this is a fox news alert, any minute this is a fox news alert. any minute now, senator rand paul will give his response to president obama's address. we will give it to you as soon as it happens. right now, karl rove joins us. your reaction to the speech by the president. >> the things i like about it. he gave a precise explanation about our security interests and a violation of international norms. he confirmed that people have slippery slope and better or worse if we do this.

will there be retaliation or chemical warfare. it was an odd speech he asked congress to postpone a vote if held in the next day or 10 days he'd lose in the house of representatives overwhelmingly. in order to pursue a proposal by the russians, which i think is unlikely to work, but if it does work, it is going to give russia a boost in the region at the expense of the united states. and you know, the tone was just -- i mean, it is like he is the only president who cares about peace. he is the only president who cares about avoiding war. and he gratuitously, and maybe i'm a little sensitive, having served in the administration. taking a shot at his predecessor had -- let me quote it specifically -- that his

predecessor had sidelined the people's representatives from critical decisions on whether we use should use use of force. as i remember, in 2002 and 2001, the only president that has not gone to congress in the last decade for use of force was president obama himself when he took action in libya, didn't go to the united states congress and get affirmative approval of action in the war. but this is not going to move the ball. at the end of the day, he starts way behind. i support what he is doing personally, but i don't think he really advanced the cause much. >> i don't think it moves the ball, but what i think it does is put us in endless limbo, because i think it allows the president out of the box, that he somehow boxed himself into. now he can put this on capitol hill. that was a trigger that required him to act. now we'll have endless

discussion on capitol hill, and endless diplomacy with putin and assad. meanwhile, we'll get distract the with continuous resolutions. i think this sends this one off into space. >> i think it does send it off into space and the question whether it orbits and comes back. i think you're right on the point about endless negotiations and discussions with putin. and we got a taste of that today. putin says yes, we propose the international community take control of these weapons. today, he says well, there has to be an agreement by the united states in advance to foreswear the use of military force. this is the kind of endless negotiations we're also leaving out one other member of the security council, which is china. and there is no guarantee we'll have china as an active, constructive participant in this process either. >> just crossing the wires is this, that there is a french draft of a u.n. security council resolution that would give syria 15 days to

make a complete declaration of entire chemical arms program. so a report, but doesn't say they're going to do anything, except report. >> well, and look, does it take 15 days to run an inventory of what they have got and share it? no. it is one thing to declare it. the other, then we have to verify that their declaration is accurate. maybe they said out of a thousand tons of poison gas that we have gotten, chemical weapons, oh, well, we gave ten tons of it to hezbollah for safekeeping. this is going to be an exhaustive process to confirm that whatever initial declaration they have is accurate. and then we'll have to have an agreement on how the weapons get secured. how the facilities get mothballed and how the facili facilities get monitor ed and how the weapons get guarded. i sort of like how the french say 15 days to get a declaration, i'd like to say 24 hours and 48 hours to get a declaration, but it is a

sign of how long and complicated this could be. >> but i look at it, how is my opponent going to think? what is he thinking? if i was president assad tonight listening to this speech, what would you be thinking? >> i say look, it is a smart move, and putin may be right. my view is putin or russians are saying to the syrians, look, you don't need these weapons to stay in power. they've had a deterrent until now. now you have gotten yourself in trouble with the international community. you don't need them. so why don't we get involved in a process where we talk about giving them up. you deny you have them. keep denying you have them, we'll start this discussion about putting them under international control. in the meantime, we're happy to sell you whatever weapons you need in order to stay in power, which are ak-47s, bullets, mortar shells, grenades, all that stuff to put all of your prisoners in. we're happy to sell you all of that stuff. if i'm assad, i would say look,

the russians are right, we can buy some time and the president's right, we can buy time. he can't get approval out of congress. he is doing it out of weakness. >> so senator john mccain, and senator lindsey graham, the way they think about this. looking at this, this is a huge defeat for the rebels because under that scenario the -- assad is empowered. he doesn't have to worry about us knocking down air force and cruise missiles and us knocking down his buildings with cruise missiles. so the ones that senator lindsey graham and senator john mccain are getting us to help, they're out of luck. >> well, they're not out of luck in a material sense, because we have the saudis, the gulf states and others providing material support. have the saudis and others -- >> let me give you more time to think about that. let's go the rand paul who is now speaking his response. >> gassing his own citizens and killing christians, islamic

rebels, some argue that american credibility is on the line. that because assad used chemical weapons, americans must act or lose credibility. i would react that america's credibility doesn't reside in one man. if others need to know if america will defend themselves, let them look no farther than our response to 9/11. when attacked we responded with military force and with the military objective with complete victory over our attackers. the reagan doctrine out of the immedia middle east, reagan's defense secretary spelled out a systemic approach. first, the american people must be supportive. overwhelmingly supportive. but most importantly, our mission must be to win. there is no clearly defined mission in syria. no clearly defined american interest. in fact, the obama administration has specifically stated that no military solution exists. they have said that the war will be unbelievably small and limited. to me, that sounds like they are pre-announcing that the military strikes will not punish assad

personally or effect regime change. it is said that america must act to prevent assad from using chemical weapons again. but it is unknown whether attacking assad encourages him or discourages him. it is equally likely that assad could feel cornered and resort to chemical weapons in an expanded fashion. it is equally likely that the bombing could destabilize assad and he could lose control of chemical weapons. the barack obama administration indicated that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure the weapons and that they're prepared to do just that, despite the resolution's admonition against ground troops. the question must be asked would a u.s. bombing campaign make it more or less likely that assad loses control of the chemical weapons. the same question can be asked of a series of bad outcomes. would a u.s. bombing campaign make it more or less likely that

assad attacks israel with chemical weapons? would a bombing campaign make it more or less likely that refugees stream into jordan? just the threat of bombing has increased the flow of refugees. would a bombing campaign in syria make the region more or less stable? would it make it more or less likely that iran or russia becomes more involved? just about any bad outcome you can imagine is made more likely by u.s. involvement in the syrian civil war. in the past 24 hours, russia has offered to broker a deal with syria to have their chemical weapons put under international control. diplomacy, if sincere, would be a welcome resolution. the syrian foreign minister has indicated an interest in the proposal. can we trust the participants in this plan? diplomacy is always a mix of trust, distrust and watchfulness. we should not be naive and we

should have a solid plan and safeguards in place as much as any proposition. as reagan would put it, we must trust but verify. some would say only the threat of force brought russia and syria to the negotiating table, in fact, russia has been negotiating with the u.s. for over a year to find a resolution to the syrian civil car. the possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing, but we must proceed with caution on the details. but one thing's for certain, the chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign. if we had simply gone to war last week or the week before as many evacuated, we wouldn't be looking at a possible solution today. the voices of those in congress and the many overwhelming number of americans who stood up and

sa said, slow down, allowed this possible solution to take shape. will diplomacy win the day? no one can tell for certain. but on a broader issue, it is an important day, though, in the sense that a president recognized his constitutional duty and came to seek congressional authority for the war. if the vote occurs, i will vote no. and encourage my colleagues to vote no, as well. the president has not made a compelling case that american interests are at risk in syria. the threshold for war should be a significant one. the president maintained that he still has the power to initiate war. this is untrue. the constitution gave the power to declare war to congress. james madison wrote "that the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most prone to war, therefore, the constitution with studied care vested the power to declare war in the legislature." this is no small question. i see the vote on whether to go to war in very personal terms. i will not vote to send my son, your son, or anyone's daughter

to war unless a compelling american interest is present. i'm not convinced that we have a compelling interest in the syrian civil war. may god help us in making the wise decision here and avoid an unnecessary war. >> karl, of course, that was senator rand paul. i'm just curious if you know, i suspected if he elected to make that response. he was not chosen by his party or the leadership to do that, was that correct? >> that is correct. >> and we electeded to tape the speech. >> right. >> your thoughts about what he said? >> there are some points i agree with. he said it is better to go to war with the support of the popular vote, the support of the public, the congress. and we have the mission in the aftermath of 9/11 was to win. we were not embarrassed about saying the word "victory." there are some things that i have something of a disagreement

with. he said american credibility does not reside in one man. there is some accuracy in that. but when the president of the united states speaks the credibility of america is, rightly or wrongly put on the line. and when the president said a year ago, assad needs to go. and a year ago he said the use of chemical weapons would be a red line. and like it or not, our credibility is on the line. >> i've heard so much about the credibili credibility on the line. and there were similar speeches, republicans said that during jimmy carter. and suddenly nobody is talking about credibility -- >> another president has to restore that credibility. >> but it is not fatal forever. not the end of the world. it is not good but it's not -- >> even then, look, we have three and a half years left on this president's term. and if the united states credibility suffers, if people begin to doubt our resolve, then we'll be tested more.

but again, my point is just simply to say i am not certain i agree with him that -- the president occupies a special role in speaking on behalf of america, whether we like it or not. you know, the senator -- senator paul made a couple of comments about how it was -- a likely outcome would be if we attacked it was equally likely that there had been expanded use of chemical weapons. or that he would lose control of the weapons. he called them equally likely outcomes. i don't think that is accurate. if we degrade his capacity, attack the units, degrade the infrastructure, i don't think it is likely to have assad take these weapons and use more of them because he knows it will bring another similar response. similarly, he made a point of saying assad would attack israel, the israelis are not afraid. they have said clearly on the record we can take care of ourselves.

they understand clearly what assad and the use of chemical weapons means to them. and he said the likely outlook would be if we attacked would be the increase of russian and iranian influence in the region. i would make the argument if we don't resolve this, if assad is still in power in two years or three years, then russian influence in the region and iranian influence in the region is going to naturally increase. he is their client, at stake. the actions they take, if he's not punished, makes it look like he has the protection of powerful allies in the form of russia and iran. and you know, this is binary. either -- if assad remains in power, then iran, russia, hezbollah, and syria gain influence and they would get it at the expense of us and our allies in the region. >> and although the president has nod said he is seeking a regime change, he said the exact opposite, if there is a regime change we don't know what we're getting on the other end.

i counted at least 26 different rebel groups, and i don't know whose king. we don't know what we're getting on the other end. >> that is correct, but we do know this. civil war grew out of opposition to the government that was mostly secular and western in orientation. we also know syria is a country with a broad middle class. islamists, just because of the nature with the syrians the allies, the sunnis, the christians, is a less islamist society than in the region. but you touch on an interesting point i want to go back to. there was a tension in the president's speech. the united states military doesn't do pinpricks. the united states will give a response they will remember. this is a point he made more robustly today when he met with republican senators. basically, look, we say limited. but the power of the military is such that it will have a tremendous effect on assad's war-making capacity. but he didn't say that publicly

tonight. in fact, he backed away in the next paragraph. we learned from iraq that doing so makes us responsible for a dictator and a targeted strike can make assad or any other dictator think twice about using chemical weapons. he said on one hand, we don't use pinpricks, we do really big things and in the next paragraph, he said, this will make him think twice before using chemical weapons again. there is a tension there, as he talks to congress. >> karl, thank you, as always. >> you bet. straight ahead, lawmakers at o odds, saying no to syria strikes, and congressman adam kissinger says yes. did president obama just change their minds? plus, lieutenant colonel oliver north prepared to go on the record. we want to know what you think. just use #greatta. you might see your post on the record. >> the united states military doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send

a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. his current pace, bob will retire when he's 153, which would be fine if bob were a vampire. but he's not. ♪ he's an architect with two kids and a mortgage. luckily, he found someone who gave him a fresh perspective on his portfolio. and with some planning and effort, hopefully bob can retire at a more appropriate age. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] ultra rugged phones from sprint. buy one, get four free, and $150 credit when you swih your business line to sprint. the pioneers in push-to-talk. trouble hearing on the phone? visit sprintcaptel.com

so, i'm working on a cistern intake valve, and the guy hands me a locknut wrench. no way! i'm like, what is this, a drainpipe slipknot? wherever your business takes you, you can save money with progressive commercial auto. [ sighs ] [ flo speaking japanese ] [ shouting in japanese ] we work wherever you work. now, that's progressive. call or click today.

. just days ago, republican senator john barrasso saying that the administration had failed to present a strategy. nice to see you, sir. >> thank you. >> sir, has it changed your mind on the issue of whether or not we have a strategy? >> i still don't think we have a compelling case to go to war. the president visited with both the senate democrats as well as the republicans today. he gave a speech to the country. and i don't think he has changed the minds of the american people, and i don't believe he has changed the minds of the members of congress. i voted against the resolution in the foreign relations committee. and if the vote were tonight, i would also vote against it. i think if the vote were in the senate it would fail, in the

house, heythey'd be lucky to ge 100 votes. >> so how did his speech tonight compare to what he said to you on capitol hill tonight or today? >> we met with him about an hour and 15 minutes, he was more forthcoming, about issues of whether or not you bring other countries in. i don't think he changed the minds of the senate. the majority of us were opposed to action. we have concerns what does this look like a week from now, tomorrow, a year from now, tomorrow is the anniversary of 9/11. not just one year ago, benghazi, 12 years ago in new york and washington. national security is on everyone's mind. and people still are not convinced this is in the best interest of the american people in terms of a threat to national security. >> did he take questions? >> he speak for about five minutes, he took questions for over an hour. >> what were the toughest questions that were faced today? >> it seemed to me, the

question, what does it look like a year from now? or what is actually your best case scenario for syria if assad different groups and factions coming together in some way, it was disjointed. >> and the answer was what? >> that the current situation in iraq, the numbers of different groups coming together, because there are so many different factions within syria right now. i don't think there is a good solution out there. but certainly relying on russia is not the right solution. >> senator john mccain seems convinced, and he has been over there a number of times. i pay a lot of attention to people who have been there and talked to people on the ground, he believes that arming the rebels is a good idea. and that the rebels, it is a defined group of rebels that are good for us to arm and stand behind. do you get the sense the president thinks there is that group? >> well, they used the phrase,

"vetted rebels." there are different groups, i don't think it is clear who the good guys or bad guys are. i think that's the way americans see it. that is what i hear from all over and around the state. >> what are the conversations with president putin? >> the president indicated these have been going on for a while. continuing the discussion at the g-20 summit. but you have to realize that president putin came up through the kgb and ran the kgb. russia, i believe the re-set has failed with russia. you look at their own record with chemical weapons. >> isn't russia's only base in the middle east in syria? they don't want us to hit that one, they want to make sure that syria is protected for them? >> well, they have been selling weapons to syria. the russians have not done a good job of disposing

their own chemical weapons, so to raise them to that level. greta, there are a thousand tons of chemical weapons that we know of in syria. to dispose of them will take decades. this is not an easy effort even if you have everybody cooperating. >> senator, thank you. >> thank you. coming up, congressman support i supporting president obama but he couldn't get a call back. he is here next. also, do you want to go on the record? now is your chance, just use hash tag greta, and you may see your tweet or post right here live on the air coming up. s... s... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend?

no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪ at&t mobile share for business. [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪

visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

from a bit of a white house snub to a white house invitation adam kinzinger offered to help. they ignored it at first, so

what has changed? you have now heard back from the white house. >> i heard back quickly. we made the point, a week ago, i said i'm supportive of the strikes, willing to talk to our party about it. didn't hear anything back, about a half hour ago i got a comment from the white house, and yesterday a comment from the chief of staff. >> why didn't they respond back? >> well, you hear this from republican and democrats, the congressional bridges have been burned for a long time between the president and republicans. he never built bridges, whether it was with the health care bill, and now, they say they need congressional support for it, they're trying to play catch up in a week and you can't do that. hopefully, in the future, now the administration has learned you have to have congress as

part of congress. >> well, with the president calling them, and them saying i'll help you out with syria, like having a plant in the enemy camp and then just ignoring them, they get a little embarrassed. >> you would think, too, plus, i've been pretted -- pretty outspoken about this, in my belief to hold the assad regime accountable for the chemical weapons. you would think as much as i have been out on the issue, that they would know to call. but you know what? we learned something about them. >> and holding them accountable, usually means a sense of punishment associated with it. if this goes smoothly, let's say, smoothly, and that there is diplomacy, they get to the point where we have control of his chemical weapons, he has no more, has he been held accountable because you still are missing the punishment element. he is still in control. still in power. but now we have his chemical weapons so he can't do it again. >> i think it would be great -- a great outcome. >> would you hold him accountable? >> yeah, i think so he loses the chemical weapons. >> you got a one-time deal. >> and then we took them away

from him. it is better than using military action, but we're relying on the notoriously unreliable russians who have vetoed every action in the united nations against assad. i think the president has been rolled on this issue. we have an obligation to push forward on this. we have landmarks out there, time lines out there, saying in a week we expect this and this and this to be done. if it is done, you get another week. at the point we think it is a stall tactic, assad needs to be held accountable with air strikes. >> i would prefer diplomacy over military action, i was only asking your opinion. i was not suggesting i thought diplomacy was a bad idea. >> i understand. >> that trumps military action. what are the odds that this is going to happen? >> you mean, with the russian? >> right. >> i think probably less than a quarter. i hope it works, i really do. but i think less than a quarter. >> then what? do you expect the president will come back to congress? frankly, it seems we're in the

discussion stage, with the endless washington discussions. >> feels like iraq weapons inspector again. in fact, this is just an opportunity for the president to let this go away. i think even if russia -- >> what do we do -- if this goes away, we've taken neither a military strike, nor have we been successful through diplomacy with russia. this goes away, well, we haven't held him accountable in any fashion. and then we go back to the credibility of the united states. >> exactly, that is why i think he should have been held accountable a few weeks ago. i think this thing goes away. and we don't hear about it. and this is the president's out. he made the case in the first half of his speech that he should have made to the american people two weeks ago from the oval office to bring the american people in on this. instead, he left for a week -- i understand he went to the g-20.

but he should have made this speech a week ago at least, but the russians frankly don't have the american interests at heart. >> congressman, thank you. and a great number of americans, did the speech booth his support from his own party? democratic strategist joe trippi joins us. >> boy, how did the president who ran against the war suddenly become the war president? is it something like, how you stand is where you sit? >> partially. well, a part of that, he made the case saying he had been fighting four and a half years to end wars, not start one, was much more interested in not having one, but was more interested in doing diplomacy. i don't see how the speech helped him with the left in the democratic party and a lot of anti-war votes in congress to move to his side. there was not going to be a vote now as you pointed out. i don't think he really moved anybody with that.

>> if there is going to be no vote. and there is no date for vote. no timeline, does this sort of become an endless discussion? >> no, look, i think part of the problem here is what is russia -- what is putin doing? what putin wants -- putin wants assad to stay in power. that is in his interest. so sooner or later this is all -- not going to work anyway. he will try to do -- assad stays in power, we'll take the weapons but you leave assad alone. i don't see how the president can do that. >> our president can do that? >> yeah. the first -- this is where it gets at odds. the first thing he said two years ago was assad has to go. now, the deal would have to be, i would think, assad stays. we'll get him to give us -- give the weapons over internationally. put them under international control. you leave him be. now -- and so part of the other

thing i think that is going on here, there is so many audiences a modern president has to speak to today. he has to make assad believe i'm really coming. so you think about giving those weapons to the international inspectors. at the same time, have congress think it is not going to be that big a deal. that is why you see these two sort of -- the straddle in his speeches and what the administration is saying. i think he has got to try to do both. that is what he has been doing for two years now. >> well, he predicted assad is about to fall, assad is about to fall. that has been going on for two years. he hasn't fallen. and i am curious if the united states wants assad to fall, based on the fact we don't know what else is out there. and we have the mubarak example, and even the gadhafi example, and you can sometimes back them into a corner. i'm curious. and we've made no effort to get rid of assad. >> and that is because there has been growing al-qaeda and other terrorist groups moving in, to destabilize assad.

and there is no way of knowing who gets control of the weapons when he falls. and that is part of this, because the international community at some point, if he falls, and they're following -- those weapons are falling into terrorist hands, then you do have to do what happened in iraq and have 150,000 troops on the ground to get those weapons and make sure they don't end up somewhere. i'm not advocating that. i'm just saying this is where -- to be having to carry this -- both diplomacy and the big stick both at the same time, and with -- what is interesting to me is that the dictators, they don't have to worry about public opinion. >> no, they don't. >> but in a democracy, a leader has to worry about his war weary nation. and how you maneuver -- >> plus he also pretty much said he needs authority from congress, although he said he

doesn't need authority from congress. he has a little bit said that. >> but those members are warded by the war weary voters, too. so the dictators can do what they want, when the world is weary of this stuff. and i think it is a very tough place for a president to be. >> joe, thank you. >> thank you. coming up, a military strike on syria now considered a backup plan. but is that good news for our military or not? lieutenant colonel oliver north is here to talk about next. now is your chance to tell us what you think about president obama's plans for syria. just use #gre#greta and you may see your post right here live on the record coming up. we don't dismiss any threats. but the assad regime doesn't have the ability to seriously threaten our military. we need a new recipe. hmmm. let us consult the scroll of infinite deliciousness. ♪ oh! perfect. [ wisest kid ] campbell's has the recipes kids love.

like easy chicken and cheese enchiladas. so good! can i keep this? you already have it at campbellskitchen.com. nice. [ blows ] [ gong ] m'm! m'm! good! [ blows ] could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. mmmhmmm...everybody knows that. well, did you know that old macdonald was a really bad speller? your word is...cow. cow. cow. c...o...w... ...e...i...e...i...o. [buzzer] dangnabbit. geico. fifteen minutes could save you...well, you know.

my dna...s me. every piece is important... this part... makes my eyes blue... i might have an increased risk of heart disease... gallstones... hemochromatosis... i'll look into that. the more you know about your dna, the more you know about yourself... now i know. know more about your health. go to 23andme.com and order your dna kit for only 99 dollars today. learn hundreds of things about your health at 23andme.com

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.

keeping military pressure on syria while giving the chance for diplomacy to work. is that a good plan? lieutenant colonel oliver north

joins us. >> you have to separate them, and then burn them at very high temperatures to avoid dispersing bad things in the atmosphere, that is how we destroyed our own. >> is that a big process, a big procedure? >> well, it requires, one, a lot of security, and, two various types of security that does not exist in syria, and somebody else does not provide it. and that gets you back to where he said he needs to go. i don't see how that happens. putin's initiative was aimed at one thing, maintaining the naval base. that means they have to keep assad in power. so what putin did with all of that so-called diplomatic foray was give obama a way out. it avoids the necessity of getting a vote. and i compare that speech given tonight to the one that was

given on the night of the 27th of october, 1993, when robert griffin iii ronald reagan addressed the nation regarding the operation in grenada. the difference is stark. what obama showed the world tonight, is that we have a weak, i guess the kids are in bed and i can say it, flaccid, low-t impotent foreign policy for this country, and that is a disaster. >> it seemed like there was a very chilly reception between president obama and putin. for quite some time, it's been very chilly. now in the most peculiar twist, now, it is sort of, we outsourced this to broker a deal so that he can keep assad. we never even sought to keep assad. congress was in play and now they're not in play. >> putin has his own re-set

button and what obama did tonight was give putin credibility he does not deserve. look, putin heads a dying country. there is a million fewer russians than a year ago. and next year, fewer more, he has credibility in a part of the world where we ought to be the most credible nation. and what obama has done with this -- they ought to take the resolute desk out of the oval office, because this man doesn't deserve to sit behind it, given what happened today. i know there are a lot of people looking for nice things to say about him. i found that speech tonight to be indicative of a president who doesn't know strategy, whose mission, he doesn't know strategy and needs to go. >> i think we are in a thorny situation for a lot of reasons, including, we don't know what happens if assad goes, who do we get? there are so many moving pieces in this. but i'm curious, what would you have done? >> well, i wouldn't have made the comment he made a year ago. about a red line. >> in light of where we are, what would you do?

>> but i disagree with that. i don't think you can ignore what led up to this. had he a years ago, made the comment, gone to brussels with nato, and the europeans -- >> but he didn't do this. we can go back and look and say it was dumb, smart, whatever it was. here we are today, we have a real problem. how do you get us out of the problem? >> at this point, i'm not sure how you get out of the problem. as i said, putin has credibility he doesn't deserve. the iranians -- the only people that are better off with this are hezbollah, the iranians, the russians to an extent. and tomorrow morning, syrians are still going to be dying by the thousands. because even though he doesn't use chemical weapons again, the advantage has all gone to assad. the rebellion we theoretically were supporting, at least rhetorically, they no longer have a chance over there. what we have to be looking at is a congress that was more than likely going to vote no on the use of force. i mean, all of the things that

have taken place for over two years, when you consider where all of this started is not good for american foreign policy and worst of all, it distracts us from things like benghazi, the irs, all those investigations, like nsa spying. and now, tomorrow, we have the anniversary on what happened on 9/11/01. >> thank you. >> always good to be with you. and more, president obama from the rose garden asking congress to vote, and then asking them not to vote. what is congress thinking? [ male announcer ] if you had a dollar for every dollar

car insurance companies say they'll save you by switching, you'd have, like, a ton of dollars. but how are they saving you those dollars? a lot of companies might answer "um" or "no comment." then there's esurance. born online, raised by technology and majors in efficiency. so whatever they save, you save. hassle, time, paperwork,

hair-tearing out, and, yes, especially dollars. esurance. insurance for the modern world. now backed by allstate. click or call.

>> just days ago, it looked like a military strike was imminent and then russia stepped in with a diplomatic solution. the president addressed the united states tonight and did he change the minds of the people? we've gone from international strikes to international peace process from mistrusting russia to letting russia lead from not needing congress to asking congress to vote to asking that they not vote. >> you need a scorecard to keep up with what's going on right now. the scorecard is part of the

story. the reason the president has engaged on this russian gambit and decided to use putin and the possibility of this other third way is he's going to lose the vote. the canceled the vote and asked it be delay. it would be a stunning rebuke to the white house. they couldn't afford that and found an unlikely ally and now president obama needs putin to save him from his own congress. >> tell me what happens. are we in an endless discussion because there are no timelines. what's next? >> weeks or months. it goes to the syrians, russians, americans, secretary kerry meeting with his russian counter part thursday and heard him say he will talk to president putin about this. it will be quite some time. the congress is in some way a relief about this. >> there was the president's impassioned speech two weeks

ago, the 1400 people killed and children foaming at the mouth. what happened to sending assad a message or degrading or something? >> the sense of urgency has gone and no doubt people feel that passion. the urgency of response has gone. that moment has passed. if you were going to strike on that moment, this attack happened three weeks ago, the president said 10 days ago you need to do something about it. with every passing day you lose the argument. the president realizes he loses this argument at home. >> what happens? >> it goes to the international body and probably falls apart and we start over again. we start from scratch. the biggest thing we can do is he tries to make the case. no question he didn't make the

case. >> what do you think about israel? >> i think they have to stay out of it. >> what do you think they think? >> they've been through so many different processes, and seen assad go around and around and syria say we'll happily give up our chemical wepapons if russia gives up their nuclear weapons. >> assad wins, he gets more weapons from russia and he takes on the rebels and he's emboldened. >> the chance of this working is everyone wins, major powers able to walk away. putin can say he outstarted obama. >> there won't be a u.n. deal? >> i think it's unlikely, the history of these things is unlikely and we'll be back here in a couple weeks. >> thanks. "abc news," rick klein. should we go to war or not?

everyone is tweeting. see what your fellow viewers on the record have to say. next. um... where's mrs. davis?

she took an early spring break thanks to her double miles from the capital one venture card. now what was mrs. davis teaching? spelling. that's not a subject, right? i mean, spell check. that's a program. algebra. okay. persons a and b are flying to the bahamas. how fast will they get there? don't you need distance, rate and... no, all it takes is double miles. [ all ] whoa. yeah. [ male announcer ] get away fast with unlimited double miles from the capital one venture card. you're the world's best teacher. this is so unexpected. what's in your wallet? ♪ [ male announcer ] 1.21 gigawatts. today, that's easy. ge is revolutioning power. supercharging turbines with advanced hardware and innovative software. using data predictively to help power entire cities. so the turbines of today... will power us all... into the future.

♪

into the future. small business owners are using tools like email and social media marketing from constant contact to grow their business. they're getting customers coming back. fans following their business online. and new customers through the door. see how constant contact's products and people can help you grow your business.

start your free trial at constantcontact.com. okay, everyone it's time to hash it out. tonight our viewers are going on the record. here are your responses after hearing president obama's response speech and the responses to the speech. viewer goes on the record here and chris tweets i agree and however there needs to be a sense of urgency. chelsea writes postponing the vote is another ploy to help obama gets whatever he wants. greg tweets obama just laid out a case for military action but wants diplomacy. isn't that backwards? and united states needs to show power syria and iran. ron tweets utter failure seems

to strike all over the place. and glenn writes president didn't explain no boots on the ground. maybe israel? boots then? you can hash it out with us each night. thank you for being with us tonight a special live edition of "the five" is next that is great! we'll see you again tomorrow for "on the record." good night from washington. washington. , greg gutfeld... >> and this is not a joke,.. you're awake and this is "the five". >> right. >> greg this ruined my career i'm happy to be with you tonight we have a special edition of "the five". the speech lasted only about 15 minutes the commander in chief made a case for why it's in america's interest to act in seara. here is what he said assad regime did. >> images from this