>> hello and welcome. i am france want to god. was it right to hit the pause button? washington and paris weighing their options. the vote in congress suspended. diplomacy with russia now top of the agenda. where does it all lead the west standing in syria and beyond? how will it impact the presidency of barack obama and francois hollande? obama hits the pause button.

we will also be looking at reactions in the media with james creedon. the hour begins in the newsroom. >> hello to you. the headlines in russia submits that this disarmament plan -- this is barack obama about to give diplomacy a chance, but there is suspicion on both sides. members respond to moscow's move. a year to the day after the attack in benghazi that killed the u.s. ambassador. america, the victim of the 9/11 attacks in washington and new york, memorials at the white house. russia has given the united states its plan for placing syria's chemical weapons under international control. survey lab rob is set to meet u.s. secretary of state john kerry on wednesday.

a slew of diplomatic wrangling now in the cards of the un security council. damascus is playing for time, and western powers want to toughen the resolution. they are facing opposition from russia. russia wants the threat of force taken out of the equation. >> a moscow maneuver that postpones the threat of the u.s. military strike in syria. it was russia that proposed that the syrian government put its chemical weapons under international control. damascus agreed, even saying it would sign a treaty to prevent any future use. that gave president obama some diplomatic breathing room. >> it is too early to tell whether this offer will succeed. any agreement must verify that the assad regime keeps its commitments. but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force. particularly because russia is one of assad's strongest allies. >> president obama wants the un

security council resolution forcing assad to give up his chemical weapons and ultimately destroy them. for this, he is relying on russia that wants any question of u.s. military intervention to be shelved. >> all of this will only work if we hear that the american side and all those that support them will choose not to use force. it is difficult to force any country, be that syria or any other state, to engage in unilateral disarmament if military action is on the horizon. >> that is in contrast with the draft resolution announced by france on tuesday which allows for military action if damascus doesn't keep its promises within 15 days. it also blames the assad regime for the chemical attack on the 21st of august, a charge rejected by the syrian president and moscow.

another stumbling block, france 's insistence that this your kitty counsel referred the two and a half year conflict in syria to the international criminal court. convincing russia and china to a stronger resolution may be difficult. u.s. secretary of state john kerry will begin the process on thursday when he meets russia's foreign minister. >> u.n. envoys from the five permanent security council and members are set to meet in wednesday in new york. several hundred people are attending a funeral in damascus which were seized by al qaeda- linked fighters over the weekend. for more on the ongoing fighting , i spoke to our correspondent who is in the syrian capital. >> we tried to go there today. we went to a town very close.

we were unfortunately able to go very further, even though we had someone from the in dash from the ministry of information with us. reporting restrictions -- from the ministry of information with us. reporting restrictions are tough in syria. many are feeling under threat from the rebels in the mountains above. they describe to us how they had formed a village militia. we are hearing this a lot from the minority communities. they said most of the men in the village had individual weapons. they set up all night at the moment waiting for an attack or expecting an attack. they said they fear that they are going to be next. it was very much a state of fear. many of the women and children appear to have left the village. it was mainly men there that we met. very angry, very afraid, and very much in a state of readiness.

as i say, these popular committees, these national defense leagues, have been set up across syria. they gave us some sort of insight into how they are working. >> elsewhere in libya, a powerful car bomb has exploded near the foreign ministry building in central benghazi. the eastern city has seen rising violence. this blast coming year to the day after the attack which killed the u.s. ambassador. this report from our custom -- from our correspondent in bed -- in benghazi. >> a powerful blast leaving surrounding buildings in tatters. the car bomb exploded in the eastern city of benghazi, damaging the libyan foreign ministry and several other office openings -- office buildings. >> unfortunately, there is no security in benghazi. only thin security. insecurity is a punishment for the city.

the whole city is being punished. >> frankly, when you see these scenes of desolation, it hurts. we want to move forward, not backwards. >> the explosion comes exactly one year after al qaeda-linked militants stormed the u.s. embassy building in benghazi, killing u.s. ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. libya's second-largest city has been hit by a string of deadly attacks in recent months, targeting security force offices and members of the judiciary, many of whose servant -- many of whom served in gaddafi's regime. much of the recent violence has been attributed to radical islamists who are deeply rooted in the region. >> it is wednesday, it marked the 40th annivsary of the end of pinnochet's rule in chile.

protesters threw rocks and petrol bombs during clashes with police today. united states president barack obama has been observing the 12th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon. it started with a moment of silence at the white house and a visit to the pentagon memorial. >> the nation pauses to remember 9/11. on the white house south lawn, wis obrve a mome of silence. ♪ later, a ceremony at the pentagon memorial conveyed a message of hope. >> you who have made -- who may have seen many troubles and calamities will remind me again, from the depths of the earth, you will bring me up again. you will increase my greatness,

and you will comfort me again. may god bless the memory of those that we lost. may he comfort you and your families. may god bless these united states of america. >> in new york on ground zero, a bell rang at 8:46 a.m., the moment when the first hijacked plane crashed into the north tower of the world trade center. the names of nearly 3000 people who died in the attacks were then recited by relatives. >> my father, an amazing father, jose munez castillo. >> 12 years later, the brand-new skyscraper one world trade center is near completion. standing at a symbolic 1770 six feet, it is now the tallest building in the western hemisphere -- 1776 feet, is now

the tallest building in the western hemisphere. one world trade center is only a part of the 16 acre world financial complex that will include several other towers. beneath the placid, the september 11 museum will preserve artifacts of the day. it is expected to open next year. >> that is it from the newsroom for now. time for me to turn you over to france lock -- francois picault. >> the clock has been stopped on capitol hill, as washington gives a chance to russia's initiative on syria. >> i have therefore asked the leaders of congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. >> those members of congress breathing a sigh of relief for now, they do not have to pick their druthers before a war weary electorate. here in paris, where the

president wednesday convened an intercontinental meeting on syria, the focus is now on selling moscow's plan at the u.n. it is also about taking stock after two weeks where both the counterpart expose themselves to backlash from public opinion. have barack and francois hollande save face? -- saved face? what does the soul-searching of the past two weeks in london, paris, and washington do for the west standing -- west's standing on national security crises? today, obama hits the pause button. with us to talk about it is a syrian photournalist ruth -- photojournalist. welcome. also with us, an attorney and potical scientist, author books. thank u for being with us.

and columnist and editor at atlantico.fr. your next book is going to be on? >> john kennedy. >> that will be published in french. >> it is in french so far. >> you can join the conversati on facebook and on twitter. our hashtag is #f24debate. we learned that russia is giving washington its plans for placing syria's chemical arsenal under international control. foreign ministers will talk in thursday -- talk thursday in geneva. >> in moscow maneuver that has postponed the threat of a u.s. military strike in syria. it was russia that proposed the syrian government put its chemical weapons under international control. damascus agreed, even saying it would sign a treaty to prevent

any future use. that gave president some diplomatic breathing room. >> my fellow americans, it is too early to tell whether this offer will succeed. any agreement must verify that the assad regime keeps its commitments. but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force. particularly because russia is one of assad toss strongest allies. >> president obama wants a un security council resolution forcing assad to give up his chemical weapons and ultimately destroy them. for this, he's relying on russia which wants any question of u.s. military intervention to be shelved. >> wilonly work if we fear that the american side and all those who support them will choose not to use force. it is difficult to force any country, be that syria or any other state, to engage in unilateral disarmament if

military action is on the horizon. >> that is in sharp contrast with the draft resolution announced by france on tuesday, which allows for military action if damascus doesn't keep its promises within 15 days. it also blames the assad regime for the chemical attack on the 21st of august, a charge rejected by the syrian president and moscow. another stumbling block, france 's insistence at the security council that they were for the two and a half your conflict in syria to the international criminal court. convincing russia and china to agree to a stronger resolution may be difficult. u.s. secretary of state john kerry will begin the process on thursday and he needs russians foreign minister. -- when he meets russians foreign minister. >> let me get your reaction. you heard president obama say there is hope with the talks beginning with the russians, a potential to remove the chemical weapons without the use of

force. do you agree? >> i agree. it looks like very good solution. on the other hand, the problem is not the chemical weapons. the problem is the assad policy. the problem is ignoring the revolution, the popular movement for now 30 months. the problem is showing with airplanes, -- shelling with airplanes, scud missiles. we are talking about a very tiny aspect of the problem, chemical weapons. ok, tomorrow, all the chemical weapons can be given,, handed out by the assad regime, but what about the rest? >> the sequence of events, the way it has unfolded -- the french president has had to go against the grain of public opinion in his country, just rarely against any intervention. the fact that there is a delay, is this good news, or does it make it even harder if ever down the line the decision is made to

strike? >> france and president hollande have always made it very clear that we would favor a diplomatic solution backed by the international community. i think the news has to be welcomed. but it shows that the threat of a military intervention, in my opinion, was successful, and that it reopened some room for discussion and negotiation. france already said that the draft resolution that was put forward yesterday could possibly be amended, depending on the conclusions of the discussions with russia, in particular. in my view, this is positive. one may think that it is not enough, that it doesn't solve the civil war. in a way, it is not the purpose of the whole diplomatic process.

the legal base for military intervention is the violation of international law and a violation of international treaties -- prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. >> listening to what you are saying, this is more than hitting the pause button. this is the end of a chance of the u.s. and france striking? >> i don't see it that way. that is not how president hollande expresses it. what he says is that france is still very determined to sanction the syrian regime, should president assad not abide by the obligations that would be contained in a resolution adopted by the security council of the u.n. the timing to do so is pretty short, 15 days. i think the threat of an

intervention is still very, very much present in france, and in the united states, which i salute, bringing up a political response to the crisis. >> do you agree? >> not necessarily. i think the strikes have been postponed. they have been postponed indefinitely. because what happens -- it is a victory for russia. it is probably a victory for assad. i believe they were dancing in the streets of damascus, which i see as a pretty specific signs read it is a victory for russia because russia is back in the game. it is their initiative that has changed the situation. it is a similar victory for president obama because it is a face-saving move in a way. it spares him a probably embarrassing defeat in congress.

it also shows total confusion on the part of american diplomacy. i'm thinking of people who do not follow these complex from day one -- these conflicts from day one. a must be confused. -- they must be confused. as late as monday, secretary of state kerry was insisting that american credibility was on the line, that they had to lead punitive strikes against the assad regime because of the 21st of august chemical attack. today, this is off the table. american credibility no longer has any value. >> the lead story in "the new york times" -- members on both sides of capitol hill offered a collective sigh of relief as they return to work after president obama let them off the hook for a vote on military action in syria, postponing a

political confrontation that no one in washington wants to have. >> >> absolutely. >> it is obviously just not the president. it is both sides of the aisle. is it the u.s. as a whole but as we? >> there is definitely a weakness in what the u.s. government is following. the problem here is that the american people, in their vast majority, i think it is a cut of 10, and maybe more, are against any strike. they are against any type of intervention, military intervention, in syria. it is difficult to go against the will of eight people out of 10, whether you are president or a congressperson. that is exactly what they were facing. they were going to have to vote one way or the other. neither vote was going to be a good one. republicans on the rand paul side, those against any intervention, were the only ones excited about their vote. >> rand paul reacted to obama

speech -- obama's speech. still unconvinced? >> 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 preannouncing that the military strikes will not punish assad personally or effect regime change. >> that is how he is putting it. the republican leadership in the house is in favor of strikes. as for barack obama, he insisted in his speech that the strikes, albeit limited, would indeed punish assad. >> let me make something clear. the united states military doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver.

i don't think we should remove another dictator with force. we will learn from iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. a targeted strike and make a side or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons. >> how're those words playing in the middle east? >> as it was pointed out, i think the u.s. government is going through a huge loss of credibility. if we put the rewind button and go back a few years ago, the jingoistic speech coming out of the white house was awesome. you had the feeling any moment the american navy would launch the cruise missiles from the mediterranean and annihilate assad apostolate or if force. every single day that went by, that threat was him a seated. -- was emaciated. every day, they were handing out

to president assad the military strikes. it would be symbolic. it would not entail any modification in the balance of power in the civil war. and they would have said, we are going to the presidential palace, target republican guards in damascus, and maybe two airports. then you are back on track in the war. what happened over here -- the israelis are feeling it -- the american teeth no longer bite. one thing that was not mentioned over here is iran. iran is assad's main ally. as a matter of fact, what is playing out today, transferring the chemical arsenal from syria to russia, is exactly what is on the agenda for iran on the nuclear issue. i would not be surprised if this idea came out of tehran. >> we will talk more about iran

later. your point, obviously it is not just barack obama. it is both sides of the aisle. >> there is no stomach because there is no clear target. i think the americans are asking themselves, if we take out assad, with whom are we going to end up? the facts on the ground do not convey the message that we are going to end up with secular democrats. what we are seeing on the ground, and all the facts coming out of the experts, they are saying 70% or 80% of those in the war are jihadist's. >> i don't know where you get this figure from. not everywhere. a month ago, i was in syria. 70%-80%, we have to define what is a jihadist, but if it is what i think it is, there are maybe one or two out of 10. >> you have counted them.

what we have seen on television -- we saw images of soldiers laying on the ground, being shot dead. >> the same day there was -- >> it is beyond doubt that it is a civil war, and it is about the assad regime against sunni jihadist movements, financed by the saudi's and qataris. >> it is a very limited -- >> the national position -- do you think that by letting down the demise -- the democratic opposition we will help to solve this situation in syria? they are not able to count on other countries to fight the regime. then there will be a temptation in the future to turn to those who can really help them with

arms. >> as a member of the socialist party that is currently leading france and talking about the morality of punishing people for the use of chemical weapons, may i just remind you -- you were young then -- between 1981 and 1988, we were witnessing the iran-iraq war. nobody is questioning this. saddam hussein, with prior american knowledge, utilized chemical weapons, killing tens of thousands of iranian soldiers, not even to mention 3000 kurds massacred, all of them civilians. >> we all know that. >> we are talking about getting involved in raising a red flag and going after saddam hussein. it is a double standard. >> we are in 2013. at me tell you one thing. in the 1980s, i believe in one idea, progress.

progress of international law. as an elected mp, i do not find it simply normal and moral to let hundreds of women and children be killed in their sleep and not do anything about it. >> by the way, you are talking about progress of the law. if the law hasn't changed for seven decades. -- the law hasn't changed for seven decades. >> i was listening to this discussion here. unfortunately, we cannot talk about progress. this is a major problem, what happened. if you actually believe that no one should ever use chemical weapons again, even though they were at some time tolerated, they were used couple of weeks ago, and now, the person who use them, the assad regime, is off the hook once again. there is not going to be any kind of strike. you are trying to take away guns from somebody who has already shot at.

you won't shoot anybody again. that is what is happening. i don't think we can talk about progress. we can only talk about a certain form of confusion and hesitation. >> the line has been extremely consistent. the progress made in 10 days -- when you look at how it was 10 days ago compared to what is now -- >> we have a world without american leadership. in a world without american leadership, you have conflict. they know there is not going to be anything happening against them. that is a new situation. >> we are going to pick up on this when we come back. it is important. stay with us. you are watching the "debate." ♪

>> welcome back. before we resume the debate,

let's give you a sample of the stories we will be following for you at the top of the hour. russia announces that it has handed over to washington details of its disarmament plan on syria, one that will be spelled out face-to-face between the heads of the diplomacy of those two nations at a meeting in geneva on thursday. a powerful bomb blast in benghazi, one year to the day after the attack that killed the u.s. ambassador there. commemorations in the united states for the victims of 9/11. memorials most notably at the white house and ground zero in new york city. commemorations, by the way, taking place in chile this wednesday, the 40th anniversary of the coup that overthrew salvador duende -- pinochet. welcome back. this is the "debate."

obama has at the pause button in getting congress to vote on intervention in syria. with us to talk about it are our roundtable guests. just before the break, we have talked several times over the past two weeks on this panel about how serious had -- how serious head kind of-- had syria -- how syria had fallen out of the headlines. it seemed like the same story repeating itself. it was hard to get peoples attention. suddenly, it was on everyone's radar. the bad news is, they do not like either side. that is relevant to the

discussion we were having a moment ago. it brings us back to the question, the fact that there is now this newfound attention on a conflict that needs it, is that going to make it harder to eventually get public opinion rallied around any eventual strike? >> i think it will make it easier if the diplomatic steps are followed -- it puts even more pressure on assad and russia. when you look back 10 days ago, yes, the threat of a military strike was very high. two days ago, still, president putin was denying the fact that chemical weapons were used in syria. today, they are ready to sit at the table at an emergency meeting of the sturdy counsel, and they are going to discuss -- the security council, and they are going to discuss a draft resolution, trying to see if the international supervision over the use of chemical weapons can

be put into place. i think within the space of 10 days only, the pressure that has been put on a side and his regime -- on assad and his regime was immense. i think it is consistent. >> are we too cynical? >> i think the main word that was said in the obama speech is the message. the message we have been sending so far to assad -- i'm sorry to say that -- is, go ahead. you can kill it many people as you want. we will talk a lot, but we will do nothing. i have been saying this for four times already -- four or five times already. there was some pressure. at the end of the day, these regimes, they know how to do

with the pressure. they had it for many other things. >> have you seen the draft resolution as a chance? >> i do not believe this resolution will be voted on. if it is, i will get you champaign. this resolution will not be voted on. i'm not being too cynical, i hope. >> you are saying that in damascus, now they are not taking things seriously. but they were breathing a sigh of relief. at least that is with our correspondent in the syrian capital has been reporting. heavy fighting preventing them from reaching the christian village. that is in stark contrast with what she witnessed in the capital. >> good news is hard to come by in damascus these days. but the russian proposal has stirred hope and renewed interest in the day's papers.

after several weeks of holding their breath, residents seem to be breathing easier. this man cried when he saw the news. >> of course, i was relieved because a strike seems less likely. for the last few days, we have agnes -- we have had the feeling that syria was going to be destroyed. our children have been crying every day because of the situation in our country. >> a collective sigh of relief here in the center of damascus. people tell us after two years of conflict, they are wary of each new political twist and turn. they are watching with some skepticism in next move on the international stage. this café is a historic caulk -- historic haunt. they question the games of the great powers while playing cards. this analyst fears the russian

plan won't be enough to change washington's course of action. >> it will have nothing to do with how the initiative affects syria. instead its implications for america's role in the world. that worries me because i know what they do want depend on what is best for me as a syrian citizen, as they claim. >> for now, residents are enjoying a temporary respite. despite the faraway explosions, life in damascus has returned to what passes for normal. >> we were wondering earlier if we will never see now thepinter. that damascus resident, wondering the exact opposite, if this isn't just all a brief respite before we do see intervention. >> the fact that you see people going back to their normal life indicates that they believe the strikes have been postponed probably far enough that they

will never happen. to go back to the issue of the resolution we discussed earlier, if i am correct, it was indicated that they uld never sign on into any resolution that threatens violence if assad was not to do exactly as he is told regarding yielding his chemical weapons. >> is that an opening gambit, or is that an entrenched position? >> so far, there is no counterpart on the other side. it has always worked their way. >> i totally agree. we are talking about compliance with international laws and regulations. however, the considered and now totally dropped american strike plan against syria was to proceed beyond the scope of international law because the americans and french had abandoned the concept of a resolution in the security council, fearing a russian veto or a chinese veto.

it was an individual initiative on behalf of the americans and french. over here, i think it is important to remind people that this decision to walk back by the americans has, inevitably, brought down american prestige in the entire middle east. the saudi's are really -- saudis are really, really -- pissed of f. they were pushing for the strike. now it is going to go on and on. one thing i want your mind people, now we are not going to strike serious because of the chemical issue, but is that going to change the course of the civil war? you have had over 100,000 people who have died so far. is that going to stop? no. it will continue. >> which brings us to the reaction of iran's supreme leader. he seemed pleased, ali khomeni,

that there is a pause. >> the latest developments, if they can be taken seriously, show that united states and its allies stepped back from the inconsiderate actions they have taken in the past few weeks. we hope this development is indeed serious. this is the current situation in the region and in the world. the islamic republic has always addressed issues with open eyes and in an open-minded way. >> how are we supposed to read that? >> one of the reasons for which i believe the americans backed off from the serious strike plan -- the syria strike plan was because they knew that it would not change the course of the war. they thought a strike could empower certain extremist elements in iran and prevent the newly elected, moderate president from continuing on his

policy of rapprochement with the americans. >> those remarks sounded quite conciliatory, if i'm not mistaken. >> everything coming out of iran since president roh honey has been elected has been conciliatory and moderate. you are seeing an expression of hope from the iranian supreme leader, putting some trust in what the americans are saying, after 35 years of absolute mistrust. this is part of an ongoing confidence building measure that the iranians have embarked upon. >> this sound smart, in other words. on the part of the americans. >> of course it is. >> so the americans are not acting out of weakness. >> that is with reference to iran. the way the arabs are perceiving this issue is different. don't forget, we are in the middle east. nothing is simple. he arabs believe the great existential threat to them is iran.

now what they are seeing is iran and its russian ally have one over the americans, and the biggest chip in this negotiation has been iran. the strikes would not have changed anything on the ground as far as the future of the civil war is concerned. however, it totally could have backtracked the u.s.-iranian rapprochement. >> thank you for really only illustrating how clever -- for brilliantly illustrating how clever the foreign policy of the americans and french has been. i do believe that the strikes would make a difference. they have been used as part of the military strategy, bombing forces on the ground, and we know perfectly well that if we managed to prevent aside from using the chemical weapons -- assad from using the chemical weapons, his army would be weakened. >> they haven't used chemical weapons for three years good why would they begin today?

what is that going to change? >> to come back on one point, you mentioned saddam hussein in the 80s. following that war, france was a leader in trying to get signatures from other countries to prohibit the production of chemical weapons. if france has history in that fight, it comes back from the first world war. you seem to have a very regional and local view. international law is a long process. there has been so many casualties in france after the first world war and the use of chemical weapons that you cannot be surprised if we are not fighting for the respective international law. >> talk about france, for example. it should be remembered that our president in france, with a lot of acumen, jumped into the story. we need to punish these folks.

we need to send our ships over there. then when surprisingly obama backed off, what is france going to do? nothing, side -- aside for waiting for the u.s. congress to decide. >> are you suggesting france should go it alone? >> it can't go it alone. france does not have the support of the european union. no one is committing a single soldier to this adventure. we should remember that. it is only about america. they have backed off. france doesn't >> have a choice. > unfortunately, this is something to be ashamed of. >> we seem to forget that france is the only country to have the military capability -- >> the english don't? >> they opted not to go. one has to respect that. >> the germans don't have planes and bombs? >> not with the same capacities. >> the real problem today to be honest is that hundreds of syrians are dying today and

everyday, with different kinds of weapons. unfortunately, for the last 30 minutes, we have been told they are paying for the libyan issue, because in libya, we have gone too far, we have been to many things that goes to anger the russians, and now today, we realized that in london they are paying for iraq 10 years ago. they are still dying every day. girard says it is the market and policy. i still believe the real issue is in serious, not a civil war -- in syria, not civil war, people wanting to get rid of a dictator. one of the worst we have seen in history. we have to be really careful about this. even qaddafi who was some kind of clown, he was not as bad as

this. you see the shelling of the areas could i invite you to come with me if you want to. >> you have said this before, we have had a statement from the international red cross, denouncing the fact that they are not getting access to the wounded on either side. thursday's edition of the french newspaper will be showing pictures of government soldiers executed. the problem we are having again is with the sudden attention put on syria, people are realizing that you have a fragmented opposition, and there are bad guys on both sides. >> it is a fragmented opposition definitely. if you say there are bad guys in both sides, it means there are 10 here and 10 there. i do not believe that is the case. there's maybe be one bad guy for 10 on the other side. there is one bad guy who doesn't have airplanes, scud missiles. these are terrible. you cannot imagine what it does on the ground. we have to be careful about this.

when we talk about a civil war we imagine both sides are the same. it is not at all the same. you have people and you have an army. you have kids and families who are dying, and you have executed soldiers. i do not support secured it soldiers the way it has been shown -- support executed soldiers the way it has been shown. it is different than a scud missile destroying a whole area of aleppo. >> i'm sorry to insist on the use of chemical weapons, but i think it is a critical issue about the intervention. there is a real risk of proliferation, not only in syria, but also in the other neighboring states. also, within terrorist groups. if you want to fight against al qaeda, you would want to prevent the use of chemical weapons. if we do not do anything, we tell the entire world, do whatever you want. >> i'm sorry, i do not want to sound cynical -- >> you do. >> the war, despite, whether you

call it a civil war or revolution, i believe it is a civil war -- it has been going on for two years. the chemical issue is a totally new issue. the whole reason that the world got involved -- >> why is it a new issue? >> they were supposed to have been used on august 21. >> there were other incidents. december 2012. >> 10 times. never to that extent. >> the point is that barack obama, two years ago, when the conflict began, thought that assad would fall and fall rapidly. it took aside, the side -- a side, the side of the revolution, and made a promise, that if assad was ever to use chemical weapons, he would be punished. he thought the issue would never arise because assad was going to fall in a few weeks. it did not happen. then you have a show of american

weakness because they had wrongly analyzed the situation and totally misjudged the strength of the assad regime. today, two years later or your later, we find out that a slot is supposed to have used chemical weapons. if the u.s. had any credibility. -- any credibility, they would have to strike back. in the end, they do not really want to strike back because that might create more problems, have other countries involved, and their own people are against it. we have a world in total confusion without anyone really wanting to do anything. the issue of chemical weapons, unfortunately, however tragic it is, is not moving people to take sides and support the strike. it is tragic. that is a fact. americans are extremely war weary. >> but is that the price of democracy? you live in a democracy, well, that is what happens.

you have these debates and discussions played there. >> yes, you. the great change is 10 years ago , americans would have been united behind such a strike. now they are not. their economy has changed. their situation has changed. they have been involved in other conflicts which they thought were just and justified, and they were vilified for them. they do not want to get caught again. >> it is not about democracy. it is about credibility. people have forgotten, but not the american public, about the colin powell moment the security council, showing up with material proof of the existence of arms of mass destruction by saddam hussein. it did not happen. the americans went in, and even today, you have 70-80 people died in iraq every day. france and england went into libya. what has become of libya?

unanimously, the knowledge that it has totally disintegrated. you have islamist jihadist running around. the americans were embarrassed by the assassination of their ambassador. they went into afghanistan. what are we getting? nothing. syria, when people look at syria, they have the memory of all of these events. they were not successful. >> after your lecture -- >> it is not a lecture. >> never intervene. never bomb. >> diplomacy should proceed. give them the opportunity to decide their fate. >> with 110 thousand people killed, what kind of diplomacy do you suggest -- 110,000

people killed, what kind of diplomacy do suggest? >> one more point. what is going to be the impact at home? in "the washington post," max fischer told at a political science lecture, the speech by obama. he said there could be benefits. his speech seemed like a significant concession, a presidential disavowal of the power of the dangerous and often counterproductive tool of threat inflation. if that president holds, american foreign-policy will be better off for it. we were talking about the scenarios, how the seams of familiar, how -- how they seem so familiar. here we are not following the script. what the columnist was saying that the sort of ratcheting up the rhetoric, the threat inflation, he thinks it is a positive thing. we have heard roughness penalty some see it as a sign of weakness, what has happened. where do you stand on this?

>> that is what i have tried to explain. i do not see it as a sign of weakness. i think it is a sign of success, that we believe in the diplomatic process. i really don't understand your point when you say that it is weakness of the united states on one hand, and on the other hand, we should leave all of the space for diplomacy. that is exactly what we are doing. we are being consistent because we have always said that the political process and diplomatic ways are the priorities. if we can avoid it, avoid thefo- course of force, we will do so. the objective of the whole negotiation is not to use weapons in syria. it is to try to solve the

situation there. i think the confusion is not on our side. >> the next stop is geneva when the foreign minister and the u.s. secretary of state meet on thursday. i want to thank you all. before we go, one person we haven't said hello to. hello, james cream. >> i have been looking at the social media accounts of the various big actors in the last few days just to see how they are spinning or putting across the diplomatic wranglings over intervention or not intervention. brock obama on his facebook page -- brock obama on his facebook page is remaining utterly silent on the issue of syria. he is talking about 9/11 today and various other domestic issues. completely silent on syria. if you go on his twitter account, there is an attempt to

put across a white house position on this and to spin it positively in terms of protecting the whole intention to protect the lives of children. for example, when with modest effort and risk we conceptual truth from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, i believe we should act. obviously putting forward a more positive spin on things. francois hollande doesn't use -- he stopped using his facebook and twitter accounts after the election campaign. the presidential palace does tweet and use facebook. here they have a tumbler account -- tumblr account. one of the only photos they have put up is this one. clearly they are trying to put forward the image. if you go to a side -- assad, he has had an instagram account. these photos were put up yesterday of his interview with charlie rose in the u.s.

that was a big, primetime interview where he was trying to put his point of view across. that is what he is trying to emphasize. it is worth taking a look at what all three are emphasizing. a quick look at some opinion pieces. "dazed and confused." if your foreign policy had been rescued by a dictator, you are doing it wrong. he says that the famous chinese general who wrote "the art of war" would be proud of barack obama because the enemy is so confused. a french magazine saying putin in deed trekked -- indeed trekked the west by ridding them of their need to go in and get the chemical weapons. i will show you a couple of cartoons on this one. it is assad's birthday, 9/11 is his birthday, somewhat unfortunately. for the cartoonist, they have a

macabre view of how you celebrated his birthday bash's birthday. -- his birthday. killing civilians with weapons other than chemical weapons, which obama is distracted by. is is in a canadian newspaper. -- this is in a canadian newspaper. >> batman and robin. the new cycle moves on. i want to thank our panel. thank you for joining us for the "debate." captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

 >> china's days of high-speed growth are over, but the leaders say it is going to expand to a more sustainable pace. >> the nasdaq markets in times square new york. in a holding pattern on interest rates as they await a decision on its stimulus plan.