neil: all right, more tweets from president trump today but in the latest he congratulates our military men and women for representing the united states in the world so well in this syria attack for which he has gotten worldwide praise on direct hits, 58 of 59 tomahawk missiles hit destnated targetane targets. that's remarkable. russia meanwhile taking a slightly different take on all of this, said the united states went way beyond what it should have been doing in provocative

act and standing in the process ed in washington on more of russian response to all of this. rich. >> good morning, neil, russia has invested in keeping ally in power, president bashar al-assad, condemned the u.s. strike and warned of consequences. a russian warship was heading in the direction where ships launched. meanwhile, russian officials continue criticizing the u.s. strike. they say violated international law. >> of course, i am upset that all of this brings more damage to already strain relations between russia and the united states but i hope the provocations will not lead to irreversible consequences.

>> russia has suspended an agreement with the united states that allowed for the two militaries to communicate to avoid one another in the skies over syria, secretary of state rex tillerson travels to moscow next week where a senior official says he will win with military official syren, ahead of that trip russian officials say u.s. strikes make partnering with the united states less likely. and there's still questions as to the future of syrian president bashar al-assad, secretary tillerson says there's no role for assad in syria. this is a week after he said syrian must decide assad's long-term future, neil. neil: thank you very much. this modern air force technology that we have been seeing in allowing these tomahawk missiles to actually move midstream and in this case go underneath hidden tunnels to get thinker --

their prey must be given enemies pause. when i realized what this technology can do and how far it has advanced in the last years, if i'm sitting in north korea and syria i have to be rethinking my strategy a little bit, right? >> i would definitely agree with that. our nation's military might and power, it goes far beyond the stretches of what our enemies' minds can reach. i do not necessarily agree or disagree with the method of attack, that's our president, our commander in chief and our military has to stand behind that. i just hope and pray that we have an exit plan, exit strategy and not end up something like iraq or afghanistan and be in a war for another 10 to 15 years. neil: sometimes with an awesome reach of power, the idea is, you know, that it will give your enemies pause and think twice. we learned in iraq and other places that sometimes they just continue doing what they're

doing and find other ways around it and other ways to haunt you. how do you think this plays out, sergeant, it's a gut call, i know, but what do you think? >> i think we have to realize the enemy that we are dealing with. we are dealing with an infestation, they're like cockroaches and i believe that you kill one, you kill two, you kill three, more are going to step up and take their spot. there just has to be some type of exit strategy in order to defeat this and if we are going to do this, we have to go all out and we cannot have our hands tide behind our back as we have in the past few years. if we are going to do this, politically or militarily, we just have to have a really solid exit strategy. neil: now we have said that this was a one-and-done deal. we heard nikki haley at the united nations say if you use chemical weapons, i'm paraphrasing, we are going to do

this again. the russians have a ship near mediterranean sea from where the tomahawks were launched. >> if i were the russian president, i would not want to, i guess toe to toe with the united states. they are two super powers that have nuclear capabilities. no one wins a nuclear war. the best we can go about this is politically but if need be and we do have to attack syria over the use of chemical weapons, i think there needs to be some type of an agreement with russia and let them know that we do not stand for that. no woman, child, male for that nature should be tortured or killed brutally like that. that goes for the genocide in south africa, that goes for, you know, the chemical weapons used in syria, we should not stand for that as a nation or a nation of -- of god.

neil: do you worry that this reveal a gaping hole and reliability of the united nations after all the u, in that came up with this plan to rein in syria's chemical weapons some years back and get the understanding from syria that they had in fact, gotten rid of them, russia presumably policing said syria got rid of them and low and behold we discovered that was not the case, that now the united nations acting as a sort of a go-between is suddenly irrelevant now and that it will have less of a role to play going forward. >> i look at it like this, look at the kid in high school who is continuously being picked on and picked on. i'm not going to go to the bully who is picking on me to have my back in future. i either stand up for myself and do what i believe is right, i cannot put my trust in my enemy. the united nations, if they we wanted to step up, the time is

now, we need to stop tiptoeing around the situation, quip call weapons, are there chemical weapons, we know that there are chemical weapons, we need to alleviate that by any means necessary so that way it won't be used again and that's going to come from all sides, all of our allies and amongst all, we will not stand for this. neil: thank you very much. >> thank you. neil: a lot of people miscalculating president trump and what he would do or not do in syria because it didn't look like he would do anything in syria, critical of this in the past just like people miscalculated jfk wouldn't respond aggressively to the cuban missile crisis

guests can earn a how cafree night when theypring book direct on choicehotels.com and stay with us just two times? spring time. badda book. badda boom. or... badda bloom. seriously? book now at choicehotels.com

neil: all right, congress might

be out for the next couple of weeks but the protestors are not. two protests scheduled today nationwide they were scheduled but you're looking at one in louisville, kentucky, outside of senator mcconnell's office and in florida where health care is a right, it's not some sort of a goal and that health care should be protected, obamacare should be protected but depending on the time or gang, they're not getting throngs right now. the rework that republicans have been promising and they're not really coming up with a solution any time soon. let's get the read and it's kimberly, we have jonas max farris and robin byra. i apologize. let me begin with you. should they be worrying or or

does it look right now that health care and a rework might be delayed if not denied? >> oh, i am glad to see that they're going to still try and hit the ball and rework this, obamacare does need improvements and as far as it being a right, i would -- i would assert that it already is a right. anybody can walk to any emergency room right now and they cannot get -- they cannot be refused treatment, however, the cost of that is insane and it's driving up everything for all of us. so a single-payer health care would help all of us and increase the cost or excuse me, the quality of the care and decrease the costs. neil: well, you hope. we don't have single-payer yet and we might be going that direction, costs have gone up inmeasurably, kimberly, i wonder what that means and some con --

conservatives say we work better in our plans? >> i don't know if it should be a right or not. last time i checked the constitution it wasn't in there, that being said, neil ui did reach out to my doctor clients and the response was exactly that. you know, they can't refuse care so the cost is increasing. the private hospitals are -- are taking those costs and passing them onto insurance companies which is passed on to the individual. so maybe what we do is not going global market action overnight to a single payer, maybe we go to a broad-base basic care to accessible to every individual where they participate in the cost a little bit but then also offer to the private payers and the private hospitals that another level of care, a two-tier system, if they want to choose their own doctors and want a different kind of care, they can afford to do so and therefore you're doing the --

basically hitting the three targets that everyone has care, cost of care and it's competitive in the workplace because everybody is participating and you can choose your own doctors for those who can afford to pay for it. neil: all right, we still have a system, jonas, that does cover preexisting conditions and the rap against republican alternative plans where they would sent back to the state would not make guaranty or surround that and that has angered a lot of med rate republicans, i'm sure some of the protestors in florida and elsewhere, what do you think? >> well, the preexisting problem caps to really expand was one of the features that was a bad solution to an existing problem that needed to be addressed and now it's hard to get rid of. the problem is the government essentially forced the solution on to the private health care entry and made them deal basically on economic health care plan. a lot of people are not going to be able to afford conditions,

poor or elderly or have existing conditions that either are their fault or not their fault. the private sector does better job in the economic plan than most people have and the problem it was completely messed up with and then obamacare increased and really they need to separate the more and let the government deal with the uneconomic plans and let the private sector build a more robust private model. this allusion, you know, we keep hearing, we hear it from the first guest that it's cheaper to have the governor in europe, look at the percentage of gdp is so much lower. we have the single-payer model of medicare and medicaid and spends as much as europe's health care. to think we can expand medicare and medicaid to do all health insurance and magically be only as much as the percentage gdp as

japan or germany or france is a complete fantasy because we are already spending that in the government part of the market. neil: they're not even close remotely close on dealing with that. guys, thank you very much. on breaking news, i apologize, more concerns about susan rice and reliability not only on what she said and did about the russians, but now what she said and did, well, about the united nations and relying on them to make sure that syria was behaving it itself, turns out syria wasn't. did she know that? mr. parker, my parents have allstate. they have this claim satisfaction guarantee. really? their claim experience is fast, fair, and hassle-free or they get their, like, money back. saraaah!!! come to prom with me!! no. -hey mr. parker.

claim satisfaction guarantee, only from allstate. it's good to be in good hands.

neil: all right, here is why the united nations seems to become irrelevant.

they got it wrong and saddam -- susan rice got it wrong, in 2013 when this went effect that assad regime has purged stockpile and russians had put stamp of approval to validate that and say, well, they did all of that. they didn't do all of that and the united nations failed seeing that as did susan rice did as recognizing that. molly hemingway. what do you make of it because it takes the trust we had or other administrations had in the u, in that would brocker something that would avoid steeper conflict was wrong? >> it really was a susan rice's problem, they voluntarily removed all of chemical weapons. you had john kerry saying the same thing a couple of years

ago. people in the obama administration acknowledged there was gaps and problems surveilling what the chemical situation was, clapper last february testified in front of congress that there were huge gaps in our ability to understand where their chemical weapons were and what not. susan rice should have known not to say this, trotted out to say things that are helpful to the obama administration that aren't true. most notably right after the benghazi situation where she knew it was not an organic protest in response to a video already immediately the obama administration knew that this was an organized terrorist attack and went to sunday shows to say otherwise and also when obama got in trouble for trading high-value taliban for bob dole and she has a problem with telling the truth. neil: it's a little different, if the bush administration screws up or the president of

chemical of mass destructive weapons basing it on un studies is held to pay, putting your trust in an institution which they get wrong of disappearance of no chemical weapons. >> right. that's an incon an an annual -- promise made in treaties has not worked and we have seen as a result. neil: you can't trust united nations whether you're making a large statement about reliability in general, then it comes back on us, come back on us to do what we did yesterday and maybe do so again and again

and that's not a fun position to be. >> perhaps, i think that the u.s. should always be thinking about what's in its national interest, there's international interest to be made that you make sure that the norm against chemical weapons is enforced. neil: chemical weapons is the dividing line. if you were to kill your people by other means, that's okay. >> assad has been killing people brutally for many years. neil: right, hundreds of thousands. >> does matter again for national interest. there are many humanitarian crises going on all over the world and that does not necessarily mean that it's the u.s.' -- it's in the u.s.' best interest to solve the situation. neil: when i hear nikki haley then say you do this again, presumably, chemical weapons again, we are going to do this again. but what do you make of that, that that's our dividing line? >> i think it's something that definitely makes since ever since world war i we have seen that we want to make sure that

weapons of mass destruction, strong deterrence against that including not just retaliatory strike but something that really makes people understand that any short-term gain that they made by using chemical weapons will be more than obliterated by response. that does not mean that we need to go to war against a country that's using them, though. neil: donald trump was going to be a president who was going to extract the u.s. from the region because we got overinvolved just like george bush concerned about nationing building, barack obama wanted to extract ourselves from the iraq conflict. each all dragged back in but we really can't get out of this, can we? >> there's different ways to look at it. it's certainly true that the u.s. is going to be involved in a global sense and no way to step back and have things work out fine. at the same time i think that much of the support that donald trump had and received was as a

result of his willingness to go against standard foreign policy that you see on left and right that doesn't seem to have a clear strategy for victory or knowing why you want to accomplish victory when you get involved in different hot spots and we have on both sides of the aisle seen the failures of not having clear national interest and getting involved with countries that are having an understanding of what it will take to win and making the case to the american people. it takes a lot to win a war and takes a lot of men and money and resilience and it needs to be a case that's made to the american people approved by congress and if you're not going to have that, you're going to have the lengthy situations where we are involved and we don't ups what victory would look like. i do understand that donald trump is right to have picked up in the sense in the american people that we are sick of fighting wars that we have no intention of winning much less winning quickly and that he would be right to stick to that understanding that served him well throughout the republican primary but also the general election. neil: yeah.

you know, paint a line red or otherwise, you to hold and stick to that. >> thank you. neil: we are hearing about a potential shake-up within the trump administration. they are denying such talk, but you see these three gentlemen, they don't get along. that we know. and we do know that the president is intervened at least to say, you guys solve this or i will or i will part to make clear. but i'm telling you, if they don't, he will

..

heather: the president earlier this morning, a few miles away from mara lago where he entertains half the japanese diplomatic community. the president has been tweeting from the golf course. i don't know what the problem

would be, he is entitled to that. having said that did you hear the joke about rines and jarrett in an outboard bar. did you hear that? kind of true. the three power players in the trump administration gathering at mara lago trying to bury the hatchet and settle their differences between one or all or kicked out of the white house. i don't know what came of that but they had one chris fisher has the latest, what are you hearing? >> reporter: all of this is happening is donald trump continues to stand by his decision to strike syria. he believes it was a good one and he talked about it on twitter. he said congratulations to our great military men and women for representing the united states and the world so well in this