from washington, the mclaughlin group, the american original. for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. >> issue one, containing isis. >> i also leave here confidence the nato partners are prepared to join in a broad international effort to combat the threat posed by isis. already allies have joined us in iraq where we have stopped their advances. we've equipped our iraqi partners and help them go on offense. nato has agreed to play the role in humanitarian assistance to those on the front lines.

they stand ready to confront the threat through military assistance. secretary kerry will now travel to the region to continue building the broad base condition to allow us to degrade and destroy isis. >> president obama strategized with nato on ongoing military operations to confront isis, the radical islamic movement that has now decapitated two american journalists, steven sotloff and james foley. >> both americans were revenge killings, executed for successful u.s. air strikes against isis in east iraq. the mosul dam. what's next, syria? where they're focused on the region. commander in chief obama acknowledges that u.s. operations against isis to date have been limited to rolling them back in iraq.

now it's isis in syria. isis's strength is now estimated at 20,000 fighters. this figure includes 2,000 european citizens. get this, several hundred american citizens recruited from poorly assimilated immigrant communities in the u.s. >> question, with nato new on board, does president obama have a coherent strategy for dealing with isis and if so, what is it, pat buchannan? >> it's coherent in iraq. it's not only coherent, it's working. isis has been defeated in four straight battles. the mosul dam has been retrieved. with air power, they can degrade and, i think, eventually defeat them. can the iraqi army recapture all of these armies and the real question is syria. now, the united states, i don't

believe, has the authority to wage air strikes in syria. i think the president is going to come back. when you get right down to it, look at what's there. turkey has an army of 100,000 people. iraq has hundreds of thousands under arms. we have the ground troops who are not americans and using air power -- if you work with syria, i think you can degrade and defeat them. as for annihilate them, we don't know. >> whose authority? >> you have to go to the congress of the united states. >> you do? >> i'm going to predict. >> did he need that when he was bombing in iraq? >> no, he did not because of the previous resolution. i think he's going to go to congress and ask for authority, but the key here is, are we going to get asad's support and are you going the work the iranians and us walla if you do. >> brits worried. i am certain

that after a month they will reach europe, and after another month, america. >> it was reported that pope francis' quote, in the cross hairs of isis, unquote. >> also, in great britain, prime minister believes isis poses a dangerous threat to the u.k. deeply troubled by the covert movement of thousands of passport holders to turkey and into syria. here is what he is proposing. >> we'll introduce targeted legislation to fill this gap to seize at the border during which time they will be able to investigate the individual concerned. >> that's not all.

mr. cameron's government intends to prevent jihaddists from returning to the u.k. >> people who declare they allegiance elsewhere, it's abhorrent they can return and pose a threat to national security. we need discretionary power to exclude these individuals from the u.k. >> it what do you think of this idea? >> i think the measures he's put in place are warranted and because isis is more immediate and direct threat to europe and to our homeland, i think he's taken appropriate action. but i want to follow up on what pat said. nato, as awful as isis is, this is an opportunity for nato to redefine itself and redefine a mission, for president obama to chart a course and, i think, bring a renewed purpose and to put policies in place that will

leave his successor a better hand than he was health when he came into office. the president will go to congress. the congress is lining up quite nicely. you have senator enhoff who is saying, basically, that republicans would be supported with a resolution, whatever it's called, to go into syria. if they do go into syria, and that's by no means guaranteed at this point. you go in with the kind of coalition that george h.w bush assembled pack in the day. the first president bush is the president whose foreign policy president obama admires the most. to put together a desert storm 2 is what this administration is taking i felt's a big task. you cannot go bombing in syria unless you have jordan and the

united emirates and maybe an invitation from turkey, which is a member of nato because isis is threatening to turkey as well. it's complicated. i don't see an indication. that would be problematic. we don't want to be on the side of that. >> we spent a lot of time -- >> i think eleanor is absolutely right there. 's a lot of concern. these individuals will come back with 500 members of the isis. to return to live in. they've learned from the group in terms of operational security. they will be able to stay under the radar. people have to remember m i-5, the british domestic intelligence service, they have people they're already following. their concern is these people will come back and they won't be able to monitor the degree they need to and they will commit atrocities. >> atrocities in england.

>> but potentially -- one of the greatest concerns is you may see a replication of the 2006 transatlantic plot where they planned to travel on the american airlines on those planes and -- >> what do you think, nullify the passports of these people? >> well, i don't know what the specific measures r but one of the things we have to do is find a way to keep them out of both england and, frankly, the united states. but this is the kind of threat that we're now facing, and it's going to be a very serious thing. it's going to go on for a long while. these people are radicals and they're committed to doing enormous damage to the western countries. and we're going to be in a very, very difficult time for quite a while on these issues. you get one or two people who succeed in this thing, it will change the whole mood in the country and everybody understands that. >> okay. vice president joe biden willing to cross the river. >> we'll follow them to the gates of hell until they are

brought to justice. because hell is where they will reside. >> question, should we take vice president's rhetoric seriously. is this policy? >> well, i think the president at the nato meeting and in histonia, basically said, we'll find you wherever you are, the american reach is long, we do not forget. we will pursue you. >> the american people are thirsting for this. the president is almost too low key in his public rhetoric, and i think the vice president has kind of filled that vacuum. i think the determination of this administration is there. i think biden is conveying it and the president, a little late to the game. >> his determination is there, john. the bridge we've got to cross is iran. now, the iran -- they've been on our side doing battle along with our troops up there in

northern iraq. iran is the principal supporter. these are the fighting forces against isis. they're not very attractive from our standpoint, but if you're going to fight and win the war and isis is the main threat. you have to be able to deal with them like with dealt with stallen. and the version of that isis represents is so barbaric. so i think the u.s. has to capitalize on that division within the islam. i think that's what we're starting to do. >> the bottom line here is syria is complicated. it's complicated. it's not easy to say that we're going to go in there without asad. it's not easy to say we have to go to him and get his authority.

do you have thoughts on that? >> i have concerns about the iranian political strategy. in terms of ideology, they will try to expand if we allow them to in lebanon. the real key here, i think, is to actually engage with the tribes. because the tribes there -- it's a very different ideology. it's already disenfranchisement. >> that's about it. >> i think the two most powerful forces in syria are isis, which controls the northern half of the country and my judgment, in the near future. one of the other is going to be in damascus. asad is a bad man, but hi does not trust the united states. isis is an evil force, and i think it ought to be defeated. if we have to work with the others and with the iranians to defeat them, i think we should

do it. >> we worked worked with iranians in afghanistan. i don't think that's an issue. >> sure we did. >> we have a lot of interest, but it's a lot of tricky diplomacy. >> we've dealt with a lot of bad men. if isis is as bad as you think it is. >> if it's the number one enemy, we put all the force there is and deal with the problems of iran's ambition. >> are you prepared to demonize asad. >> i think they're understating him. he's been a disaster in so many ways. >> what does -- >> i don't know. i've never talked to him about it. >> you never have? >> in a general way, the israelis know he's a total enemy of israel. >> what a difference -- excuse me, excuse me. what a difference eight months makes. >> in january the new yorker reported that the president

was, quote, incredibly flippant, unquote, in trivializing the threat from isis. quote, the analogy we use around here sometimes -- and i think is accurate -- is if the jv team puts on lakers uniform, that doesn't make him kobe bryant, unquote. >> as president obama been underestimating isis for 8 months or will they prove to be a jv team? mark zuckerman? >> let me put it this way. if he had 10 sentences in his career that he would like to withdraw, that would be one of them. it's ridiculous to put them in those terms. >> it was 8 months ago. who was thinking this. >> i was. >> loot of people were. >> i was against bombing asad last summer, and thank goodness we didn't. >> what's the point of talking about this now? >> well, in the sense, it

reflects on some levels a misjudgment as to what was going on. >> did you see him out of line. >> it's a level of intelligence, slightly better than we have. not totally but to make those kinds of casual statements, when we're dealing with something that's so critical to the whole region of the -- to the middle east region and to the united states -- >> maybe he should be talking to somebody at the state department. maybe he should be talk about somebody in his inner circle, if he's prepared to make a statement like that. he's being prepped on these things, correct. >> i agree he would like, maybe, to take that back. i think what he's trying to do is slow the march to war. i mean, he lived through that whole iraq experience and all of the pushing to go to war. slow it down. slow it down. and be deliberative. i think that's coming across. >> right. we don't need american troops. >> he has the substance right. he has to have a little more

grandiose language. >> and god bless him for that. >> i'm in the pew with you on that. >> president obama began the week on the defensive about the white house's lack of strategy against isis. is he still on the defensive? why don't you knock him again, pat. >> i haven't knocked him at all. i think he's doing the right thing in iraq. i think he can do the right thing in syria. we don't need american boots on the ground. i think we're going to have to work with unsavory characters if we're going to destroy these guys. >> eleanor? >> right on all of those scores, and that sums up the president's approach. saying he didn't have a strategy was a statement of the obvious, the kind of thing he doesn't say out loud. he has a strategy and he's brought europe along. the beheadings, i think, sobered up a lot of people. >> what do you say? >> i have to say respectfully,

i disagree. there's a problem that our strategy has been too slow. the military tensions, the intelligence community tensions have been brewing for a long time. they've been seeing this happening since two years back, but especially a year ago last summer. i'm happy the president is beginning to take charge of this and hopefully we can see a -- in the coming days. >> the information and the ideas and the strategies from the resources at his immediate vicinity. or does obama think he has everything under control. >> i think that's one big issue. my concern is he's been badly served by people on his national security team. >> what were they supposed to do? bang on his door? >> no. the intelligence community has a habit of reading his brief but not engaging deep dive with his analysts. speak with the people and. >> do you have any reason he's being a bad boy. >> i don't know how -- i don't

know how to describe it. >> why did they get on top of this issue. that's the feeling i have. he's way late in the game to deal with it. that's a big problem. >> let me tell you what think. it's a virtual requirement. prudence, prudence, particularly when there's so much rioting on everything he says, et cetera. i have to commend him. i think at this point on his prudence, issue two, mitt versus hillary. >> someone else has a better chance than i do. that's what we believe. that's why i'm not running. circumstances can change. let's say all the guys that are running, all came together and said, hey, we've decided we

can't do it. u must do it, that's the one out of a million we're thinking about. >> former presidential candidate mitt romney left the door open, even if it is only a one in a million chance. another run for the presidency in 2016. romney has had a resurgence in the polls since the 2012 presidential race. in july, a cnn poll found that if the 2012 election were to be held again this summer, romney would defeat obama 53% to 44%. when it comes to republican voters in the crucial early caucus state of iowa, romney leads the pack of 2016 contenders. a poll shows 35% of republicans would back romney in the gop cause cusses. topping his next contender, mike huckabee. he predicts romney will run.

we know he wants to be president. he's run twice. romney would be a classic republican nominee, unquote. any speculation about a 2016 white house bid, romney's presence on the campaign trail with appearances in iowa, in new hampshire, fundraising events over the past year. >> will mitt romney run again for president? if so, will 2016 match romney against hillary clinton? >> i don't think romney will run unless the whole field collapses and they turn to him. i think the possibility of that happening is a one in a million. but, you know -- >> do you know how much he lost by? >> 5% points in the general election. >> because there was a hurricane that took everything off the screen for about a week. >> it was a hurricane of women, john. >> and he didn't show up with

the governor of new jersey, remember all of that is? >> i do. >> at that time -- >> i'm just going to say that. i will make a small bet with you you. if there was one person in the republican group, it's going to be jeb bush, and he'll have no chance. >> let me disagree with mark. there's no doubt jeb bush, chris christie and mitt romney are in the bracket headed for the finals. i think mitt would come out first. i don't see bush as having the inner drive. and then you get romney against a cruz or something like that, i think that would be the finals. i think mitt, if he has it in his heart to do this -- >> why doesn't he pick a woman. >> you have to get the nomination first. >> assume he does, who would be the best one for him to pick?

>> what about hillary, should she pick a man as vice president? >> i certainly would try that, yes. >> she probably would. don't do redundancy. >> mitt romney is really popular with the republican base, you see that in the republican states and the foreign policy. the rhetoric of the debates is coming back in romney's favor, and his documentary following him seems to humanize him more. >> do you think romney wakes up in the middle of the night, hearing hail to the chief? >> he does. >> he does. >> how do you know? >> because he needs more sleep. that's how i know it. >> the only cure for presidential fever is embalming fluid. i think he's going to run. >> pat was another politician that is washed up and made an incredible comeback. make you can do a sequel with mitt romney.

>> issue three, gop woos women. >> whom do a majority of female voters view as, quote/unquote, intolerant, lacking in compassion, stuck in the past? republicans. these are the findings from a report commissioned by a republican group. crossroads gps backed by carl row, an american action network on how the gop is regarded by women. the data is based on eight focus groups in a poll of 800 registered female voters. in 2012, republican presidential candidate mitt romney took a schlacking from female voters. they voted obama by a 12% margin. so the republican national committee vowed to erase the gender gap and woo women voters. but the gap still exists. 49% of women view republicans

unfavorably, whereas 39% of women view democrats unfavorably. geographically, republicans do it especially poorly with women in the northeast and midwest, so how do republicans propose to close the gender gap and reverse it? pursue policy innovation that inspire women voters to give the gop a, quote/unquote, fresh look, but the top policy issue, female focus groups respond to equal pay for equal work. a democratic initiative. in fact, on the broader question of who, quote/unquote, looks out for the interest of women, democrats hold the advantage. >> well, is there any good news for republicans? yes. married women without a college degree routinely favor republicans over democrats. >> question, how can the gop turn the tide to their favor

with female voters, i ask you? >> i think we need to see a change in the rhetoric. some of the rhetoric we've heard in previous campaigns is so obviously negative in the tone it sends to women who potentially might vote republican that it offputs them immediately. they need to engage in issues like education reform, really taking ownership of education throughout the country. >> what else? >> talking about, for example, medicare reform, social security issues, things that women that tend to care about social issues. >> what about education? >> i think we need to see about going toward,'d regardless of where you were born, you have an opportunity in life. >> do you think married women are more susceptible or less susceptible -- >> susceptible may be a bad word. >> they tend to be republican. >> democrat or republican? >> married women with children are very republican. where you get the real

democratic advantage are women that depend heavily on the government for housing, education, health care, all these things, and republican party is the one that says we're going to cut government. to them, these government is what they survived on. >> women without husbands need the government, is what you're saying? >> it's about the role of government. i think -- i do think single women, for whatever reason, widowed, divorced, never married and they've been through this very deep recession and they think government has a role in caring for people. republicans have made it a crusade of wanting to dismantle all these programs that benefit people. they turn off women. what about married women who have had no college education? who does better with them? republicans or democrats? do you have thoughts on this? >> well, there i would argue that it's a question of who does bet we are the economy. these are women who will be

working. i don't think the democrats have a good record on the economy these days, and that's going to be one of their real problems. the economy is being very weak for the last five years, it's continuing to be weak and it's going to continue. >> blue collar women. >> you can't beat something with nothing. >> what's that? >> you can't beat something with nothing and republicans have not made proposals. minimum wage is huge. raising the minimum wage is huge. democrats are forit, republicans oppose it. >> what's the quick fix? >> there's no quick fix. >> no quick fix? >> none. >> the congress will authorize air strikes against syria by october one, yes or no? >> no, after the election. >> yes, yes. >> yes. >> bye-bye.

it's is so false. >> it's absolutely true -- >> next on "kqed newsroom," california governor jerry brown and his opponent neel kashkari square off in their only scheduled debate. >> we lost 1.4 million jobs. since i've been elected, almost 1.3 million have come back to california. we've got momentum, and we're heading in the right direction. >> is your family back? are your kids in good schools today? do you feel good about your job? do you have the job you want, the job you deserve? >> i'm running for governor to fight for your family. >> all members vote who desire to vote -- >> i'm john myers at the state capitol in sacramento where the largest freshman class in the legislature in more than a generation just finished their first term and mi