retailer, demanding higher wages and better working conditions.

from oklahoma city a sinkhole opened up and swallows a car. the two women are okay after managing to climb out a window. martha: a dramatic 911 call shows two texas teenagers helping to rescue a woman they saw mouth "help me." they are being called hero hospital helped save the day. casey seeingle is live in this story from dallas. >> reporter: these teens first took notice of the woman because they thought she was cute. then their gut kicked in and they knew something was terribly wrong and as it turns out the woman they thought was cute had been kidnapped earlier half leaving an office party in

downtown dl has. an hour later the guys noticed her sitting at a stoplight near kaufman, texas. the students followed the car for miles while on the line with the 911 dispatcher. >> me and another guy were check out the girl in the back seat, she is kind of attractive. then the guy looked to the back seat and the blond female in the back seat was saying help me or something, whispering it. i assume it's a kidnapping. >> oh, my god, i hope the car behind me is a police officer. >> thank good. you guys are awesome. oh, my god. >> reporter: charles atkins lewis jr. now behind bars charged with aggravated kidnapping, being held on $50,000 bond. a motive is not clear whether he

knew the 25-year-old victim. the teens a 19-year-old college student and 17-year-old high schooler got a huge hug from that woman at the scene after she was checked out by paramedics. dash cam video was rolling and we are getting that in to us here at fox news channel that captured this whole thing and we'll have that for you coming up on happening now. just an incredible story. martha: it's a great lesson in that. they always say if you are kidnapped do anything and everything to get attention of somebody and that's what she did and it may very well have saved her. >> reporter: also always follow your gut. if you think something's not right it may not be. martha: casey, thank you. we'll see you later. bill: the syrian opposition. freedom fighters as john kerry

contend for terrorists as rand paul contends. martha: back to the moon. what scientists want to learn if they can get back there in a new mission. [♪] y from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle.

need a little kick? ooh! she loves to shop online with her debit card.

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

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

by there is a lot of talking in st. petersburg, russia. vladimir putin the russian leader says that the chemical attack in syria was a provocation to encourage military intervention. he deflected criticism of assad's forces. he says he and president obama don't agree on syria but listened to each other following their one-on-one talks. the president hold a press conference in that same city 20 minutes from now. certainly these issues and questions will come up. we'll carry it live for you on america newsroom. martha: we are joined by the chief of staff of the supreme military council and he's the leader of the free si syrian ar. good to have you with us today.

i want to get your reaction from what you just heard from vladimir putin. he says the united states and russia are no closer. he's against the u.s. using its forces to do any kind of strike on syria. and he also he he believes that the chemical weapons we saw the videos of. that they were used by the rebels as a provocation to get international involvement. what do you say? >> i'm very sorry to tell you that president putin is lying an was lying at the beginning of the revolution in syria. he knows exactly that the regime is killing our citizens. he knows exactly that the regime is killing the civilians and is using the russian weapons and ammunition, the russian tanks. to destroy all the liberated

area to kill people everywhere. and i tell you this man, president putin, is trying to deceive the international community. [inaudible] the last chemical attack against against ghouta and children. and the 800 victims. why he is trying to deceive the community and why he supports this in damascus. all the people in the world now, even bashar al-asaad knows he's killing people, killing

citizens. this president putin [inaudible] martha: i understand. let me ask you about that. unin terms ounderstood in termsu have been saying. the pictures on the cover of the "new york times" and the video we have seen about the rebels, the opposition in syria holding guns over the heads of men crouched on the ground. obviously you understand this is a very troubling photo to americans when they see this and they want to know who they would be backing if indeed we supported a strike on syria. there is a lot of discussion here that we would be backing al qaeda, that al qaeda forces are intertwined with your forces and any aid or military strike that we would give to your forces would invariably be seen as joining al qaeda on that side. i think that we are having a problem with the skype connection.

general, can you hear me right now? all right we take one moment and try to reconnect our skype connection. but obviously, bill, as we just heard from vladimir putin and many others who seem to be out there claiming the chemical weapons came from the rebel side. and you just heard the general who vehemently denied they had any connection to any of these chemical weapons. bill: as you can imagine how difficult it is to get a signal here. we are working through his own computer. while he's talking in damascus there are a lot of people making news in st. petersburg. martha: general, my question to you was to get your reaction on the cover of the "new york times" which showed the opposition forces holding guns over shirtless men on the

ground. it many a troubling image for americans when they consider aiding the opposition. >> yes, i'm going to tell you this video and picture is very old. it's more than one year old. and it is -- our new command and cheech of staff and supreme military council and we don't have any responsibility for that. the decision is very important now to say to our american friend. there are a lot of groups in syria who will do something illegal and promote videos and send it to an international

media center to make the liberation army look very bad. they are killing civilians. and against our ... [inaudible] the training for our soldiers, we do training for our commanders. martha: i hate to cut you off. but i want to ask you one more question. it's difficult to hear you. i know everyone understands that. you are in a remote location in syria. the president is having a tough time getting support for this strike in syria to help you out. what would you say to the president about how he's doing in terms of garnering support internationally and at home for your forces when so many people are very concerned weapons are

moving freely between all of these opposition groups and there is no way you would be able to negate the influence of al qaeda in anything we would be able to help you do? >> what can i say? we are very thankful for the decision of the president to help the syrian revolution and the syrian people for more than two years. secondly i would like to give you an assurance that any kind of help that we receive from our friend in the united states and our friend in europe or brothers in the arabian region [inaudible] mainly civilians who were -- we defend their families and citizens. and we'll use these weapons to

stop killing, to stop destruction of our country. to build a democratic and free country. martha: may i ask just one more quick question. if puck keep your answer brief i would appreciate it. do you agree a light strike will do it or do you foresee you would need to have boots on the ground? i know your forces are very disparate and difficult to organize. >> yes, about the strike, we think that there would be [inaudible] to help the revolution because the regime ... they like to see a strong side against assad's regime and the units of the regime inside syria to send a clear and strong and powerful

letter to iranians to not terrorize the syrian people and put and end to the syrian revolution. martha: i want to thank you. the communication is difficult via skype from your undisclosed location in syria. we wanted to give you a chance to tell the american people in your own words why they should support you. we thank you for speaking with us today. bill: more headlines with him when we get them. fox news confirming the strike on damascus as changed 50 times. is that normal? my next guest argues the pentagon wants no part of this. p has pretty bold flavor. i love bold flavors! i'd love it if you'd open the chute! [ male announcer ] progresso. surprisingly bold flavor

for a heart healthy soup. before mike could see his banking and investing accounts on one page... before he could easily transfer funds between the two in real time... before he could even think about planning for his daughters' future... mike opened a merrill edge investment account and linked it to his bank of america bank account to help free up plenty of time for the here and now. that's the wonder of streamlined connections. that's merrill edge and bank of america.

bill: sources telling fox news the pentagon has been asked to

revise their plans on syria 50 times. retired army major bob scales is with us. is that normal? >> no, of course not. here is how the process is supposed to work. the president makes a decision to go. he hands the mission off to his military planners and they plan the strikes, then the strikes are occasionally amenned based -- amended. now it's based on the changing political occurrence. it's reminiscent of lyndon johnson crawling around the floor of the oval office picking strikes in vietnam. bill: i know the military is flexible but 50 times is a lot. new castle, washington.

where did this country get these weapons of mass destruction? >> they came from the soviets. they exported sarin to face down the israelies. the syrians are manufacturing this in their own laboratories. it's essentially a white powder but over type it degrades. when you mix it with alcohol the agent loses its potency very fast. a lot of this came back 20-30 years in europe. whole list of them. is that possible or true?

>> sarin is essentially an insecticide and it's fairly easy to manufacture. but it's not that complicated a compound. the recipe has been with nations since 1938. so i wouldn't be surprised if this stuff comes from virtually anywhere in the world. >> we are waiting on a 2-minute warning out of st. petersburg. you have written a piece in the post. you argue the pentagon doesn't want this war. make your case. >> those who i speak to in the pentagon are very nervous about going to war without a strategic end stated. they are very concerned this war will escalate out of control. if leaders -- political leaders

say we are going to war to restore our credibility or going to war for our national honor. for they say this war will be short, sharp, glorious and bloodless, run for the doors. and i think many people in the military are saying we haven't thought this thing through. we don't have an end state and we don't have a strategy. bill: major general bob scales. appreciate your time out washington. waiting on st. petersburg now. martha: we are going to pause for a moment to let our other fox stations join us. we are waiting for the news conference to begin. i'm martha maccallum in new york. vladimir putin is saying he and

president obama did meet for 20 minutes. they are no closer on syria. there are encouraging signs from france and turkey as well. there might be some form of cooperation when it comes to taking some kind of action or operation thought it's not clear if that would be military or humanitarian in terms of the aid. there have been no specifics as of yet so we wait for president obama. we understand we are inside the two minute watch here for him to step forward and begin to take some questions. but the focus of this has clearly become syria which was not even on the agenda for these g20 meetings as we head into this annual gathering of the g20. president obama is in the spotlight because he's trying to rally international support. it appears at home in congress he's having trouble garnering the support he wants. as the days go by he appears to

have more trouble. bill: vladimir putin held a press conference and he said the provocation of the chemical attack was done in order to encourage military intervention. when asked about criticism of assad and his regime and government those answers were deflected. he says he and president obama do not agree on syria but they do listen to each other after their one-on-one talks. edward snowden is in russia. he has been grants asylum in russia. that topic, the nsa leaks and edward snowden did not come up in the talks earlier today with president obama and vladimir putin. martha: there was no request by president obama for the

extradition of snowden. putin believes there would be no grounds for it because there was no crime committed in his country that would require him to extradite snowden. it continues to be an extremely tense situation between president putin and president obama as they have failed to see eye to eye on the whole suggestion that putin has put forward. he believes the chemical weapons use came from the opposition side, the rebel side. we spoke to one of the restivesf the representatives of that rebel side. he claims they would never do such a thing to provoke international interest in this case. there is a lot of sort of scuttlebutt about whether that may be an element here. steve hayes joins us now watching this closely as well. good morning, steve. we await president obama.

>> i'll be interested to hear how he characterizes his conversations with president putin. he might push back hard on any suggestions that it was the rebels that used the chemical weapons and not the syrian regime after the administration made a case here and overseas that it was the syrian regime that used the chemical weapons and that's what's triggering the con tell plains of these military strikes. bill: we got word that the turkish prime minister says there must be cooperation with regard to response on syria. but whether that's military cooperation, whether that's humanitarian cooperation we i am any do not know. >> i think that's right. bill: as the president comes to the podium steve will hold that question as we go to st. petersburg live.

>> this city has a long and story offed history, including its historic resistance and extraordinary sacrifices during the second world war. so i take this opportunity to salutes the people of st. peters perg and express our gratitude for their outstanding hospitality. this summit marks another milestone in the world's recovery from the financial crisis that erupted five years ago this month. instead of the looming threat of another financial meltdown we are focused for the first time on building upon the gains that we made. for the first time in three years instead of an urgent discussion to address the european financial crisis we see a europe that has emerged from recession. moreover, the united states is a source of strength in the global economy. our manufacturing sector is rebownlding. new rules strengthened our banks and reduced the chance of

another crisis. we are reducing our addiction to foreign oil and producing more clean energy, as as we learn today over the past 3 1/2 years our businesses created 7.5 million new jobs. a pails of 2 million jobs each -- a space of 2 million jobs each year. we put more people back to work and laid a foundation for a stronger more durable economic growth. we are we are also making progress in putting our fiscal house in order. our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years. as congress takes up important decisions in the coming months we'll make the case for smart invest --s and fiscal responsibility that keeps our economy going and creates jobs and keeps the u.s. competitive. that includes that we don't risk default over the bills we already racked up.

i'm sure the world has confidence in the full faith and credit of the united states. our economy is driving global growth. there is a recognition a strong u.s. economy is food for their economies, too. yet we came to st. peters berg mindful of the challenges that were made. as it emerges from recession. europe has the opportunities to focus on reducing demand and reducing unemployment. as well as making structural changes that can increase long term growth. growth in emerging economies is slow. we need to make sure we are working with them in managing this process. and i'm pleased over the past two days we reached a consensus on how to proceed. we agreed our focus needs to be on creating jobs and growth that put people back to work. we agree on ways to encourage the investment in infrastructure to keep economies competitive.

patients agree to continue pursuing financial reforms and address tax he vision and tax avoidance which under my budgets unfairly shifts the tax burden to other taxpayers. we are moving ahead with our development agenda. and i'm pleased that the g20 nations agreed to make fast progress on phasing down certain greenhouse gases a priority. that's an important step in our fight against clue that change. we also continued our efforts to advance two key trade-in i shall toughs. the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and the transpacific partnership. if we continue to move forward on all the fronts i described we can keep the imloabl economy going and keep creating jobs for our people. even as we focused on our shared prosperity and although the primary task of the g20 is to focus on our joint efforts to

boost the global economy, we did also discuss a grave that he to our shared security, and that's the syrian regime's use of chemical weapons. what i have been emphasizing and will continue to stress is the assad regime's brazen use of chemical weapons isn't just a syrian tragedy, it's a threat to global peace and security. syria's escalating use of chemical weapons threatens its neighbors, turkey, jordan, lebanon, iraq, israel. it threatens to further destabilize the middle east. it increases the risk these weapons-fall into the hand of terrorist dpriewms. but more broadly it threatens to unravel the international norm against chemical weapons embraced by 189 nations. those nations represent 98% of the world's people. failing to respond to this

breach of this international norm will send a signal to rogue nations. authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence. that's not the world that we want to live in. this is why nations around the world have condemned syria for this attack and called for action. i have been encouraged by discussions with may fellow leaders this week. there is a growing recognition the world cannot stand idly by. here in st. petersburg leaders have coming to to say the international norm against the use of chemical weapons must be upheld and assad used these weapons on his own people and there need to be a strong response. the arab league said the assad regime is responsible. the organization of islamic

cooperation, the general secretariat called the attack a play cans affront to all religious, and moral value and disregard for international laws and norms which requires decisive action. in the coming days i'll continue to consult with any fellow leaders around the world and i'll continue to consult with congress and i'll make the best case i can to the american people as well as the international community to take appropriate and necessary action. i intend to address the american people from the white house tuesday. the kind of world we live in and our ability to deter this kind of outrageous behavior will depend on the decisions we make in the days ahead. we deliberate carefully and choose wisely and embrace our responsibilities we can meet the challenges of this moment as well as those of the days ahead. so with that, let me take some questions. i have got my handy list and

i'll start with julie pace. >> you mentioned the mum of countries that co condemned thee of chemical weapons but your advisers say you are leaving the summit with a number of countries back your military action. others say it's a handful of countries including france, turkey and saudi arabia. did you change any minds here. putin mentioned you meeting with him earlier today. can you tell us how that came about? and did you discuss both syria and edward snowden? >> i believe there will be a statement issued later this evening that indicates. >> of the additional countries that are making public statements. last night we had a good discussion. and i want to give president putin credit that he facilitated i think a full airing of views

on the issue. and here is how i would describe it. without giving the details orhef those who were speaking within the confines of the dinner. it was unanimous that chemical weapons were used -- a unanimous conclusion chemical weapons were used in syria. there was a unanimous view that the norm against using chemical weapons has to be maintained. that these weapons were banned for a reason. and that the international community has to take those norms seriously. i would say that the majority of the room is come fo for -- the m

is comfortable with our conclusion that assad government is responsible for their use. obviously this is disputed by president putin. but if you poll the leaders last night i'm confident you will get a majority who said it is most likely, were pretty confident the assad regime used them. where there is a division has to do with the united nations. there are a number of countries that just as a matter of principle believe that if military action is to be taken it needs to go through the u.n. security council. there are others -- and i put myself in this camp. somebody who is a strong supporter of the united nations, who have much appreciates the courage of the investigators who have gone in and looks forward

to seeing the u.n. report, because i think we should try to get more information, not less in this situation. it is my view and a view that was shared by a number of people in the room that given security council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required and that will not come through security council action. and that's where i think the division comes from. and i respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of u.s. security council resolution. i would greatly prefer working through multi lateral channels and through the united nations

to get this done. but ultimately what i believe in even more deeply because i think that the security of the world and my particular task looking out for the national security of the united states, requires that when there is a breach this brazen of a norm this important, and the international community is paralyzed. and frozen, and doesn't act, then that nor begins to unravel. if that norm unravels, then other norms and prohibitions start unraveling and that makes for a more dangerous world that requires more difficult choices and more difficult responses in the future.

you know, over 1,400 people were gassed. over 400 of them were children. this is not something we fabricated. this is not something that we are looking -- are using as an excuse for military action as i said last night. i was elected to end wars not start them. i spent the last 4 1/2 years doing everything i can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the american people. but what i also know is that there are types where we have to

make hard choices if we are going to stand up information the things we care about. and i believe that this is one of those times. and if we end up using the u.n. security council not as a means of enforcing international norms and international law, but rather as a barrier to acting on pea half of international norms and international law, then i think people rightly will be sceptical about the system. and whether it can work to protect those children. that we saw on those videos. sometimes the further we get from the horrors of that, the easier it is to rationalize not making tough choices. and i understand that. this is not convenient.

this is not something that i think a lot of folks around the world, you know, find an unappetizing set of choices. but the question is, do these norms mean something? if we are not acting, what does that say? if we are just issuing another statement of condemnation, passing resolutions saying it wasn't that terrible -- saying wasn't that terrible. if people who decry international inaction in rwanda and say how terrible it is that these human rights violations that take place around the world, and why aren't we doing something about it, and they always look to the united

states. why isn't the united states doing something about this, the most powerful nation on. why are you allowing these terrible things to happen. then if the international community turns around when we are saying it's time to take some responsibility and says, well, hold on a second. we are not sure. that erodes our ability to maintain the kind of norms that we are looking at. i know that was a lengthy answer and you had a second part to your question. the conversation i had with president putin was on the margins of the plenary session. it was a candid and constructive conversation which characterizes my relationship with him. esk is always trying to look for

body language. the truth of the matter is my interactions with him tend to be very straightforward. we discussed syria. and that was primarily the topic of conversation. mr. snowden did not come up beyond me saying that -- reemphasizing where we have common interests i think it's important for the two of us to work together. and on syria, i said, listen, i don't expect us to agree on this issue of chemical weapons use. although it is possible that after the u.n. inspectors' report it may be more difficult for mr. putin to maintain his current position about the evidence. but what i did say is that we both agree that the underlying conflict can only be resolved

through a political transition as envisioned by the gentlemen e geneva one and two process. even if the u.s. and russia and other countries disagree on this particular issue how to respond to chemical weapons use, it remains important for us to work together to urge all parties in the conflict to try to resolve it. we have 4 million people internally displaced. we have millions of people in turkey, jordan, lebanon, who are desperate. and the situation is only getting worse. that's not in anybody's interest.

it's not in the interest of syrians who have seen their lives shattered. that does speak on the issue that has been raised back home around this issue. you heard some people say, well, you know, we think if you are going to do something, you have got to do something big. maybe this isn't big enough, or maybe it's too late. or other responses like that. what i tried to explain is, we may not have some of the whole problem, but this particular problem of using chemical weapons on children, this one when might have an impact on and that's worth acting on. that's important to us. what i said is that as far as the underlying conflict is concerned. unless the international community is willing to put massive numbers of troops on the

ground and i know no one is signing up for that. we are not going to get a long-term military solution for the country, and that is something that can only come about i think if as different as our perspectives may be, myself, mr. putin, and others, are willing to set aside those differences and put some pressure on the parties on the ground. brianna. >> on the resolution to authorize the use of force, one of the big challenges right now isn't just republicans but from some of your loyal democrats. it sees the more they hear from classified briefings the less likely they are to support you. if the full congress doesn't pass this, will you go ahead with the strike? and also on senator susan

collins, one of the few senators who preaks with her party to give you support says what if we strike and assad uses chemical weapons between, do we strike again? how do you answer her question? >> first of all in terms of the focus and the process in congress. i knew this was going to be a heavy lift. i said that saturday when i said we'll take to it congress. in our polling operations are pretty good. i tend to have a pretty good sense of what current popular opinion is. and for the american people who have been through over a decade of war now with enormous sacrifice in blood and treasure. any hints of further military

entanglements in the middle east will be swriewd suspicion. and that suspicion will be even stronger in any party than in the republican party. since a lot of the people who supported me remember that i opposed the war in iraq. and what's also true is that that experience with the war in iraq colored how people view this situation not just back home in america, but also here in europe and around the world. that's the prism through which a lot of people are analyzing the situation. so i understand the scepticism. i think it' important for to us work through is h through makino every senator and congressman. i dispute that people come out of classified briefings and they are less in favor of it.

i think when they go through the classified briefings they feel confident chemical weapons were used and the assad regime used them. where you will see resistance is people being worried about a slippery slope and how effective a limited action might be. and our response based on my discussions with our military is that we can have a response that is limited, that is proportional. that when i say limited, it's both in time and in scope. but that is meaningful and it degrades assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons. not just this time. but in the future. and serves as a strong deterrent. is it possible that assad doubles down in the face of our action and uses chemical weapons more widely?

i suppose anything is possible. but it wouldn't be wise. i think at that point mobilizing the international community would be easier. not harder. i think it would be pretty hard for the u.n. security council at that point to continue too resist the requirement for action and we would gladly join with an international coalition to make sure that it stops. so, you know, one of the biggest concerns of the american people, certain members of congress may have different concerns, there may be certain members of congress who say we have got to do even more, or claim to have previously criticized me for not hitting assad and now are saying

they are going to vote no. you will have to ask them how they square that circle. but for the american people the concern has to do with understanding that what we are describing here would be limited and proportionate. and designed to address this problem of chemical weapons use and upholding a norm that helps keep all of us safe. that will be the case i try to make not just to congress but to the american people over the coming days. okay? >> -- would you go ahead with a strike? >> i think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate. right now i'm working to get as much support as possible out of congress. but yale repeat something i said

in sweden. when i was asked a similar question. i did not put this before congress just as a political ploy or symbolism. i put it before congress because i could not honestly claim that the threat posed by assad's use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an imminent direct threat to the united states. in that situation i don't worry about congress, we do what we have to do to keep the american people safe. i could not say that it was immediately directly going to have an impact on our allies. again in those situations, i would act right away. this wasn't even a situation like libya where you have got troops rolling toward benghazi,

and you have a concern about time in terms of saving somebody right away. this was an event that happened, my military assured me that we could act today, tomorrow, a month from now. that we could do so proportionately, but meaning any. meaning -- but meaningfully. in that situation it's important to have a serious debate in the united states about these issues. because these are going to be the kinds of national security threats that are most likely to recur over the next five, ten years. there are very few countries who will go at us directly. we have to be vigilant. but our military is unmatched. those countries that are large

and powerful like russia or china, we have the kind of relationship with them where we are not getting in conflicts of that sort. at least you know over the last several decades there has been a recognition that neither country benefits from that kind of great power conflict. so the kind of national security threat we'll confront, they are terror threats, failed states, they are the proliferation of deadly weapons. and in those circumstances, you know, a president is going to have to make a series of decisions about which one of these threats over the long term starts making us less and less safe. and where we can work interesting in alley we should. there are going to be times whereas is true here, the international community is stuck for a whole variety of political

reasons. if that's the case, people will look to the united states and say, what are you going to do about it? and that's not a responsibility we always enjoy. there was a leader of a smaller country who i have spoken to the last several days who said i don't envy you because i'm a small country and nobody expects me to do anything about chemical weapons around the world. i have no capacity to do something. and it's tough because people do look to the united states and the question for the american people is, is that responsibility one we are willing to bear? i believe when you have a limited proportional strike like this. not iraq, not put boots on the ground, not some long drawn out affair. not without any risks but with

manageable risks we should be willing to bear that responsibility. chuck? >> thank you, mr. president. good moaning or good evening. i think it's still good morning back home. >> by tonight it will be tonight when we get back home. >> i want to follow up on brianna's question. it seems these members of congress are simply responding to their constituents. you are seeing these town halls. the more you press your case. the more john kerry presses your case on your behalf the more the opposition grows. the more the opposition becomes vocal. why do you think you struggled with that. we have a report that you asked for an expanded list of targets in syria and one military official told nbc news -- characterized it as mission creep.

can you respond to that? >> that report is inaccurate. i'm not going to comment on operational issues that are sourced by some military official. one thing i have got a clear idea about is what i talked with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff about. and we have something limited and proportional that would degrade mr. assad's capabilities. in terms of opposition, i expected this. this is part -- i was under no illusions when i embarked on this path. but i think it's the right thing to do. i think it's good for our

democracy. we'll be more effective if we are unified going forward. and, you know, part of what we do will be there are politics interjecting. but what i have also said is that the american people have gone through a lot. >> those images of those bodies can sometimes be forgotten frequenty. frankly if we weren't talking about the need for international response right now, this wouldn't be what everybody would

be asking about. there would be some resolutions that were being proffered to the united nations, and the usual hokus-pokus. but the world would have moved on. trying to impart a sense of urgency about this. why we can't have an environment in which off time people start thinking we can get away are chemical weapons use. it's a hard sell but it's something i believe in. and as i explained to brianna in this context, making sure that the american people understand it, i think is important before i take action. john? >> thank you, mr. president.

one of your closest allies in the house said when you have got 97% of your co constituents sayg no it's hard to say yes. why should congress go against the will of your constituents. i haven't heard a direct response to brianna's question. if congress fails to authorize this. will you go forward with an attack on area in. it's a basic question. >> i was going to give you a different answer? i will repeat. i put this before congress for a reason. action. i'm not going to engage in parlor games now, jonathan, about whether or not it is going to pass what i'm talking

substantively to congress about why this is important. and talking to the american people why this is important. now, with respect to congress and how they should respond to constituency concerns, you know, i do consider it part of my job to help make the case and to explain to the american people exactly why think is the right thing to do and it is conceivable at the end of the day don't persuade a majority of the american people that it is right thing to do and then each member of congress will have to decide if i think it is right thing to do for america's national security and the world's national security, then, how do i vote? and you know what, that is what you're supposed to do as a member of congress.

ultimately you listen to your constituents and you have to make some decisions about what you believe is right for america and, that's the same for me as president of the united states. there are a whole bunch of decision that i make are unpopular as you well know but i do so because i think they're the right thing to do and i trust my constituents want me to offer my best judgment. that's why they elected me. that's why they reelected me even after there were some decisions that i made they disagreed with and i would hope members of congress would end up feeling the same way. last point i would make, these kind of interventions, these kind of actions, are always unpopular. because they seem distant and removed. and i want to make sure i'm being clear. i'm not drawing a analogy to

world war ii. other than to say, you know, when london was getting bombed it was profoundly unpopular, both in congress and around the country, to help the british. doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. just means people, you know, are struggling with jobs and bills to pay and, they don't want their sons or daughters put in harm's way. these entertaining gelments far away are -- entertaining gelments dangerous and different. to bring the analogy closer to home. i know, intervention in kosovo, very unpopular. but, ultimately i think, it was the right thing to do and the

international community should be glad that it came together to do it. when people say it is, it is a terrible stain on all of us that hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in rwanda, well imagine if rwanda was going on right now and we asked, should we intervene in rwanda? i think it's fair to say it probably wouldn't poll real well. so, you know, typically when any kind of military action is popular it's because either there's been a very clear direct threat to us, 9/11, or, an administration uses various hooks to suggest that american

interests were directly threatened, like in panama again dade today -- grenada, sometimes those folks are more persuasive than others but they're not typically put before congress and again we went through something pretty tough with respect to iraq. so all of that i guess provides some context why you might expect people to be resistant here. >> your deputy national security advisor said it is not your intention to attack if congress doesn't approve it. is he right? >> i don't think that is exactly what he said but i think i've answered, i've answered the question. major garrett. >> thank you, mr. president. those of us who remember covering your campaign remember you saying militarily when the united states acts it is not just important what it does but how it goes about doing it. even when america sets its course it is important to the engage the international

community and listen to different ideas even as it is pursuing that action. i wonder if you leave here return to washington, seeing skepticism, hearing it here with any different ideas that might delay military action? for example, some in congress suggesting giving the syrian regime 45 days to sign the chemical weapons convention, get rid of its chemical stockpiles, do something that would enhance international sense of accountability for syria but delay military action. are you, mr. president, looking at any of these ideas or are we on a fast track to military action as soon as congress rin ders its judgment one way or the other? >> i'm listening to -- listening to all these ideas and some of them are constructive and i'm listening to ideas in confess and i'm listening to ideas here but i want to repeat here. my goal is to maintain the international norm on banning chemical weapons. i want that enforcement to be

real. i want it to be serious. i want people to understand that gassing innocent people, you know, delivering chemical weapons against children, is not something we do. it is prohibited in active wars between countries. we certainly don't do it against kids. and, we've got to stand up for that principle. if there are tools that we can use to ensure that obviously my preference would be, again, to act internationally in a serious way and to make sure that mr. assad gets the message. i'm not itching for a military action. recall, major, that i have been criticized for the last couple

of years by some of the folks who are now saying they would oppose these strikes, for not striking. and i think that i have a well-deserved reputation for taking very seriously and soberly the idea of military engagement. so we will look at these ideas. so far at least i have not seen ideas presented that, as a practical matter, i think would do the job but, you know, this is a situation where part of the reason i want to foster debate was to make sure that everybody thought about both ramifications of action and -- >> so currently the way to enforce this international norm is militarily and even giving assad regime extra time would not achieve your goals if. >> what i'm saying, major, is that so far what we've seen is a

escalation by the assad regime of chemical weapons use. you will recall several months ago i said we now say with some confidence that at a small level, assad has used chemical weapons. we not only sent warnings to assad, but we demarched, meaning we sent a strong message through countries that have relationships with assad that he should not be doing this. and, rather than hold the line, we ended up with what we saw on august 21st. so this is not as if we haven't tested the proposition that the guy, or at least generals under his charge can show restraint when it comes to this stuff and they have one of the largest

stockpiles in the world. but, i want to emphasize that we continue to consult with our international partners. i'm listening to congress. i'm not just doing the talking and if there are good ideas that are worth pursuing then i'm going to be open to them. i will take, last question, tangi, afp. >> thank you, mr. president. yesterday night you had two unscheduled bilateral meetings with mexican counterparts after they voiced very strong concerns about being allegedly targeted by the nsa. what was your message to them and do the relations constant steam of revelations that started this summer make it harder for you to build confidence with your partners in international foreign such as this one? >> i did meet with president

rousseff as well as president pina and knee the to of mexico and peru, to discuss the allegations about the nsa i. i won't share details of all the conversation but what i said to them is consistent with what i said publicly. the united states has an intelligence agency and, our, intelligence agencies's job is to gather information that's not public sources. if they were available through public sources then they wouldn't be an intelligence agency. in that sense what we do is similar to what countries around the world do with their intelligence services. but what is true is that we are

bigger. we have greater capabilities. you know the difference between our capabilities and other countries, probably tracks the differences in military capabilities between countryies and what i've said is that because technology is changing so rapidly. because these capabilities are growing, it is important for us to step back and review what it is that we're doing because just because we can get information doesn't necessarily always mean that we should. there may be costs and benefits to doing certain things and we've got to weigh those. i think that traditionally what's happened, over decades, is the general assumption was, well, you know, whatever you can get, you just kind of pull in and then you kind of sift

through later and try to figure out what's useful. the nature of technology and the legitimate concerns around privacy and civil liberties means that it is important for us on the front end to say, all right, are we actually going to get useful information here and if not or how useful is it, if it is not that important, should we be more constrained in how we use certain technical capabilities. now, just more specifically than on brazil and mexico. i said that i would look into the allegations. i mean part of the problem here is, we get these through the press and i have to go back and find out what's going on with respect to these particular allegations. i don't subscribe to all these newspapers and, although i think the nsa does, now at least. and then what i assured

president rousseff and predent nieto, they should take, that i take these allegations very seriously. i understand their concerns. i understand the concerns of the mexican and brazilian people. and, that, we will work with their teams to resolve what is a source of tension. now the last thing i'd say about this though is just because there are tensions doesn't mean that it override all the, you know, incredibly wide-ranging interests that we share with so many of these countryies and, you know, there's a reason why i went to brazil.

and there's a reason why i invited president rousseff to come to the united states. brazil is an incredibly important country. it is a, amazing success story in terms of a transition from thor tehranism to democracy. it is one of the most dynamic economies in the world and obviously for the two largest nations in the hemisphere, to have a strong relationship, that can only be good for the people of our two countries and also the region. the same is true for mexico, one of our closest friends, allies and neighbors. so, you know, we will work through this particular issue. it does not detract from the larger concerns that we have and the opportunities that we both want to take advantage of. all right? thank you very much, everybody. thank you, st. petersburg. martha: there you have it. president obama talking about

syria a great deal during this question and answer period. he was pressed on the matter of which countries he was able to bring over to his side on the issue of a strike against syria. he would not detail or name or list any of the countries he has been able to convince to come on board with this mission during his stay there. he also did not answer the question as to whether or not, if congress shoots the whole thing down, whether or not he would go ahead and still go forward with the strike on syria. he was asked that a number of ways and in every case declined to say so but what he did say that the united states's responsibility and the goal of this mission would be to enforce the ban on chemical weapons. and he feels that if that norm were to fall by the wayside, that it would lead to much more dangerous situations down the road. so that's where we are in terms of what the president had to say from the g20. he will head back. we're also learning that he will address the american people on

tuesday night on the issue of syria. there is some speculation on the hill today that that may be a little bit late, given the number of no votes that are surfacing. we're getting some reporting on that you will hear more about later. in the meantime we invite you to stay tuned to fox news channel and this fox station for our continuing coverage of this story. i'm martha maccallum in new york. bill: and i'm bill hemmer. as our coverage continues here on the fox news channel. thank our fox affiliates throughout the country for watching the past 55 minutes of a press conference that was jam-packed with news and headlines frankly. i want to bring in chris wallace, anchor of "fox news sunday." martha just mentioned this, chris. according to ed henry, john boehner's office is suggesting tuesday night will be too late. there might be already 300 republicans and democrats in the house are ready to vote no on this resolution. if that is the case he has a lot of mind to change. what did you just hear out of

st. petersburg, chris? >> well, here's why i think it doesn't matter whether it is sunday, remember, let's be realistic here, sunday night there's a football game. monday night there are two football games. so he is probably better off waiting until tuesday. problem the house is learned they're not going to voteth week. they will vote the week after. if he is going to change minds he will have time to do it. that's the point. look you can agree or disagree with the president but i didn't hear anything in his pitch today than is any different for what he has been saying for several weeks since, what, august 20th or whatever they launched the chemical weapons strike, allegedly, the assad regime against the rebels and killed more than 1400 people. he makes the argument there's a norm. that we have these standards. that they need to be enforced. that rest of the world isn't acting and we need to act. it's a perfectly legitimate argument but the people of america and most other countries in the world haven't been

persuaded by that argument. i didn't hear anything he said today that was any different than what we've heard and i wonder what he can come up with between now and next tuesday which is going to change people's minds. after all, as you say, it is not just that there are a lot of members of congress who are against that but there are voters at home by margins of eight or nine to one are against this. i don't know what i heard that was any different today in terms of idea of limited, tailored strike that will be directed simply to establish the norm. chemical weapons are forbidden but not to change the actual situation on the ground in a civil war. seems to be not enough for some people, too much for others and i don't know how he changes people's mind in this message between now and tuesday. bill: you wonder also in these meetings at the white house and in his own mind what's the calculation if there is no response on behalf of the u.s. or others and assad does this again? maybe it is not 1500 next time,

maybe 10,000. throw out a numbers. he was asked about that. if assad doubles down he said i suppose anything is possible, it would not be wise. he mentions the case of rwanda, in 1990s. bill clinton said that was his biggest regret when he was president. you know they had conversations. president obama must be considering possibility if you do not take action and gets worse next time, the blow back would be incredit ab, chris. >> well, that's right. and i got the impression from what his answer to that was, is it would be a great deal easier. now, look, you know, we said the first time when assad used chemical weapons. it was a red line. he used maybe 100 or so people were killed. now he used it again and 1500 people were killed. we're talking about what happens if he does it a third time but i think his point and i think it is probably true, it would be used, it would be a lot easier to build an international coalition at that point. i will say this.

he absolute sly refused to answer the question would he act if congress said no, reading the tea leaves i thought his answer was no, he would not act. he was saying i didn't do this as a political ploy. i didn't do this as empty exercise. i think this is an important thing for our is nation to discuss whether we're going to respond in this kind of a case when it is international norm. do we respond when it doesn't represent imminent, immediate threat to our country. if he phrases it that way tuesday night and the congress through the country says no i have believe he would. bill: he said he was not elected to start wars, but to stop them. in your sense, chris, talking to all the people up on the hill whether or not this thing will ever come to a vote and pass? >> well, it will only come to a vote if it will pass. i don't think that they would

congress through the speckel having this first through the senate and house and it would go down to defeat. that would be humiliating to the president. at this moment it would absolutely lose, certainly in the house. the question is can the president changes minds of the country and on capitol hill in a week? bill: he has a long way to go. chris wallace, thank you. catch you sunday morning on "fox news sunday." thank you. martha. martha: the president said moments ago that the world expects the united states to act in these kind of situations. we'll talk to ambassador john bolton about that when we come with more live in "america's newsroom"

martha: we are back and we are joined now by ambassador john bolton, who is a former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. and a fox news contributor. he was listening to the president's news conference from

st. petersburg this morning. what was your reaction, mr. ambassador? >> it was hour-long demonstration how unfocused and indecisive barack obama is, better than somebody else's words can describe. there was no strategic focus. if that press conference they hoped to persuade members about congress to use force that opportunity was missed. just focusing on the g20 summit, you know the president i'm sure hoped to come out of that with a political delta to have moved some of the leaders he was with to support both rhetorically and maybe more important operationally an attack against the assad regime. at least based on what the president said, i didn't see any change in attitudes there at all n fact when putin gave his press conference, he said expressly, we're going to continue to provide military assistance to the assad regime. martha: yeah. let's listen to a little piece of what we just heard, get your thoughts on that. >> there are times where we have

to make hard choices if we're going to stand up for the things we care about. i have believe this is one of those times. martha: you know he did seem to suggest, you know, even though there had been some contrary comments coming from the white house today, he seemed to suggest that if congress says no and if the international community says no, the united states has a responsibility to stand up for holding this ban against chemical weapons and if we don't do it the world become as much more dangerous place. >> here is my prediction congress votes no he would not do it. he would require a character transplant to stand up against a congressional vote. on this business, he keeps talking about international norm. you notice he doesn't say international law. if there were ever a president who would like to say it, it would be one. it is a norm because syria never signed on to the chemical weapons convention. what they have done is horrible but not illegal. martha: that is one of the suggesting floated by the a

congressman and presented to the president, idea i have giving syria 45 days to sign the ban and destroy any chemical weapons they have. the president didn't seem to put much credence of that as an option. >> no but his options appear to be dwindling. i can't believe the president will win this vote to vote to use force. the white house candy store would be open if he gets vote. martha: doesn't look like there are votes on the house side. we heard john boehner is not terribly enthusiastic about whipping the vote. he said he is in favor. everybody has to vote their conscience. people are screaming in town halls in certain parts of the country against this and that will make it very tough for these folks to side with the president. >> that is what presidential relationship is all about. to try and persuade people -- look i disagree with the use of force but the president believes that it ought to be done then that's what we're paying him the

big bucks for. he need to persuade people. he needs to go on television. he can not lead from behind. americans expect their president to tell them why we're going to commit military force, why it is in the interests of our country, not, the generalized interests of the rest of the world. why is it in the interests of the united states to put our people on the line? he hasn't done that yet and unless he does then he will be in trouble politically. martha: yeah. well it sound like that is what he will try to do on tuesday night. the question is, is that going to be too late? ambassador bolton, thank you very much. always good to talk to you. >> thank you, mart. bill: just a word on this whether or not he would take action without congressional approval, apparently tony blinken, deputy national security advisor giving interview with npr if congress dipped not give the approval, what bli said that the president does not have the desire nor the intent if congress doesn't back him in that vote. more on that next.

nascar is about excitement. but tracking all the action and hearing everything from our marketing partners, the media and millions of fans on social media can be a challenge. that's why we partnered with hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center. hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights that help nascar win with our fans.

can youlyric can.aid do this? lyric can. lyric can. lyric by phonak is the world's only 24/7, 100% invisible hearing device. it's tiny. but that might be the least revolutionary thing about lyric. lyric can be worn 24/7 for up to four months, without battery changes. call 1-800-411-7040 for a risk-free trial. cookie: there's absolutely no way anyone can see it even if they get right up to my ear. michael: wake up, go to sleep...showering, running, all your activities. lyric can also give you exceptionally clear, natural sound in quiet and noisy environments because of how it works with your ear's own anatomy. can your hearing aid do all this? lyric can. to learn more about lyric's advanced technology, call 1-800-411-7040 or visit trylyric.com for a risk-free 30 day trial offer and free dvd and brochure. get the hearing aid that can. lyric from phonak. lyric can.

bill: okay, more news as we get it obviously. that was, you know, despite the reaction we got from a couple of our guests there, there was a lot said and a lot of work to do. martha: president has a lot to do in the convincing department over the weekend. we'll see you back here on monday. have a good weekend, everybody. jenna: we have brand new stories and breaking news. jon: president obama speaking from the g20 summit just moments ago where he is pushing back against from world leaders to abandon a strike on syria. what is the biggest division from among the group of 20. a woman who has been on death row for more than two decade for killing her young son. she could be boeing home today. why a judge said she deserves a new trial. how a monster tsunami like the one that hit japan could devastate the local economy and the local landscape. it is all "happening now."