. ♪ from washington, the mclaughlin group. the american original, for over three decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. . ♪ issue one, moving the goal post. >> america's not the world's policemen. terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. but when would modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, i believe we should act.

that's what makes america different. that's what makes us exceptional. president obama, on tuesday night, delivered a prime time presidential address to the nation, focusing on syria's crisis. on thursday, russian president vladimir putin responded, in an extraordinary "new york times" op ed, directed at america's political leaders, notably taking aim at obama's claim that american values are exceptional. quote putin, my working and personal relationship with president obama is marked by growing trust. i appreciate this. i carefully studied his address to the nation on tuesday and i would rather disagree with the case he made on america's exceptionalism, stating that the united states policy is,

quote, what makes america different. it's what makes us exceptional, unquote. it is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. there are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions, and those still finding their way to democracy. their policies differ, too. we are all different, but when we ask for the lord's blessings, we must not forget that god created us equal, unquote. question, why did president putin seize on the stated u.s. value of exceptionalism, pat buchanan? >> in the reaction to putin's op ed piece, he put this down the smoke stack. he keyed off of what obama said on exceptionalism and he countered it with an argument which people all over the world

believe. they are sick of hearing americans talk about we are the indispensable nation, as madeline albright said, we see further than ours, we're the sheriff of the world, we see first. he's not only appealing to the world. he's appealing to that half of the united states to whom president obama himself was appealing. i think he hit home. >> i think there was a little superpower envy there, as leader of a former superpower, now sees a moment for him to get back on the world stage, appropriately so, i might add. i welcome his involvement in an attempt to find a solution in syria. and in taking a poke at u.s. exceptionalism, i think, you know, he wants to make the point that the, it's not only the u.s. that can make things happen on the world stage, but when there's a humanitarian problem, basically all of those countries look to this country to act. rarely does another country act. the french went into mali,

british went into sierra leone. that was very good. mostly when there's a humanitarian crisis, everybody comes to the u.s. with their handout. >> i think vladimir putin is a propaganda, he honed in on this, look at the last election when the gop candidate built his entire foreign policy platform on this idea of american exceptionalism, lifted it right out of the romney play book, lifted it out of the reagan play book. he knows obama did not talk about american exceptionalism during the election. here he is, up giving this speech about syria and he uses it and putin jumps in on it. >> mark? >> look, i happen to think america is exceptional. i think it's good that the president puts it forward, because it is one of the things that makes america such an appealing country. the problem is, how do you in a sense implement american exceptionalism? you don't do it by having the most limited kind of response to something like this. you don't do it by the various

ways that seems to me that the president is operating on the principle of american exceptionalism. >> you don't see a little braggadocious in it? >> no, i do, but you also have to back it up in the way you implement your policy. that is what people are talking about. okay. sear's yeah chemical weapons. >> over the last few days, we've seen some encouraging signs. in part, because of the credible threat of u.s. military action, as well as constructive talks that i had with president putin, the russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing assad to give up his chemical weapons. the assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said they join the chemical weapons convention, which prohibits their use. okay, mr. obama. now, mr. putin. quote, a new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days.

the united states, russia, and all members of the international community must take advantage of the syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. judging by the statements of president obama, the united states sees this as an alternative to military action, unquote. question. does president putin read president obama right? are the three leaders, including bashar al assad willing to diffuse the crisis over the use of nerve gas in syria? obama, putin and al assad? >> there's a lot of self interest going on here. the president said they crossed a red line. he needs to deliver on his, his warning. putin doesn't want loose chemical weapons in that area of the world, because they could find their way into parts of russia. he has a vested interest in a stable syria with assad

surviving. the only way assad survives is he gives up chemical weapons and he wins the war conventionally. so everybody's acting out of their own self interest here, which is why this has a chance of succeeding. >> russia being a close ally to syria. >> strategic victory for putin. look, obama's threat is off the table. putin's got a veto on the security council. congress won't authorize it in the united states. he's been stripped of his guns. wyatt earp lost his guns. what the russians do in the u.n. is this. they slow walk this and assad's going to tell the americans, if i'm giving up my chemical weapons, you've got to, a, get rid of this threat against me, and b, stop supporting the rebels. >> bad as this man looked for the obama administration, they appeared to fumble into it. we have to consider that prior to this week, moscow did not even recognize that syria had chemical weapons. >> meaning what? they knew they had them. >> they knew they had them, but publicly never said we know we have them. >> what's the point? >> the point is now they are

acknowledging it's a goal of the global community to get these weapons under control. >> that's hypocrisy? >> it's a possible step forward, no matter how poorly the obama administration executed it, this is a step forward. [ overlapping speakers ] >> is it hypocrisy for russia to take that, take a nonspeak position? >> eleanor's right, they want to get rid of them. >> let me go to mark. >> this is a very strategic issue we are faced with. we have the shiites and sunnies in that part of the world. putin is trying to support assad because he is a part of the shiite group. our community, our friends, our allies are among the sunis. in everything he is doing, he is protecting assad, okay? this is a huge strategic issue for us, because you look at all the arab countries that we support, the saudi arabias, all the arab countries who are allies, and they are appalled over what's going on. >> who are the more numerous,

sunis or shiites? >> sunis are 17 to 1. >> what's the point? >> overwhelmingly -- the muslim brotherhood is suni. al-qaeda is suni. but they are allies. >> giving no ground! >> not everything is rosie between putin and obama. in his televised address, president obama went to great length to establish that the syrian government bears responsibility for the gas attack that killed 1400 people. >> the situation for family changed, though, on august 21st, when assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. the images from this masacre are sickening. men, women, children, lying in rows, killed by poison gas. no one disputes that chemical weapons were used in syria. the world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from

the attack. and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas. moreover, we know the assad regime was responsible. vladimir putin disagrees. quote, no one doubts that poison gas was used in syria, but there is every reason to believe it was used not by the syrian army, but by opposition forces to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who are besiding with the fundamentalists, unquote. question, the u.n. reported this week that war crimes are widespread on both sides of the fighting in syria. giving that background, is it conceivable that putin may be right and obama wrong about who ordered the saran attack in syria? >> no. >> it's conceivable. it's just not true. the u.s. and european

intelligence agencies collectively agreed that it was somebody within the syrian government that did this, not the rebels. the question-- >> let him finish. >> -- whether or not bashar assad actually ordered the attack. this is a question that will come up as we go forward now in this process. >> why are you speaking with such sirte tude? >> because i have spoken with u.s. intelligence. >> no one has -- people in the intelligence community -- cia? >> they have intercepts. >> let him talk. >> i'm saying that-- >> eleanor? >> -- intercepts a syrian general ordering these attacks, then talking about covering up the evidence, now, they don't have president assad on those, on those -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> fine technicality. >> i want to get this out first. okay. a picture is worth a thousand words. whether or not bashar al assad is responsible for the horrific

attack on august 21st, atrocities are happening on all sides. take a look at this photo that made the front page of the "new york times" on thursday of last week, september 5, the line of captured soldiers facing down in the dirt were syrian soldiers fighting for the regime of bashar al assad. they were all shot in the head by the standing syrian rebels. all 16 men are syrian. syrian rebels executing syrian soldiers of assad. >> john-- >> okay. question. some people believe these are not al-qaeda extremists, but the secular, supposedly pro democracy opposition that -- does that persuade you they could also have used gas on their own people? i ask you. >> no, i don't believe that they used gas on their own people. this is just-- >> they are all syrians. >> that's not the issue. the issue is that on both sides, you will have extremists, but there is no question here about what's been going on in terms of the use of

gas, okay? i think it is ridiculous to assume that assad didn't know what was going on. it is just impossible to imagine that. >> the war's been going on for two years. the country has been ripped apart. >> yes. >> you don't think -- you think assad should have stopped this and he was in a position to stop it? >> of course he. you think this is a democracy? what are you talking about? this guy is a tyrant at every level, as was his father. >> i think he faced a situation that was almost impossible to control in many respects. that's what i think. >> john-- >> there are war crimes on both sides. >> go ahead. >> first, the russians are saying not the august attack in one of the reports, an earlier attack by gas weapons was done by the rebels. secondly, the free syrian army in al-qaeda, this last week, attacked a christian village. they were cutting throats there. they emptied it out. if the rebels win, the christians go to the wall, there will be a mass martyrdom of christians. >> there are war crimes on both sides. what the president is talking about is retaliating against

the significant use of chemical weapons against his own people, weapons that were delivered by rockets that only that regime has. and the threat of force has brought people into, to the negotiating table. we now have the possibility of a political settlement. so we're, we're ending here, this week, much better than when we began. >> he's also, he's also talking about financing the opposition that's marbled through with al- qaeda-linked elements. >> exactly. >> this has been talked about this week, for the last two years. >> cia has been supporting them for two and a half years. >> he doesn't want to overthrow the government. he says he doesn't want to dethrone the government, but we are providing weapons to the rebels. issue two. yes, it's a red line. vladimir putin may not have called it a red line, but his "new york times" column on thursday of this week clearly spelled out the consequences of the united states if commander in chief obama takes military

action against syria. >> the potential strike by the united states against syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope will result in more innocent victims and escalation potentially spreading the conflict far beyond syria's borders. a strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. it could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the iranian nuclear problem and the israeli/palestinian conflict, and further destabilize the middle east and north africa. it could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance. under current international law, force is permitted, only in self defense or by the decision of the security council. anything else is unacceptable under the united nations charter and would constitute an

act of aggression. question, would a unilateral military strike ordered by president obama-- >> look, i think this is a double-sided issue, because putin and russia invaded georgia in 2008 without u.n. security council approval. the united states invaded iraq in 2008 without u.n. security council approval. we don't know. obama is arguing, look, if the u.n. is blocked up with putin and russia saying we won't approve anything-- >> you mean they are equally untrustworthy? >> in this country, presidents clinton and reagan have launched similar strikes and congress didn't squak. and i think most-- >> that's the blessing on it? >> no, no, no. you're not going to have cries of illegality in this country. and i don't think we should be taking advice from putin.

>> okay. you made your point. >> this would be an act of war. it would be first, unconstitutional because congress has not authorized it. it is an unnecessary war. and it would be illegal because the russians and the chinese would veto it in the security council. he has no authority from either body to launch a war. >> mort? >> i have to say, i disagree with you seriously. the president of the united states has always been the lead, leading figure in terms of protecting the united states nationally. >> who threatens us? >> that's a matter of your judgment and a matter of the president's-- >> assad? >> the matter of the president making those judgments. >> you've got to threaten us or attack us. >> are you saying when reagan acted, and when clinton acted, i didn't hear that argument. >> all right. >> -- invasion on libya, in response to an attack us on in berlin. >> is this impasse? i think it's an impasse, i mean in this conversation? >> in this conversation. >> okay. it's an impasse. [ laughter ] russia's motive.

russian president putin not only casts the u.s. as a potential outlaw nation in his "new york times" column, but he depicted russia's role in syria as merely enforcing existing international law. listen. >> syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition. in a multireligious country. there a few champions of democracy in syria, but there are more than enough al-qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. from the outset, russia has advocated peaceful dialogue, enabling syrians to develop a compromised plan for their own future. we are not protecting the syrian government, but international law. >> buchanan, what about that? >> he is exactly right. syria is no democracy, but it is a legitimate government, defending itself against a revolution and rebellion.

putin as an ally has a perfect right to send arms to his ally. >> we're talking about the use of chemical weapons, which the chemical weapons -- you can't combine it all into one big bundle. >> do you think giving syria chemical weapons? >> chemical weapons are, like, cooking meth in your kitchen. i'm sure they got, they got the basics. they got, they got the basic ingredients from there. [ laughter ] >> it doesn't require putin to have given syria chemical weapons. >> wouldn't give syria chemical weapons. >> they are very easy to make. >> chemical weapons, which has been an outlawed form of warfare and treatment for decades. so there is a legitimate case to be made about that. >> do you think assad used and called for the use of chemical weapons? >> without question. i don't have the slightest doubt about it. >> do you agree with mort on that? >> they haven't proved that. the major-- >> the assad regime-- >> -- chemical weapons in the last 25, 30 years, iranians, iraq, doused them with gas and the americans knew of it. >> the assad regime used them.

they were delivered on rockets that only the regime has. whether mr. assad is in control of his government or not, i don't know. but sure did well on the charlie rose show acting like he's in charge. >> shouldn't you be able to prove 50 missiles in-- >> i don't think we're killing- - >> this has become an extremely important question of who actually ordered it, because as international pressure now mounts from the u.n., from moscow, from washington, on bashar assad to hand over the chemical weapons, whatever rogue generals there are in this wild two-year civil war, will hold on to whatever cache of weapons they have as a trump card for their own -- it is an important question about who actually did it. >> getting the chemical weapons out is a prolonged process. >> absolutely. >> but if you know where they are and the dimension they are probably in. >> if you want to assume that generals in the syrian army, okay, used these weapons against certain people who were opposed to assad, then you have a very, very different view of

the way that government works. i want to squeeze this in. exit question, first international crisis to test commander in chief president obama's handling. on a scale of zero to ten, rate obama's handling of the syrian crisis thus far, zero to ten. almost out of breath. pat buchanan. >> not as impressive as gerald ford. look, it's one of the worst performances i've seen? >> eleanor? >> it's very much in progress. if you look at the cuban missile crisis at various steps along the way, you would have rated kennedy a 10 or a 2. i think this can still turn out very positively. >> three. >> three. >> yeah, i would say it's as close to one as anything i've ever seen. worst performance i've ever seen on foreign policy of any american president in your lifetime. >> the answer is five. issue three. pontificating. >> last week, the g20, argentina, australia, brazil, canada, china, france, germ nene, independent knee, indonesia, japan, south korea,

russia, saudi arabia, south africa, turkey, uk, united states, and the european union met in st. petersburg, russia. the meeting lasted for two days, september 5 and 6. a letter was dispatched to host vladimir putin, russia's president from another head of state. pope francis, head of vatican city, a civilian state, as well as the seat of roman catholicism. the pope weighed in on the conflict in syria, quote, to the leaders present, to each and everyone, i make a heart felt appeal to them to help find ways to overcome conflicting positions and lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution, unquote. pope francis has been notably vocal in his appeals for peace in syria. this past saturday, the pontiff held a prayer vigil for syria, where he appealed to world leaders for peace and reconciliation.

thousands packed st. peter's square to hear his words. [ foreign language ] >> we have perfected our weapons, but our conscience has fallen asleep. and we have sharpened our ideas to justify ourselves, as if it were normal, we continue to sow destruction, pain, death. the violence and war lead only to death. they speak of death. violence and war are the language of death. brothers and sisters, forgiveness, dialogue, reconciliation, these are the words of peace, especially in beloved syria, in the middle east, in all the world. question, what's the impact of the pope's statements on u.s. catholic parts, and beyond that, there are 1.25 billion catholics in the world. if that's the pope's position, what do you make of its

political power, so to speak? >> john, i think the united states during the cold war and even the aftermath of the cold war, what more wars than almost any other nation. i think the pope is respected. he's enormously popular. but i don't think in the present time, remember what george bush said, pope john paul ii came out against the iraq war and george bush said either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. i don't know the americans respond very much to the pope's appeal. >> what do you say? >> i think the pope is a moral leader. this is the tone and what the substance is that he is speaking of. political leaders have to consider the interests of their own country, which are not necessarily consistent with a moral approach. i'm not saying they aren't affected by it. this is the difference between somebody like the pope and presidents or leaders of countries. and that's inevitable, been true forever. and it's going to continue i think actually in truth, the moral issues are much more relevant today, because of the media frankly than they used to

be. but it's still not decisive. >> the pope wants reconciliation. do you think he can get it? >> well, first of all, john, i think it's very appealing and interesting to younger citizens of the world to see the pope speaking very seriously about geo political issues as they are happening. this is unusual. as far as whether or not people in power are going to listen, it's an open question. i would say probably not. >> what about his infallibility? >> look. >> faith and morals, john. not on the war. >> the pope is a religious figure. he's-- >> well, you could derive war somehow within the scope of-- >> there are -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> -- with which you're familiar. >> stop trying to lead me down your merry little trail. [ laughter ] >> which pope last came out in favor of war? what happened during world war ii? was the pope abdicating?

>> he wanted to get hitler assassinated. >> okay, all right. so they are not always the peacemen. >> -- not a pro democracy, like the-- >> i think putin spoke -- it's a horrible, ugly, dirty war. >> putin and the pope, lot in common >> [ laughter ] >> more religious than putin! >> if you had any inkling of the record of putin when he was the head of the kgb, you would not put putin and the pope in the same category. i predict that on a scale of one to ten, our tv director, sheldon schwartz is a 10. in fact, sea plus-10. shelly has been guiding, directing, perfecting the mclaughlin group for 20 years. he has a metta physical skill for capturing the reactions on

our panelists faces. shelly seems to foresee who will counter point and move the camera before that person speaks. shelly has made me look better, too, with each passing year. shelly, give us a wave from the master control! here's a collective salute and a big thank you from the group on your 20 years, with more to come. bye-bye! [ laughter ] . ♪