>> schieffer: today on "face the nation," could the boston bombers have been stopped and what should the u.s. role be in syria? >> boston is becoming to me a case study in system failure. >> schieffer: but what to do about it? and what about the other story, reports the syrian government used chemical weapons on its open people. >> to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line, and that is going to be a cha >> schieffer: does that mean greater u.s. involvement? we'll hear from three key senators on both stories. south republican lindsey graham. missouri democrat claire mccaskill. and georgia republican saxby chambliss. we'll get the latest from boston

from cbs investigators john miller and bob orr, and analysis on all that and more from peggy noonan of the "wall street journal." harvard university's david gergen. cbs this morning cohost norah o'donnell. foreign correspondent clarissa ward, just back from sirpia. and political director john dickerson. plus the highlights will of last night's correspondents' dinner. it's all next on "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs from cbs news in washington, "face the nation" with bob schieffer. >> schieffer: and good morning, again. south carolina republican lindsey graham is in cottonwood, arizona, this morning. and, senator, thanks for coming. i want to start with the-- some of these details, more details now coming out on the russian bombers and their family.

it now turns out not only was one of them on a u.s. terror watch list, but also his mother as well. what do you make of this? and where are we on all of this? >> well, i don't know if his mother was on the watch list, but the warning letters the f.b.i. received in march of 2011 and the c.i.a. i think in november 2011, included the mother as someone to be worried about. i think information sharing failed. the f.b.i. investigated the older brother but never shared the information with boston so people in the boston area could be on the lookout. when he goes back to russia there january 2012, the system pings at d.h.s., but d.h.s. distribute share the information with the f.b.i. or the c.i.a. and when he comes back in 2012, he creates a youtube channel of his own making where you've got radical extremist videos that he's watching and interacting with. so it's a failure to share

information and missing obvious warning signs. we're going back to the pre-9/11 stovepiping. >> schieffer: what do we do? what needs to be done here? >> a postmortem. how could you miss the fact that the guy you were-- you were informed by a foreign intelligence service you have a radical in your midst. we can't track him to russia. we lose him going to russia and when he goes on the internet for the whole world to see to interact with the radical islamic web sites, how do we miss that? so we're going to have to up our game. and when one of these guys goes into the system and he leaves the country we have to make sure we know where they're going and interview them and when somebody in the database has radical islamic web sites, an f.b.i. agent should knock on his door and say, "you told us before you wanted to be an olympic boxer. you love this country. what the hell is going on here? we're watching you."

>> schieffer: let's turn on syria where there are now reports that the syrian government is using chemical weapons on its open people. the president said last week this kibe game changer. are you satisfied with the approach the administration is taking? >> no, i haven't been satisfied for a long time. but having said that, syria's difficult. after the briefings with secretary of state kerry, which was powerful, four things are going to happen if we don't change course in syria. it's going to become a failed state by the end of the year. it's fracturing along sectarian et cetera nick lines. it's going to be an al qaeda safe haven. chemical weapons, enough to kill millions of people, are going to be compromised and fall into the wrong hands. and the next bomb that goes off in america may not have nails and glass in it. the third thing i worry about is the king of jordan. he's had 500,000 refugees flood his dpri syria. they could be up to a million to 3 million in the next six months

to a year and his kingdom could fall and he's a good ally to us in the syria. if we keep this hands-off approach to syria, this indecisive action towards syria, kind of not knowing what we're going to do next, we're going stro a war with iran because iran's going tow take our inaction in syria as meaning we're not serious about their nuclear weapons program. we need to get involved. and there's a growing consensus, bob, in the u.s. senate that the united states should get involved. >> schieffer: well, some of the things that are being suggest, a no-fly zone. that could be pretty dangerous for the united states, could it not, because we understand the syrian government is setting up anti-aircraft weapons in those populated yairlz. this will not come without some cost. >> yeah, there's nothing you can do in syria without risk, but greatest risk is a failed state with chemical weapons falling in the hands of radical islamists and they're pouring into syria. the longer this goes, the more likely you have a failed state and all hell's going to break

loose in the region. it's a disaster for the region. it's going to be a disaster for the world. one way you can stop the syrian air force from flying is to bomblet syrian airbases with missiles. you don't need to go deep into syria to do that. if you could neutralize the air advantage the syrian government has over the rebels, i think you could turn the tide of battle pretty quickly. as to arming the rebels. there are more radical islamist fighters there than last year. let's give the right weapons to the right people. there are two wars to fight-- one to get assad out of there. he's really a bad guy, dangerous to the world. the second war, unfortunately, is going to be between the majority of syrians and the radical islamists who have poured into sir yoo. so we need to be ready to fight two wars. you don't need boots on the ground from a u.s. point of view, but you sure do need international actions to bring this thing to a close quickly. if it goes on through the end of this year, the whole veegz going to fall into chaos. >> schieffer: all right, well,

senator graham, thank you for being with us. i want to turn to saxby chambliss, the top republican on the intelligence committee, and democratic senator claire mccaskill who serves on homeland security, both memberring of the armed services committee. senator mccaskill what's your reaction to what you just heard from senator graham? do you think there is a growing consensus that we've got to do something in syria here? >> well, i think we're developing contingencies. i think the president along with our military leadership is working very hard right now to figure out the best way to keep syria from becoming the fragmented state that could be a home and haven for terrorists. russia's very important here, bob. russia, we've got to bring them around. assad is leaning on russia-- as much as we have to bring china around with north korea. and i do think that people don't realize how much work is going on. the president met with the king of jordan this week. the secretary of state is busy

with all of our allies in the area trying to get help in figuring out what we can do surgically that will get the result we want without making the problem even worse. >> schieffer: well, senator chambliss, i mean senator graham in the understate. year said it's really hard and it's going to be complicated. who do you help and how do you help them? i think that's the question most people in government are trying to figure out. >> bob, we got better intelligence today than we had six months ago about who the good guys are and who the bad gietz are in syria. unfortunately, one thing we're seeing is the bad guys are becoming more popular. they're the ones that we've got to make sure do not get their hands on these chemical weapons should assad fall. theatre ones we've got to make sure if a decision is made to arm the rebels, that we don't arm them, that we arm the good guys. but, you know, it is very, very complex. here's what concerns me, though. the world is watching.

we've got 70,000 dead people in that part of the world as a result of bashar al-assad. we as america have never let something like that happen before. now, i don't have the answer, i doubt claire does, as to exactly what we ought to do. but the world is truly watching america right now, particularly with the president saying his red line of use of chemical weapons. use of chemical weapons is a game changer. with the, we now know he's used chemical weapons -- >> schieffer: well, do we really know that, senator? >> we do. >> schieffer: i keep thinking about iraq and all these reports about weapons of mass destruction, and i remember colin powell going before the united nations and it turned out none of it was true. >> what we don't know is we descroant a conclusive chain of evidence at this point as to where the weapon-- where the order came from. was this a rogue guy that decided to do this? or was this truly a decision by

the government in syria to implement the use of-- and that's why i think we've got to make swhie sure we know before e our actions just on that. >> schieffer: well, should we only base our action on whether or not there was chemical weapons used? or should it go beyond that, senator chambliss? >> unfortunately the situation in syria has deteriorated to this point to where it really does go beyond that. i will disagree a little bit with claire in that we know where the order came from to use the weapon. we had another general defect just in the last couple of days who, again, hassa validated where the order came from. but even beyond that, look at what's happening inside of syria. it's just a total chaos. and a huge military conflict that has a potential to spread all over the middle east. this is more than an arab spring upriegz, more than people demonstrating in the streets. this is an out-and-out war.

>> schieffer: what about-- what are the things we can do? no-fly zones. more aid to the rebels if we can figure out which rebels to give the aid to. what-- what are the things that are most likely to happen here, senator? >> well, i think there's a variety of things that can be considered that i know twee are really working on the humanitarian part to hospital king of jordan and the problem that lindsey referred to in terms of the number of people that are fleeing syria. i think we can also help by providing things. we haven't gotten to lethal yet, but we sure are working with our friends in the area that may be providing more assistance to some of these-- the good news, the opposition good guys. so it is a matter of resources and it's a matter of having contingency plans and making sure that we are ready if we need to take some kind of military action. >> schieffer: do either of you at this point think there's a chance that we would have to put u.s. troops in there or that we would want to? >> i don't think you want to ever rule it out because i think

this is kind of-- as saxby said, this thing has really deteriorated, and it's not really at a tipping point. so i don't think you ever want to say absolutely not. obviously, we don't want to do that unless it's absolutely necessary. >> i would go, yo go even beyon. i would say no. i think we can take affirmitition action. lindsey referred to cruise missiles. we have f-22 and b-2s that's can take out anti-aircraft missiles that they have and they are very sophisticated. if we did that, then it's still not up to the united states to engage in this from a military conflict standpoint. we don't need to put boots on the ground, but we need to enable their neighbors, the neighbors will of syria, to bring some sort of peaceful resolution to this. we can do it through a no-fly zone. i had a good conversation with king abdullah this week about

that. i don't think we're at that point right now. but we're close. the fact sfor america to sit on the sidelines and do nothing is a huge mistake because the world is watching. >> , and of course, if we do, if we take the bomber action, then that may lead to something else, and that's really what i'm referring to in terms of i don't ever want to say absolutely never any boots on the ground because iran is busy here. iran is very busy here. and so is hezbollah. so it's just one were those things that i think-- i think we do need to be very cautious. >> schieffer: you know, once osama bin laden was killed, we had people around here saying that the war on terrorism is over, the threat is over. i guess we found out in boston that that's not entirely true. it does seem to be a different kind of terrorism that we're up against right now. >> this was our worst fear, and that is, a home grown terrorist, or a terrorist that was sent here to be engrained within the

community on. these guys, they flew under the radar. certainly, the f.b.i. had some suspicions because of contact by the russians. i wish the russians, bob, had given us in 2011, instead of just a cursory opinion of these guys, what they gave us -- >> do either of you have request information to suggest that they got training from somebody else some place else or in this country? >> there is no evidence at this point. the investigation continues. but there is no evidence at this point that these two were part of a larger organization, that they were in fact apartment of a-- some kind of terror cell or any kind of direction. it appears, at this point, base on the evidence, that it's the two of them. >> schieffer: all right, well, i want to thank both of you for helping us on this, this morning. thanks for coming by. appreciate it. we'll be back in a applicant to talk to john miller and bob orr. can be a tough act to follow,y

but at xerox we've embraced a new role. working behind the scenes to provide companies with services... like helping hr departments manage benefits and pensions for over 11 million employees. reducing document costs by up to 30%... and processing $421 billion dollars in accounts payables each year. helping thousands of companies simplify how work gets done. how's that for an encore? with xerox, you're ready for real business. how's that for an encore? i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans.

that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. now with justice and homeland security correspondent bob orr and senior correspondent john miller. the two people we leaned on so heavily through all of this boston story. glad to have you both in one place. bob, you're generally here. john is in new york. do either of you-- there is a report this morning that these people may have received some training from somewhere. do either of you have any information on this? >> i would say the trip to rush, that's six months. and the f.b.i. is actually on the ground with the f.s.b., which is actually pretty unusual to see them work together, but they're backtracking through that trip. we haven't heard anything at this point that they have found a time where there was training,

but this is peeling back layers. that could change, but right now there's no indication of that. >> the reason why they're suspicious, bomb. these bombs were somewhat sophisticate. if they used remote triggers-- which seems to be the consensus-- it's hard to imagine two guys under the radar could buy all this stuff, build these bombs, carry off the attack and have it all work perfectly? where did they practice? and that begs the question did anybody help them train. >> schieffer: what about the stories coming out of russia now that it turnlz out russia may have been wiretapping the bomber's mother. >> in 2011, yes, the prugzs now say-- they've now told the u.s. government that they had wiretaps up on the mother and captured a conversation between tamerlan, the older son, and the mother talking about some kind of jihad. this was the underlying basis for the russians coming to the f.b.i. and c.i.a. and saying in 2011, we have concerns about this guy event problem was, bob,

according to u.s. government officials, its russians di russd not share that specific information at the time. >> i'm not sure that would have changed an awful lot. what you're seeing is a shift in paradigm, which is basically the idea that it's not al qaeda as much as it's al qaeda-ism. you have all these influences out there. in this case, the mother might have been one. there's certainly what you can find online, but the f.b.i. is bound by law, the constitution, a set of continual guidelines, and then a much stricter set of f.b.i. domestic intelligence guidelines, how far can you go looking into americans. and they did a 90-day assessment on this, which means they investigated this guy for three months. but after that, the the rules says if you don't find something covered by first amendment or will lead you to something else, you have to close that out. >> schieffer: let's talk about what's ahead. anything new here? >> well, the investigators this week went through a landfill, for example, with in new bedford, massachusetts, looking

for specific information that might have explained what led up to the bombing. the younger brother went to school there, at umass-dartmouth, and there was a belief perhaps he discarded something-- notes, maybe a computer, maybe computer files. this would all help explain the why behind the bombing. investigators, meanwhile are, still talking to all the associates, all of the people that intersected both of these guys to say when did you notice a change? did they ever give you a hint they were moving severely down the path of radicalization to acting out. the investigators are trying to do the whole background, the backstory, what led up to april 29 faen. >> schieffer: do we have any information that there anyone else involved, that might have known about this, some contact, anything along the lines? >> there are limits there. once they gave the miranda warning to the surviving brother, he stopped talking, but they had a couple of days with him b16 hours of questioning in full, and he said there was no one else involved dispp he said,

basically, he said, my brother only got me involved with this a couple of months ago. so it doesn't fit kind of the london bombings or some of the other models you where you have a year-and-a-half-7 planning arc. this seems to be littled to them-- that could change-- and relatively spontaneous. >> schieffer: the word "manhattan" was mentioned by one of them during the episode with the person whose car they hijacked. do we have any more indication of what that meant? were they talking about going there to have a party? or were they going there to do more damage? >> police commission from kelly in new york sailed the first indication was they were coming to i have party. when he got more information he said they were actually thinking of coming to manhattan for act two. you have to put all words into context, that word "manhattan" was when everything was falling apart. they were on the run, increasingly desperate.

they were making it up as they went. the fact is they never got out of watertown and i don't think anyone can say an attack on new york was likely or imminent. >> when you have a guy, what is he doing? he's not packing for a trip to the beach, gone from car to car, residence to residence, gathered up every bomb he has left-- including a pressure cooker bomb-- and he hijacked a car, unlike his two broken down cars, to make it to new york city. he filled the car with a full tank of gas, having robbed $800. i think there were two organized defenders plotting to bomb the marathon, seeing everything come unraveled quickly and becoming disorgded defenders, and i think it looks like they were trying to set up another plan. >> schieffer: what about lindsey graham's allegation this morning that this was a system-- a study of a system failure. >> fing you study the system, lindsey graham would have to

come back on that. i mean, we have a system of agencies and databases that are searchable. and one of the things-- when i worked in the f.b.i., when i worked at the director of national intelligence stitching those databases together so that they would talk to each other, one of the things we concluded-- and we used to talk about this-- was we have now looked at so many people, so many potential suspects, so many people whose names surfaced in one case and then we spent 90 days looking at them, that some day, one of them's going to do something, and we don't know if it's good news or bad news that we have them in the files. i mean, it shows we were doing our job, but it also is going to bring on this conversation that we should have done more. that's part of the reality in the post-9/11 world. >> i think that's right. and after the investigation has run its course, i guarantee you the political debate will continue, bob. >> schieffer: all right. we seem to have no shortage of that around here. thank you all very much. >> you need the business. >> schieffer: we'll be back backin a moment with a couple of personal thoughts about this week.

♪ god bless america my home, sweet, home ♪ we've reduced taxes and lowered costs to save cut middle class income taxes to the lowest rate in sixty years, and we're creating tax free zones for business startups. the new new york is working creating tens of thousands of new businesses, and we're just getting started. to grow or start your business visit thenewny.com how old is the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have known someone who's lived well into their 90s. and that's a great thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed: the official retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years.

♪ and didn't know where to start. used a contractor before to enjoy all of these years. at angie's list, you'll find reviews on everything from home repair to healthcare written by people just like you. no company can pay to be on angie's list, so you can trust what you're reading. angie's list is like having thousands of close neighbors where i can go ask for personal recommendations. that's the idea. before you have any work done, check angie's list. from roofers to plumbers to dentists and more,

angie's list -- reviews you can trust. i love you, angie. sorry, honey. was hilarious at the white house correspondents' different last night. he poked fun at himself and the press. it was nice to see former presidents and officials from both parties to gather earlier for the opening of the george w. bush presidential library in dallas. it was the way washington usually isn't but the way we all wish it was. but those episodes were just blips on a radar screen that reminded us just how toxic and how broken our political system is. several days before the presidential library opening and just down the road from dallas, the texas attorney general, greg abbott, had opined that democrat posed a greater threat to texas than north korea. and just to help us remember money has become the the

all-powerful driving force in politics, the president found it necessary to hold a fund-raiser while he was in dallas. he collected more than a million bucks. and as if to underline that washington can always find a way to help itself, even if it remains gridlocked when it comes to helping others, when the congress realized late last week that those budget cuts from the so-called sequester were going to cause layoffs of air traffic controllers, which would cause delays that would inconvenience them, what happened to gridlock? well, miraculously, it disappeared, and legislation to keep the planes running on time eased through both houses of congress like it had grease on it. how did members of congress celebrate the bipartisan breakthrough? they head out of town for another vacation. back in a minute. ♪

[ agent smith ] i've found software that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good. ge has wired their medical hardware with innovative software to be in many places at the same time. using data to connect patients to software, to nurses to the right people and machines. ♪ helping hospitals treat people even better, while dramatically reducing waiting time. now a waiting room is just a room. [ telephone ringing ] [ static warbles ] [ beeping ] red or blue? ♪

>> schieffer: and some of our stations are leaving us now. but for most of you, we'll be back with analysis on all this with peggy noonan of the "wall street journal." david gergen of harvard. our own norah o'donnell, john dickerson, and clarissa ward. plus we'll have some highlights of last night's white house correspondents' dinner here in washington. stay with us. ,,,,,,,,,,

"face the nation." we have a full house this morning but since the white house correspondents' dinner was last night, we probably better check the role to make sure everybody showed up. ( laughter ) cbs news foreign correspondent, clarissa ward, who usually reports from inside syria. happy to have her with us here today. peggy noonan, who used to work for president reagan, is now a columnist for the "wall street journal." david gergen, who worked for both presidents reagan and clinton, and is now at harvard. they must be studying you, david, nobody's ever done that before. "cbs this morning" cohost norah o'donnell is back with us for a weekend work day and last but not least, our long-suffering and hardworking political director john dickerson. clarissa, i want to start with you, because you probably have been in syria more than any

other correspondent. >> just a few weeks ago. >> schieffer: you were the first one to get in there. you went in under cover, got pictures and got this story and got it out and brought us the first really eyewitness reports and photyos of what was going on there. so what do you make of these reports now that the syrians did use this nerve gas on their own people? the president says it's a game changer. what does that mean? >> well, if you ask ordinary syrians they're not surprised at all. they have absolute no doubt that the regime has been using chemical weapons against them. but i think they're very skeptical about whether this revelation, or whether the intelligence that we're seeing come out will impact america's policy with regards to syria. they have a very strong sense that in fact the u.s. doesn't really have an actual policy on syria, that there is a lot of rhetoric about assad must go. he must step aside. but there's very little muscle behind that rhetoric in terms of

actually implementing something that would force assad out of power. and what they would say is that, you know, president assad is watching very closely here as we talk about red lines, and iran is watching very closely as well. so i think if anything, there's a hope that maybe this red line, game-changer rhetoric will actually force the administration to really, you know, say exactly what our syria policy is once and for all. >> schieffer: well, what-- what could we do? i mean, there's talk about aid for the rebels, but nobody seems to know exactly which rebels? there's talk about this no-fly zone. just tell us a little bit about what is being thought of? >> let's talk about aiding the rebels. so the u.s. has identified general madris as the person we should be doing business with, essentially, the kind of rebel we can talk to, that we can trust, who wean is not involved with the radical islamist groups popping up everywhere. i'll spent time with him and

he's sitting there telling me i'm not getting anything. i don't have money. i don't have weapons. i literally have to travel under cover when i'm in rebel-held parts of syria because nobody respect meas on the ground essentially because the reality is syria rebel-held areas now, money talks. weapons talk. going in and saying i have the backing of the u.s. and the west, if there's nothing behind that, if there's no muscle behind the rhetoric, then you're essentially leaving people like the general, hanging them out to dry, almost in a sense. >> but it's very clear that the obama administration does not want to get involved. so they were sort of pressed, if you will, to put this intelligence assessment out in which they say it was very likely that they used chemical weapons. and the president said and that does not constitute crossing this so-called red line. now, obviously there are others who disagree and say yes, this does mean crossing the red line. this discussion of the red line i think is a distraction. what does it then mean? and the president has not said that crossing the red line means

military intervention. so even when we reach where the president admits we've cross the the red line it, doesn't mean we'll get militarily involved. i spoke with a senior military official this morning who said there are no good options. this is not like libya. there is no advancing army to take out by putting jets there. there is nowhere to put boots on the ground. there is a whole series of bad options. >> the idea of a red line is it is supposed to be when it exists and it is crod, something this happen but they pormore water and the line gets pinker and pinker. you talk about a no-fly zone. that gets thrown around by a lot of people who become quick generals when these things happen. they say you have to take out anti-aircraft batteries you when you do that. what happens if something goes wrong? the administration owns a civil war they don't want to engage in and the american people don't want to engage in. >> i appreciate the

administration has a dilemma. they want assad to fall but they don't want the rebel rebels to . but, norai respectfully disagree that the red line is a distraction. once the president of the united states draws a red line it becomes important to the world. everybody else reads in to how he responds to a red line. is he serious about iran? is he not serious about iran? he's drawn a red line on iran. if he doesn't respect his own red line on syria, there is no question that israel and iran will look at that and say, "well, we can't trust the guy." >> even if we cross the red line it's not clear we're going to do anything further. >> to go back to john's point-- he said it will be a game changer. why did he draw the red line without knowing what he was going to do next. >> schieffer: back to what clarissa said, the people in syria are wondering do we have a policy on syria? >> there is no discernible policy. i would say this is not only true eye cannot discern the white house's policy on syria, i

have not for a while. but i am not sure of what the republican policy is, if you will. what's fascinating and troubling is that everybody agrees syria is a very dangerous place for the world right now. everybody sort of doesn't know what to do about it. they don't know what the strategy should be. and then they don't know what the tactics should be. beyond that, all this takes place wayne context of the past 12 years. mesh has twice been involveed in the middle east. it has not ended so well. the american people are not going to want to hear things like, "boots on the ground," in syria. i mean, that is just a political fact. >> and also to pick up on peggy's point about history. on the day the president was down celebrating the opening of the george w. bush presidential library, at the white house senior officials-- this news came out on that day on chemical weapons -- they were bringing up the ghostes of iraq. and they said wait a minute we didn't have supporter about the evidence there. we want to have certainty here. and you started to hear a word

associated with the president bush which was prudence and caution. and so that the policy to the extent there is one is get your facts straight and right first before doing anything. >> but is that the policy? because i sort of had the sense that actually the policy is we really want nothing to do with this. >> i agree with that. >> this is a hot potato. >> so do i. >> we don't know how to deal with it. i have respect for that. i understand that. but let's call it what it is. >> the policy is maybe the horse will laugh. that old story, the guy was going to be killed he said, don't kill me now. i can prove to you i can make a horse laugh. within six mongst, if i don't do it, you can kill me in the end." somebody said to the prisoner at the end, "why did you do that?" "maybe i would get lucky, maybe the king would die, and maybe the horse would laugh." that's what's going on. i hope that made sense, what i just said. it's just hoping for the best. thank you, bob. >> in this kind of environment, having said that this is a red line, having said he would take

action, i think it's baffling why when the evidence comes in, we'll say let's take it to the u.n. and let them sort it out. take it to the u.n.? i'm sorry. it implies a lack of seriousness. and i think it really implies they don't want to have anything to do with it, which i totally understand. i think peck seabsolute right. this country does not want to have another war. barack obama does not want to have another war, but rhetorically we're way out in front of what we're willing to do. >> schieffer: this country did not want to have a war after worlworld war i. and then we had world war ii. and i think most people would agree in retrospect, that was probably something we had to do. it does underline, does it not, noradjust how difficult these things are. are. when things reach the president's decision desk, you know, people used to laugh about-- make fun of george bush saying, "i am the decider." but the president is the decider, and it's never black and white.

it's never, obviously-- it always looks in retrospect-- we always see things in retrospect as an easy decision. but they're never easy going in. >> they're never easy, and clarissa made a good point about which opposition groups do you arm? which ones do you align yourself with? what do you give them? what do they want? other than communications equipment. do you start flooding it with weapons? do you let the saudis do that? do you let others in the region do that? what more can you do? and what are they asking for i guess is the question without any sort of significant involvement? >> while we're all parsing through the minutia of incomplete as well as about chemical weapons that may have killed a few dozen people, meanwhile 70,000 people have dieed in the conflict. we're look at 100,000 by august if there isn't some type of action from the international community. but what i'm also seeing on the ground when i talk to ordinary systemiesises is people are becg

radicalized. they are so disenchanted with the internal community, they look at groups designated a terrorist group, and say these gietz at least are trying thop us. they're putting their hand out and they're coming and standing on the front lines with us, and they're-- >> is there a sense there are things we could do surgically that would not draw us? n? i think that's what norah is pushing on. what could we do as a response that is meaningful that will not draw us in? >> i don't want to sound like one of the five-minute generals you're talking about and i'm not an expert on these matters. but we live in an age of unconventional warfare. i find it really hard to believe that the u.s. could not be, you know, coming up with strategies or ways of dealing, maybe trying to act more as a deterrent, like, you know, bombing let's say the runways of a couple of-- their key airbases.

thereby, maybe making syrian pilots think twice before they get up in the air and start bombing villages and innocent women and children. so the ordinary people of syria are not saying, "please give really big guns to the rebels." they're saying, "please make the planes stop." and when i'm sitting there on the ground with these people and an entire village has been bombed and they are looking at me saying, "why isn't america helping us?" i really don't have a good answer to give them at the moment. >> you said they were feeling disenchanted about america. >> yes. >> and it's inability or not wanting to get involved. why did they think we would or-- what was the faith they had in us? what is it that-- >> thoolts key issue here. it's a catch-22. because on the one hand, you see what's happening, of course, you want to help. on the other hand, we may have created a moral hazard in a sense with libya, with other wars in the middle east when people first took to the streets in those peaceful demonstrations, there was a

calculation-- a few of us maybe will die, but the u.s. will step in and help us. and nobody, nobody believed for a second-- so they were willing to die in the beginning. and then suddenly they realized >> it remind me-- to go back in history-- hingary in 19 fix. they thought we would come in. they went into the streets. we didn't go. they got slaughterd. >> czechoslovakia in '68. they thought we would come in. >> schieffer: let's take a break and come back and talk about some of the other ooshtz plate.

with our panel. well, you know, i want to bring up the whole idea of what's ahead for the congress. peggy, senator marchion, along with senator toomey, tried to get the background check legislation pass. i saw him last night and he said, "i want to tell you something, i'm not done with this. i'm still working on this."

and he said, "i still think we'll get some kind of a bill out of this congress." what are you hearing, norah? >> he is. senator manchion is optimistic. he promised the families of the 20 children killed in newtown. his cosponsor pat toomey has said it's time to move on. i think there's still some momentum behind this. >> schieffer: do you think the white house is going to continue to push this, or will they also think we have to move on? >> all indications are that they will continue to push it. the vice president is still actively engaged. the families have told us they're going to continue to go to capitol hill. the problem, of course, is the house, and whether anything gets done. i still think there's just such a very narrow chance that anything gets done. >> there's an air traffic control problem-- not to talk about the other story of the week-- there's immigration out there. the president's also trying to get a big deal on the budget, and his-- his hour glass is losing sand in terms of his power as a president in the second term.

i think want question now is whether those who support gun control can put prive on lawmakers, the ones for voting the wait they did, voting against background checks dispp the problem with that is in the 2014 elections, if you look at the senate table, the 10 most vulnerable candidates out there are all democrats. so if you are in support of gun control and you want to punish those democrats who voted against gun control, you're essentially helping mitch mcconnell, the republican minority leader. you're helping him get towards his goafl becoming a majority leader. it's complex, punishing those who voted against gun control. >> schieffer: what about that, peggy? did the president handle this right? >> i-- i-- didn't feel he did from the first two weeks. i think one simple, discreet small bill. not everybody's wish list on gun control, something small, move immediately after newtown, barrel it through, claim win-- win by a little, claim you have momentum and do part two and part three. i just thought eye really did--

that the strategy was wrong. i think the president always thinks that if he speaks compellingly and movingly about something he will win the day. i think he's had to trouble learning the lesson you have to work the hill. you have to be strategically smooth, you have to work it. >> schieffer: david? >> i think john put his fing or something that it is important, and that is the air traffic control issue. you know how the media is. it's like a search light. it's moved from one debate tow another. we've moved on from the gun debate, we've moved on from boston. i think the president's heart was in the right place on this. i think he spoke movingly about it. he started late. if he had moved quickly, hadn't had the idea of a commission, i think he would have had a better chance of getting it. what strikes me-- and i'm really curious. you griez really close to this. from the distance of boston where i live now, it appears the air is going out of this pris

presidency, his capacity to control events, lead the congress, is diminished. i think the hour glass is running out quickly to use your metaphor. on immigration, it's the senator moving independently and trying to keep the white house's finger prints off of it. it's not the white house that will revive gun control. on the issue of sequester this week, overrideth air control. that wasn't the president. the president didn't want to do that. congressa acted independently. >> schieffer: because it impacted them. suddenly all the talk of gridlock -- and i said this in the other half the program-- it's likelet red sea parting. the potomac river parts and we don't have gridlock because this will cause us inconvenience. >> you know what that is a problem in addition to the that, when i talk to republicans this week, they said the only way to build pressure for a big deal is

if the sequester starts to hurt and people start to squawk. and. and what happens with this, is people squawked and it was fixed immediately, which undermines all the arguments when people said the sequester will hurt -- >> but it hurt the congress. and that's what they heard. >> true true, but also the people who were hurt waiting in line had a kind of better access to their congressman than the people who are not getting meals on wheels, the people are not getting their headstart. it did bite them. but it didn't stick around long enough. and so now there's no-- it doesn't offer a-- the pressure. >> or that congress acted quickly when some members of congress were forced to wait a couple hours on a runway, as oppose to the paycuts the men and women serving in the military, where they won't get a 3% raise, a 1% raise. where at bases across this krish the coordinates hired to take care of families when the loved ones go overseas, that those jobs have been cut and those people have been furloughed. these kinds of stories happening in small communities among the people who need the hospital

most, our military families, when those jobs are cult-- and there isn't immediate action on that-- but when it saves your own behind waiting on the runway i think adds to the cynicism. >> schieffer: claris ahow does this look from an overseas post? >> i have long since given up trying to explain the sort of paralysis in american politics to people whoy i meet in the international community. they're baffled by it. they see a poll saying 90% of americans support, you know, background checks on gun control expect then they see that congress is-- you know, this bill is unable to pass. and they think to themselves, what is going on here? why is, you know, america sort of gripped with-- by this political paralysis? and does that mean in the second term we're going to spend all our time fighting about domestic issues and ignoring important international issues as a result? >> i wonder if it isn't changing

a little bit. that is, even as the president seems to be lose higz capacity to lead the congress, whether there aren't people coming forward in congress saying, "we've got to solve some of these problems, like immigration. there are some people, like some adults-- >> speaking of working out of self-interest, immigration is one issue where republicans have self-interest to move on that politically speak because of their own poor performance among hispanics in the last election. that is driving them to some degree. >> schieffer: i just want to go to pego this because i'm interested in your take, the bush library. this was sump, to me, i really enjoyed seeing that picture of all those presidents from both parties. >> yeah. >> schieffer: in one place, at one time, each of them talking about, you know, the respect they had for the other because nobody can understand what a president does except people who had been president, really. what did you feel when you saw all of that? >> well, i'm afraid the first thought i had was, "oh, the picture of five presidents. everybody who got a copy is

sending to the office of every former president saying, "will you sign this? >> schieffer: you've bye-bye there. you know. >> i have that picture from 20 years ago. i happen to-- i love celebrations and marks of greatness. i am less in love with trumpets, doing flourishes at presidential libraries, if you know what i mean? there's something-- bill clinton said it well when he said, "this sort of marks every president's continuing hope to rewrite history." there's a little bit of that going on look, i think, the bush library opening was very interesting in that it came within a context of new polls showing president george w. bush, whose presidency was controversial, to say the least. his fans say it was consequential. others say it was a disaster. he left the presidency with 23

points on the approval ratings. he now has 46 or 47. boy, it means a lot when you leave for a while. >> schieffer: all right, we have to leave fair while. >> i'm sorry. >> schieffer: we'll be back in a moment with our "face the nation" flashback. thanks, peggy. thanks all of you. ,,,,,, ,,

[ male announcer ] you think you know me. i'm just red carpets and big spectacles. but that's only the beginning. i have more than one red carpet. i like all sorts of spectacles. from the grandiose to the impromptu... to the completely unexpected. and the most epic thrill ride this city has ever faced. transformers the ride 3d.

los angeles. endlessly entertaining. start exploring at discoverlosangeles.com have to go very far back in time for this week's "face the nation" flashback. we just went back to last night and theand white house correspondents' dinner. it's one of the few events where politicians, media, and celebrities get together and take the night off from the partisan sniping and enjoy some partisan jokes. >> there are other new players in the media landscape as well, like super-pacs. but you know that sheldon adelson spent $100 million of his own money last year on negative ads. you've got to really dislike me to spend that kind of money. ( laughter ) i mean, that's oprah money. ( laughter ) you could buy an island and call

it "no-bama" for that kind of money. sheldon would have been better off offering me $100 million to drop out of the race. ( laughter ) ( applause ) i probably wouldn't have taken it, but i'd have thought about it. laugh michelle would have taken it. ( laughter ) ( applause ) you think i'm joking. i know republicans are still sorting out what happened in 2012. but one thing they all agree on is they need to do a better job reaching out to minorities. and, look, call me self-centered, but i can, of one minority they could start with. laugh law enforcemenwith.

( laughter ) ( applause ) >> hello! think of me as a trial run, you know. see how it goes. one senator who has reached across the aisle recently is marco rubio. but i don't know about 2016. i mean, the guy has not even finished a single term in the senate and he thinks he's ready to be president. ( laughter ) ( applause ) kids these days. ( laughter ) >> schieffer: all right, we'll be back in a minute. bs, cut middle class income taxes to the loe in sixty years,s working creating tens of thousands of new businesses, and we're just getting started.

to grow or start your business visit thenewny.com is more fun than ever. sees better than ever. ♪ charges faster. and will charge. cool. and heat. from your phone. fact: leaf never needs gas. ever. good for the world. built in america. now, leaf's an easier choice than ever. ♪ shop at choosenissan.com. ♪

for us today. be sure to join us next sunday on "face the nation,"" and thank you for joining us. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org ,,,,,,,,

we're headed to wine country to visit a downtown area that's been transformed into a gem amongst the vines. >> we found a place where the world of wine and the world of barbecue come together. >> they also serve up beer can chicken. your let's try a new place to eat guy, your hey, it really happened here guide, we're the tour guide with you in mind. eye on the bay. welcome to eye on the bay. >> thank you for joining us on this day trip to napa. >> there's so much to do here. you'll be surprised by what downtown napa has