>> to interrupt programming. >> for the many contributions you make to our national security discourse including on the challenge that brings us together today. in response to bush are assad barbaric use of chemical weapons against the syrian people, president obama after careful consideration has decided that it is in the national security interest of the united states to conduct limited military strikes

against the syrian regime. president obama has asked congress for its support in this action because in a democracy, our policies are stronger, more effective, and more sustainable when they have the soup port of the american people -- the support of the american people. tomorrow evening, the president will address the nation and make his case for taking action. today tom i want to take this opportunity to explain why serious use of chemical weapons is a serious threat to our national security. and why it is in our national interest to undertake limited military action to deter future use. there is no denying what happened on august 21.

around 2:30 a.m., while most of damascus was still asleep, assad's forces loaded warheads with deadly chemicals onto rockets and launched them into suburbs controlled or contested by opposition forces. they unleashed hellish chaos and terror on a massive scale. innocent civilians were jolted awake, choking on poison. some never woke up at all. in the end, more than 1400 were dead. were hundred of them were children -- 400 of them were children. in recent days we have been shocked from the videos here in damascus. as a parent, i cannot look at those pictures. those little children laying on the ground, their eyes glassy,

their bodies twitching. and not inc. of my own two children. i can only imagine the agony of those parents in damascus. sarin is odorless. and colorless. victims may not even know they have been exposed until it is too late. sarin targets the body's central nervous system making every breath he struggled and causing foaming at the nose and mouth, intense nausea, and uncontrollable convulsions. the data of any innocent -- death of an innocent is a tragedy. rather by bullet or landmine or poisonous gas. but chemical weapons are

different. they are wholly indiscriminate. it shifts and spread without warning. the masses of people are immense. the torturous death they bring is unconscionable. chemical weapons like other weapons of mass destruction kill on a scope and scale that an entirely different from conventional weapons. opening the door to their use anywhere threatens u.s., united states tom and our personnel everywhere. there is no doubt about who is responsible for this attack. the syrian regime possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world. açai has been struggling to clear in these neighborhoods in

damascus and drive out the opposition. his conventional arsenal is not working well enough or fast enough. only the syrian regime has the capacity to deliver chemical weapons on a scale to cause the devastation we saw in damascus. the opposition does not. the rockets were fired from territory trolled by the regime and the rockets landed in territories controlled or contested by the opposition. and in the intelligence we gathered reveals senior officials planning the attack and then afterwards plotting to cover up the evidence by destroying the area that is showing. of course, this is not the first time that assad has used chemical weapons in this

conflict. we assessed he has used them on a small scale multiple times since march. but august 21 was very different. whereas previous attacks each killed relatively few people thomas this one murdered well over 1000 in one fell swoop. assad is lowering his threshold for use while increasing exponentially the lethality of his attacks. aside -- assad's escalating use threatens the national security of the united states and the likelihood that left unchecked, assad will continue to use these weapons again and again takes the syrian conflict to an entirely different level. by terrorizing civilians, creating even greater refugee

flows, and raising the risk that deadly chemicals would spill across borders into neighboring turkey, jordan, lebanon, and iraq. odyssey the use of chemical weapons also directly threatens our closely allies in the region -- israel where people once again have readied gas masks. every time chemical weapons are moved, a loaded, a use on the battlefield, it raises the likelihood they will fall into the hands of terrorists active in syria. including assad's hezbollah and al qaeda affiliates. that prospect puts americans at risk of chemical attacks targeted at our soldiers and diplomats in the region and even potentially our citizens at home.

equally every attack serves to unravel the long-established commitment of nations to renounce chemical weapons use. 189 countries representing 98% of the world's population are part of the chemical weapons convention which prohibits the development, acquisition tom or use of these weapons. the state senate approved that convention by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. finding american to the global consensus and affirming we do not tolerate the use of -- use of or possession of chemical weapons. the regime's attack is not only i direct affront to that norm, but also a threat to global security including the security of the unted states.

failing to respond to this outrage also written some our national security. billing to respond means more and more syrians will die from assad's stockpiles. it means our allies and partners in the region's tempting targets of assad's featured attacks. -- future attacks. the increases of violence as citizens across the middle east and africa continue to struggle for the universal rights. failing to respond brings us closer to the day when terrorists can use weapons against americans abroad and at home. failing to respond damages the international principle reflected into multilateral treaties and basically human

decency that such weapons must never again be used anywhere and the world. failing to respond to the use of chemical weapons risks opening the door to other weapons of mass destruction and emboldening the madman who would use them. we cannot allow terrorists bent on destruction or a nuclear north korea or an aspiring nuclear iran to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our determination to back up our long-standing warnings. if we began to erode the moral outrage of gassing children in their bed, we open ourselves to even more fearsome cousin quizzes. -- consequences.

failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate that the united states is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure. any president, republican or democrat, must have recourse to all elements of american power to design and implement our national security policy. whether diplomatic, economic, or military. rejecting the limited military action -- >> that'll susan rice highlighting the u.s. position on syria. that syria hands over its chemical weapons to international control to avoid u.s. strikes. what the americans reaction would be and do not much has changed.

>> chris, i got the impression that susan rice was trying to get the u.s. government back on -- after john kerry went off today. and seemed to downplay the possibility of military action, saying any case an attack on syria would be incredibly small and saying assad had one week to offer airstrikes. no mention of any of those things from susan rice. she made a very -- use a moral and emotional argument to stop chemical weapons attacks and moving on to a real political argument. saint every time chemical weapons are deployed they pose the risk of somehow ending up in the hands of anti-u.s. forces such as hezbollah or al qaeda affiliates. she did not explain how u.s. airstrikes would stop those

chemical weapons from falling into the hands of groups that are hostile to the u.s. nor was there any mention so far and the press conference of the changing diplomacy today. that is to say the syrians have effectively signed on to the proposal to put their chemical weapons in to international supervision. secondly thomas the u.n. secretary-general backing the proposal in a press conference at the united nations just a couple hours ago. the diplomatic game has changed considerably whereas susan rice is really going back to the old message that seemed to existed before the secretary's statement that we heard earlier today. we have these different messages. one from john kerry. the second much more aggressive

from susan rice now. the question is, what will obama's message and be in all of this once he goes before the u.s. media? >> thank you very much. what hand you over to françois picard for the debate on syria. >> many thanks for that. chris moore in the newsroom. could be a breakthrough? the russian prime minister saying damascus hand is chemical weapons over? the syrians said they are ready to accept. hot on the hills of the last sitdown between barack obama and vladimir putin in the g 20 summit. obama has since engaged in a full media blitz this monday. scheduled for six television interviews to convince a skeptical u.s. congress and even more skeptical public opinion to sign him to eventual intervention in syria.

what is all media blitz, the syrian president speaks of consequences for america. will be checking in with our correspondent in damascus. is it a big political break room or a smokescreen to derail obama's efforts? with us is former communications director for bill clinton, author in french -- i wrote it down here. how do you translate it? storm of the atlantic -- the iraq war. also former advisor to netanyahu, meyer habib. he purposes the french abroad. thank you for being with us. thank you to the french senate foreign affairs, joelle garriaud maylam. thank you for being with us. from the university of oklahoma,

joshua landis. thank you for being with us again. you can join the conversation on facebook and on twitter. if you have not been watching the last few hours tom a there have been developments. the idea to bring in the act and -- international community to stockpile syria's weapons. here is what the secretary of state had to say in london. >> sure if he could turn over every bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week, turn it over. all of it. without delay and allow a full and total accounting for that tomorrow but he is not about to do anything that cannot be done. >> about to do as said john kerry. then the russian foreign minister in the company of his

syrian counterpart picking up the mantle. >> if establishing international control over chemical weapons in syria would allow the possibility of avoiding strikes, then we would immediately start working with damascus. and the pillow to the syrian administration, not only to put chemical weapons under international control but also further those weapons destruction. and to join the organization of the nonproliferation of chemical weapons. >> a hand over of those weapons, the signing on of the stop palling -- stockpiling and also the international community and the signing on of two chemical weapons none proliferation treaties. joshua landis, let me put it to

you bluntly. breakthrough? joshua landis? we seem to have a technical issue with the university of oklahoma -- joshua landis, can you hear us now? nope i'm a will try to sort it out. what is your hunch? >> is something what the french call a -- or have a breakthrough. it is too early to tell. we are not in the road with them. we do not know what is really on the table. maybe it is three -- the accurate or for real. we'll have to see what happens. and what the diplomats from all sides say to each other. >> meyer habib, what is your hunch? >> i am afraid is a smokescreen. if somebody can be sure --

[indiscernible] who can guarantee that? who can believe assad? that is the point. to destroy or take away all of the chemical weapons would be a good thing. nobody wants war. after what assad did, it is a tough question. >> we have to avoid at any cost military intervention in syria oh stop -- in syria. i would like to explain my position will stop -- position. i do believe it could be hopefully a breakthrough and we have to move on it. i do not believe the reaction of some.

uncertain and hesitating about what is next. we have to take this open hand. in the same ways russia would be ready and to negotiate. we cannot say no. but we have got to insist and we have to find a diplomatic solution. this crisis has come for too long. it is not a new question of chemical with the. too many people have been killed on both sides. a lot of questions and look at what happened. >> north of damascus tom a will pick up on that. you are saying we should be taking this offer seriously. have we managed to reestablish a connection with oklahoma? can you hear us?

joshua, is this a smokescreen or a possible breakthrough? >> i am sure they will want to explore it. they would not want to get thrown off track. kerry has a tight schedule and so does obama. there will be a speech on tuesday in front of the congress and then a vote. the president does not want this to drag on. it is very unpopular in the united states, this action. he will have a hard time getting people in congress to vote yes. the longer he drags it out, the more the public is going to punish these congressmen for voting yes. >> can you stop the clock on the action that is going on, leah pisar? >> it has started and all because congress is back in session all stop -- in session. >> i want us to listen oh stop

-- listen. let's listen to what he had to say. this is how syria is responding. rushing to accept moscow's offer. >> the syrian arab republic welcomes the russian initiative for the sake of our citizens lives. and our country's security and because we trust in the russian powers wisdom which wants to stop the american aggression against our country. >> a bit bizarre, isn't it? >> i would be trying to buy it too if i was in his position. let's face it, the syrian regime has a huge credibility problem. as my neighbor would say, are

they really going to put everything on the table or is this a big game of bluff? we'll find out but in the meantime, no, you cannot stop the clock. quad -- >> trying to buy time. >> it is going to get heavier because as i said i'm a congress is back in session and this is the week for the full-court press and for a scheduled vote. yes, it will keep on getting heavier. >> keeps on getting heavier, joshua landis, what are the specifics on this? we know this idea has been floated of having the international community take over the stockpile of weapons, is it doable? >> this quite a blunder by secretary kerry who made this offer not realizing what he is doing. his spokeswoman came out immediately and said this is only a rhetorical expression

admittedly the russians nabbed it and so it does. it offers a way for assad to drag it out because this will get into a whole discussion about 10 americans -- and to the whole discussion about 10 americans -- e take months. -- it could take months. >> for you this is a blunder. there were those 20-30 minutes where obama put him last friday on the sidelines of the g 20 summit. this is not something orchestrated, it is a blunder? >> i think is a blunder by the u.s. secretary department. it is possible that the whole world is going to want to see what happened.

congressmen are going to baby uses as a delay tactic not to vote yes. a bunch of ramifications out of this and clearly is a complication. kerry and obama will want to keep the focus on the next few days both in congress and get it done. they will want to separate it from possible negotiating position that could come down the line and they will push ahead and get this vote. the president needs to know where he stands. >> before we ask if you can get the vote, let's go to damascus. lucy fielder is in the syrian capital. we heard a moment ago the reaction to the foreign minister in moscow. any reaction where you are? >> the main reaction has been -- [indiscernible]

watching this whole debate with concern. i have been hearing from government sources that the response was being planned. it is the message we have been hearing from officials over the last few weeks. they have seized on the chance to de-escalate to drum is out -- draw things out. back to iraq when inspectors were a crucial partner, month to month of that buildup. that is what syrian leadership is hoping will happen. and how very unpopular that war was. also any strikes, that is something the syrian leadership wants to emphasize.

completely understood there could be a response not a strike against syria directly using its allies, i ran -- iran said they would not stand idly by. some way or another. >> thank you for that update from damascus. we'll continue to get more updates. we have not had a formal reaction from the white house. does this change in any way the way that you think the french should be receiving? >> it is an more out position. can we when people kill his own children or women? from that point, the president

-- take a moral position. nobody wants war. when we speak about the chemical weapons, i feel they have to destroy it. destroy to take away. it would be a good ink. -- thing. after a stock -- assad passed all of the red lines, which kind of example is one of the most opportune points for the free world. iran is looking at what happened today. no reaction can be terrific. the message could be ok. and nuclear weapons --

[indiscernible] you can protect but you cannot protect yourself against chemical weapons. >> let me ask you, are we in effect, you were saying this to be an opportunity to explore a political solution. if the raising the white flag too soon? >> not at all. it has gone on too long. it is already two years. >> a position of strength is again hit the pause button. >> i am not sure about it. i want to find peace. but you know, everybody is against assad. everybody wants peace. the military intervention is not the solution.

it will be a strategic mistake for the united states or france. syria is not mali, the situation is different. of communities, we had a discussion. all of the people, the french people living in this country's said no, we cannot. i hear what he is saying. but i can tell you, all of the people saying it is far too dangerous. the implications are huge. it is not a question of syria, it is all over. let us remember what happened in iraq. note to an intervention in iraq. i have been in syria. i have been in --

>> are you there? >> assad has tremendous respect. he has been ensuring a certain stability in the country and the region. >> that is the example that is brought off dan brought up. but very different pieces. in iraq, america was using for weapons of mass destruction. it turned out they were not there and they were bluffing and pretending they had in them. here not only are their chemical weapons but they have been used and have been used against his own people. this is a crime and this is something susan rice said -- we cannot, we must send a very strong message to them and to all of the proliferators that we will not stand for this. i just want to add one more thing.

this is not about going into an open ended war in syria. barack obama is the last person who wants to throw himself into a third world war -- third war in a decade. he and the people around him has stated this very clearly is to encourage mr. assad to come to the negotiating table so they can then negotiate. >> whether it brings him to the negotiating table is a matter will pick up when we come back. >> welcome back.

this the french debate. a sample of the stories we'll be following at the top of the story. our eyes squared on the situation in syria. the day that congress opens its session and deliberations on whether to approve an intervention by the u.s. and syria. an offer from moscow to book chemical weapons under international supervision. the foreign minister making that offer. his syrian counterpart gladly accepting. we will continue to follow the actions including the first reactions from the white house at the top of the hour. welcome back. we are wondering whether or not there has been a breakthrough or a smokescreen with that offer of putting syria's chemical weapons under international supervision and offer floating in moscow and gladly accepted by the syrians

themselves. with us to talk about it is the former medications director to president clinton. meyer habib and joelle garriaud maylam who is in the french senate and joshua landis. and leah pisar. joshua landis, universe of oklahoma and his blog is also back with us. we can go to moscow and to our correspondent joshua. joshua, did sergey's announcement of putting the chemical weapons under international supervision catch people by surprise? >> absolutely. the syrian counterpart held a

press conference this afternoon, late this morning actually where he reiterated the position that we have heard several times before about the need to find a diplomatic or political resolution without really offering specifics of how that might work or what the mechanism would be. warning against the danger of the u.s. led military strike, denying the syrian regime had anything to do with the chemical attack on august 21 and so on. the familiar talking points we have had. later this afternoon, with little warning, journalists were invited to the foreign ministry for a briefing. it was at that press conference where he puts forward this idea that he just laid out for the chemical arsenal of syria to be put under control. certainly politicians and officials in washington were

caught by surprise. >> hang on for a moment. joshua landis was saying how he feels it was a blunder on the part of kerry. do you feel like the second press conference was held in response? >> it is quite possible. not exactly offhanded comments by kerry but not quite an official expression of actual government policy. as a way we do not know yet, the strikingly inserting themselves into this conflict or if russia would in essence it's calling the u.s. bluff trying to make the u.s. look bad in terms of international opinion if they were to reject the offer. it may be more diplomatic and pr maneuvering really been an attempt to resolve the conflict. and the way that seems to be one

of the benefits that moscow has sought to get out of there in the syrian crisis from the beginning. to be seen as a player and have a seat at the table and not necessarily do something. >> many thanks for that update. meyer habib, last thursday and friday at the g 20 summit in vladimir putin's home of st. petersburg, the idea this was the russians last laugh for what happened in libya. to say certain degree, dashed to a certain degrees, the russians upstaged obama. >> i do not know if they of station. russia was not looking in the weeks before because the dialogue was very difficult. there was the edward snowden situation, the gay rights. mr. putin and his advisers made a concerted effort to try and

save his g 20 from disaster. >> he sure seemed to be smiling when he said there was a majority of the g 20 members present were against intervention. >> this is putin is doing his own politics. each side is doing their politics. you'll notice up until now, the coalition supporting the u.s. seems to be growing. again, we have to see what happens in the next few days will stop we are just the beginning. but we will tell but the media blitz is going on in the u.s. in more detail. there is a media blitz coming out of damascus. the syrian president, his full interview with cbs will air later. >> with confidence and present it with conviction, it is not about confidence but evidence stop -- evidence. the russians -- [indiscernible]

that reminds me about what kerry said about the big line. he said this is our evidence. he gave a false evidence. in this case, he did not present any evidence. they did not present anything. not yet. nothing so far. not a single shred of evidence. >> the syrian president, bashar al-assad brings us to our media watch segment. james on how are you? >> were looking at -- we will look at the interview. there are six interviews coming later that barack obama is going to go -- going to give to television networks.

communications battle between assad and obama and the west. the french paper that interviewed assad broke it down into two axes. two strategies when he communicates with the west. one is scaremongering and we saw that and in the -- in the interview with charlie rose. he said you can expect anything as syria could come from any source. scary rhetoric. a second strategy making reference that americans would understand, al qaeda. if the u.s. or france goes in, it will help al qaeda rebels. and they have struck you as in the past. making the connections for the american audience will relate to stop thirdly, the consistency of the message and that brings me to the point he gave in an interview to a newspaper just last week. prepare the g 20 summit, today he is speaking to u.s.

television or cbs in the last 24 hours as obama is per parent to speak to congress. >> sending a message to the american people. but the message is show me the proof. he is saying there is no evidence. again today, he said john kerry is giving conviction not evidence. it is certainly a consistent strategy and as we were saying earlier, the fact that journalists are being let in, it is a pro-western meeting friendly strategy that bashar al-assad is using. the media also swaying in that direction especially the point you were making about who would be there in case. >> indeed. another element of this communication strategy which is interesting. this might be more direct and

the domestic audience -- social media. he starred and instagram account in july -- started and instagram account in july. lots of pictures of his wife. showing the new york times was saying if you look at social media, you would never guess anything is happening in the country. some pictures on the assad youtube account. this was put out earlier in august showed a rather strong and engaged bashar al-assad not looking in any way worried. >> joshua landis, have you been surprised about the media strategy employed by the syrian president? >> he is doing the best he can to ease some doubts and try to deter the united states, warning

they can suck in the united states to a larger battle. they can hurt america in the region in a number ways. we have seen america respond. withdrawing nonessential people from lebanon and warning people in turkey. it is putting up his car because it knows of his strikes, syria has ways of striking back. they have done so in the past. the rhetoric is being turned up and we realize it is not an easy sell. i live in a state for example, oklahoma which this is very odd popular move. just the other day somebody said to me this is a very heavy pushing. 750 people called his office three days ago and did not want to this to go through. on the nine votes. only nine people said they one americans to strike.

clearly responding to this sense there is a weakness in the united states. obama has been the major voice saying he does not want america to go at it alone again and he does not want to be george bush. he explained every one of those strengths that he can to look like, dissuade americans. but let's pick up -- >> let's pick up on public opinion. thank you. you have more on the bus happening -- buzz happening around the media buzz. public opinion in the u.s. unequaled goal and we can show -- an equivocal and we can show you the latest figures from the senate. still a lot of the fence. in the house, it is even heavier.

this is the latest numbers from public opinion will stop 36% in favor. democrats more in favor of intervention that republicans. you heard joshua landis who is living and republican oklahoma where people are against it. this is going backwards compared to the past in a way. >> you are trying to compare two things that are not comparable. we have a real moral question here and let's face it, some republicans who are doing some politicking. they would probably like to take some good digs at the president. there is one thing i would like to say a cuss it is interesting you make a parallel the for the syrian regime and the american administration communication. it is much easier to communicate in a dictatorship that in a democracy. what we have an america and as americans we are thankful for this, is debate on stop this is

how the founding fathers designed the system. -- is a debate. this is how the founding fathers designed the system. we'll have a debate. president obama decided to take this to congress to have a debate. it will be discussed on the merits. from assad, it is easier to go on tv and look good and make vast sweeping unilateral comments. let's not confuse these two things -- very different. but the debate taking place in the senate. the latest headcount. a lot sitting on the fence. 27-23. the survey done by the washington post in the house and even heavier lift to turn the tide. the house controlled by republicans. it crosses party lines with some

republicans alike the leadership in favor of military intervention. you are feeling lonely right now. a lot of people sitting on the fence. in france, we are seeing it on the set here at this moment. you are both from the opposition a you do not agree about the intervention. let me start with you meyer habib, when you look at the tone the american debate is taking and you see the tone of the to pay -- debate in france is at the same or a different conversation? >> a different conversation. it is not directly speaking. people do not want war. i think back to take a morale at the position. -- morality position. can we remain silent, yes or no? what is the solution?

president obama put red lines. maybe he should not put that. he used not conventional weapons. they are looking to us. looking to war. that is a real problem. we cannot forget what happened. >> you see the media blitz of obama speaking to six different television networks will stop -- networks. the french president is not planning a media blitz because there is no vote taking place will stop -- taking place. >> if the president he cites, -- and besides -- >> do you think is right not to put into a vote? >> i would like a vote but he is not obliged to do it. this is on the president here.

it is a very tough debate, a very tough debate. i personally arrived to the president on wednesday in support and say sometimes you have to say this is not popular. it is more unpopular. on that point, i support the position of france. if somebody can find a solution to avoid war and to put off, put away all of the chemical weapons it would be a good thing. i am very skeptic. >> french policy is consistent because the same tone is being employed by the current administration as with the previous conservatives. why give the intervention? >> i am still against intervention because i have been

there so many times and have spoken to so many people. i am quite aware. first of all, i would like for it to be a real debate in parliament and do not where you have -- for each party. this is not what i call it real debate. and we do not have a vote. i admire obama for making this decision to go for a vote. we need to discuss and be able to put forward that basically -- you know, i cannot stand this idea. 100,000 people have been killed for two years. because of chemical weapons him a you have to intervene will stop -- weapons, you have to intervene. [indiscernible]

not having the same dimension. the moral responsibility is not war. i am sure that if we go into a war, a military intervention in syria there will be more people killed in the conflict will spread to other countries in the region. many people feel the same and we have to avoid at all costs. jihadists, when we went to libya, i supported this are cozzi and now i regret it -- resident sarkozy and now i regret it. it would be far worse. indonesia, i was there. >> let me put the question to joshua landis. this issue of which will embolden jihadists more to go in

or not to go in? one that president assad picked up in the interview with u.s. television. does it matter either way? >> of course, it matters. this is the dilemma for president obama that he wants to deter the use of chemical weapons but he does not want to change the battlefield in syria. he is in many ways, the u.s. is more frightened of the syrian rebels getting in control of the chemical weapons than assad having them. he does not want assad to use them but he does know what the government to follow so the rebels can get their hands on it. a significant portion of troubles are al qaeda affiliated. you cannot deter them because you would not know where to strike. this is a dilemma for the u.s., and how hard to hit to deter the

use of these weapons without changing a battlefield in syria? >> by the way, i want to say the white house deputy national security advisor has just said that in the white house going to be taking a hard look at russia's offer to pressure syria to secure chemical weapons stockpiles that the u.s. would welcome the move by syria to give up chemical weapons. if did look like a blunder to you, josh was? , they are going to respond and they have to. it is an offer to end this without a military strike to solve the problem. -- >> they are going to respond and they have to. first obama has to get this vote to proceed according to plan and congress. he needs the boat behind him and he can tinker with how to respond -- he needs the vote

behind him and he can tinker with how to respond. >> to think obama launched that media blitz to reverse the public opinion squarely against intervention. obama also trying to bolster people abroad sending some his advisers to the sunday morning shows. soma went the ex mile going abroad. -- some went the extra mile going abroad. [indiscernible] >> it would've been political suicide for john kerry to be seen speaking french when he was running -- running for president in 2004. he was doing his bit. your thoughts on him speaking french? >> i have spoken french with him

and i knew he could. when he was running for president, the republicans attacked him as said he looked french and at the time that hurts him. we have now what we lacked during the bush administration. doing an excellent job. a real american diplomacy. he is reaching out to allies and to france and there's a good bilateral working relationship. i say bravo. >> delighted that he speaks french. a very good move. if more americans could speak french they would be more delighted. to come back to the very difficult issue, one more reason why we have got to accept his offer, this russian offer. it is far too important. >> accept the russian offer but does that may suspend the vote in congress?

>> we should not be slaves to deadlines. very important instance at the moment. there is a chance. we have to grab the chance of maybe finding a solution. a military intervention, this is an easy option contrary to what many people think. we have all the weapons it would destroy a lot of buildings and do a lot of damage. that is extremely easy. we can do it. what is much more difficult is to achieve peace and lasting peace and for that, we need a diplomatic solution. this offer is extremely important. obama should say yes, let's do it and let's move forward. demand better and bigger moves from syrians. >> we have a tweaked -- tweet

who says the next 48 hours will be crucial. secretary of state john kerry has to speak on the telephone with his russian counterpart. it is way you anyway -- does is way you in any way? >> [indiscernible] to keep always -- an opening. not to be naïve. assad is playing with more. there should be consequences of the fact he used weapons against his own people. and we can force him to withdraw all the chemical weapons, it would always be a good thing. is it possible to do that?

if it takes months or years, it is a joke. it is quite complicated. >> there should be consequences. should there be immediate consequences for bashar al-assad and if so, what? >> the international community and the united states does have a real interest in trying to limit the proliferation of chemical weapons and that is a worthy cause and he can be done. assad is very conscious of the bounds of power in syria and he does not want to do anything that would jeopardize his struggle with his rubbles. the united states can uncover something by pushing through this and it is willing to give up his chemical weapons, so much the better. getting this vote will be key to the u.s. having leverage and obama's ability to use that stec -- stick. >> we can see if he can do it.

thank you joshua landis, leah pisar, meyer habib, joelle garriaud maylam. thank you for being on the debate.