good afternoon. thank you for joining us. i'm karen finney. we just heard from president obama about the situation in syria and the question remains, are we going to war? >> ten days ago, the world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in syria. in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. over 1,000 people were murdered. young girls and boys, gassed to death. i have decide that had the united states should take military action against syrian regime targets. i've made a second decision. i will seek authorizing for the use of force from the american people's representatives in congress. the country will be stronger if we take this course and our

actions will be even more effective. i respect the views of these call for caution. what message will we send if f a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? i know well that we are weary of war. but we are the united states of america. we cannot and must not turn a blind eye to what happened in damascus. we lead with the belief that right makes might. not the other way around. i'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. i am acting congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation. >> we continue to follow the breaking news from this afternoon in washington where president obama surprised many when he announced he will now seek approval from congress before launching any military action in syria. >> here's my question for every member of congress and every member of the global community. what message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight

and pay no price? what's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98% of the world's people, and approved overwhelmingly by the congress of the united states, is not enforced? >> this come after a week of back and forwards between administration and skeptical members of congress on both sides of the aisle. this afternoon the administration continues to make the quas top members of the administration, including secretary of state john kerry and defense secretary chuck hagel, briefing senators at the white house. members of the house will receive a briefing tomorrow. all of this, a big turn of events for many who believe at this hour, tomahawk missiles would be bearing down on damascus. how did the administration get to this decision and when will congress begin to debate? for that i want to bring in nbc news chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell from washington. thank you so much. >> thanks for having me on. this has been quite an extraordinary day.

the question you asked, how did we get here? it is because the president changed his mind. the president had second thoughts about this and chuck todd is reporting this as well. after a background briefing at the white house and basically, took a walk with his chief of staff, dennis mcdonagh around 5:00 last night and began talking about going to congress. what was very persuasive for him was the eight-hour debate in parliament the day before. the fact that david cameron had taken to it parliament hxt permitted a full debate and was rejected by his own party. and the coalition of opposition leaders and his own party. clearly this president does not want the same outcome. but you have a number of things that will facilitate them coming back early. he did not call them back. primarily because we do have the jewish new year starting, rosh hashana. so they didn't want him in there

early. there is talk that harry reid might want to bring back the senate early. but this won't be an easy vote. there is a joint statement objecting very strongly to the way the has proceeded, the 28 president has proceeded, saying there shouldn't be military action isolated from a larger strategy. >> an dr an dree, >> up until this point the administration focused on the suggestion that they didn't believe they needed to engage congress in making this dig. obviously that changed. now the congress has been thrust into this. we're looking at a debate. we're looking at what could be a very tough vote and a very tough sell. and as you know, that is on both sides of the aisle. so how will the president move this forward on capitol hill to get outcome that he wants? >> that is a real challenge. first of all, you've got divided democrats, divided republicans. you have the rand paul wing who

doesn't believe there should be any military action. they believe they can get 60 votes to cut off debate in the senate. what do you do in the house? we all know thknow that boehnern able to do that. so you have nancy pelosi having to produce enough democrats to help john boehner go through with it. they have to have a ral to go to the floor. they have to agree on the language. you're not talking about anything easy. plus, the president is about to leave on tuesday for the g-20 in where else, russia. so he will be potentially hammered by the host, vladimir putin, in a broad international forum. john kerry has been on the phone after this decision was made. the walk back, if you will. talking to the saudis, who are very eager to go and do something and punish assad.

talking to the opposition leaders and there is great disappointment there. how does this project strength? secondly, the legal and the political issue. the president says he is not establishing a precedent. he does not believe he needed congressional authority but dookss set precedence. perhaps not in law but in practice. so presidents back to ronald reagan have taken limited air strikes without congressional approval. they've gone to congress, both bushes did for going to war, boots on the ground in iraq, twice. not on the ground in the first gulf war but going against saddam hussein. by saying you're going to ask for congressional approval, many are saying the president is ceding executive authority to congress. for practical purposes. >> i imagine we will hear. that i imagine part of the president's decision is haunted somewhat by the ghosts of iraq and frankly, libya, where congress felt they should have had more of a role. one of the interesting dynamics i want to get your opinion on,

andrea, it has been the tea partiers who have taken the lead on the conservative side in the opposition to any strikes. to question how this is truly in america's national interests. we have a sound bite. >> i am very glad that president obama has listened to the bipartisan calls for him to go to congress and seek congressional authorization before any possible use of force in syria. that was the right thing to do. >> so there you have it. congress is saying, we're glad he listened to us. >> that does not mean that ted cruz will agree with the white house on how the authorization should be written. he does come from texas. a very strong pro military state. so it will remain to be seen if ted cruz is there for the vote. that's an open question. the other thing is the president

is boxed in by not only the calendar now but by the prospect that he won't win the vote. we are told by the white house briefers, he will take military action. there is the military side of it. we know that the chairman of the joint chiefs, martin dempsey, was not in favor of this from the get-go. you have five warships prepositioned. we're spending money. you have men at the ready. on the front lines in these ships in the persian gulf. you have two carrier ships and some were due to rotate out. but they're turned back or held over. what is the rotation there? what is the rhythm of the military? what are the costs for them? and i have to say because of the optics of this, after announcing this pullback, the president and the vice president at this hour are golfing here in washington. >> yeah. >> a lot of people are going to ask questions that. >> i don't disagree. i was a little surprised to see that myself. andrea mitchell, thank you.

andrea will be bringing us more coverage at 5:00 p.m. right here on msnbc. now we want the latest from the white house where kristin welker is standing by. >> reporter: thank you. >> as we're learning more about how the president made this decision, one of the thing i find interesting is there was consensus among national security team that they did not want to engage congress. where did that shift take place? >> reporter: well, you're right. all signs coming out of the white house in this administration, they were gearing up for a strike against assad. they had been for the past several days. i think that that vote that the british parliament took was something that really made president obama stop and think. chuck todd who sat in that background briefing that andrea mitchell just referenced, was told by senior administration officials, that that vote in the u.k. was really one of the pivotal moments. one of the thing led president

obama to change his mind. another factor, his own philosophy. going back to 2007 when we heard him say that he believes any military engagement should be proceeded by congressional authorization. so that is another thing that was weighing on him as he was trying to make the final determination about how to proceed. then i believe andrea referenced this. the president took walk with dennis mcdonagh according to chuck todd and that was the moment he changed his mind. when he went back to his top advisers. back to his national security team. they said you're making the wrong decision. you shouldn't put this to a congressional vote. they had an evening to think about it and sleep on it. it is striking and came as a

surprise to many people. >> one of the things that strikes me in this, what is the staff actually doing now? the president is golfing, regardless of how you feel about that. the timetable has shifted on this. so how, what are the deliberations going on inside the white house at this point in terms of, look forward to dealing with members of congress, a congressional vote, in addition to, on a parallel track, at least that was my experience in the clinton administration, making the preparations for a military strike. >> right. >> that's what's going on behind the scenes here. i am told they are working up their proposal. that they want to present to congress. of course, they are trying to determine what their strategy will be over the snempl days. how they can put this to a swift debate and then ultimately, it would be their hope to a swift vote. as you have been discussing, as we've been discussing all

afternoon, karen, this congress doesn't move quickly. so certainly, the momentum has slowed here considerably. i would expect that behind the scenes, you will see a robust outreach from particularly the vice president. i'm sure the president as well will be working the phones as well as senior administration officials and secretary of state john kerry. >> thank you, kristin welker. coming up, more reaction on the president's speech today and how a war weary nation will view this vote. usua l please. usua thank you very much. ok guys, i'm back. i need a template of a template. oh my gosh. i've never even seen this record, i've only read about it in books. yeah we can get some peanut...that is huge. please don't judge the amount of peanut butter we are getting. from prepaid to platinum, cashback and more membership has a card for every character. i'm carrie brownstein and i get to be whoever i want.

this is what membership is. this is what membership does.

i believe the people's representatives must be invested in what is done abroad.

now is the time to show the world that america keeps its commitments. we do what we say and we lead with the belief that might makes right. not the other way around. >> more on this breaking story from the white house. let's bring in our panel. in the national counter terrorism center, former u.s. ambassador mark ginsberg and msnbc contributor, thank you all for joining me. ambassador, i want to start with you. one of the things that was interesting in the president's comments, he said that he essentially, while he will be engaging congress, he believes he has the authority to proceed without congress. what would that look like? that seem like that would send quite a precedent. >> karen, i have to tell you, i've been listening to this debate. as someone who worked on the hill in congress for seven years, i believe this is a disaster waiting to happen for the president. the fact that we are going to wind up hearing probably one

minute on the merits of what happened with respect to chemical weapons and 20 minutes that go back through bad history and potential expansion of this conflict and a gulf of tonkin resolution going back to 1964 which most americans will remember, lyndon johnson drove a truck through to get us involved in vietnam. i'm afraid in the final analysis, the, a pum the president is going to have to make is going to be lost as time go by and as congressional opponents essentially are fighting a much stronger public opinion battle against his position. and if he tries to take action militarily, should the congress, i dare say, vote against this resolution, let me ask you this. what will they then do after that? what will the republicans, ted cruz and others do about potentially putting up article of impeachment? this is why i am so deeply concerned about what the president is about to do. >> let me follow up with you on

that. to some degree, this is a conversation about the role of the united states on the global stage. and we have ironically, within the conservative party, we have varying degrees of opinion but there is an opinion about the united states as a global power. we need to be there. obviously we need to do this in collaboration with other international partners. it has been conservatives and republicans who have actually suggested we haven't been tough enough at being, playing this role out in, on the world stage. >> well, there are conservatives and there are conservatives. when you think about what is going to happen in congress, and i count votes like you do. senators mccain and graham will take one position. whatever emerges a it's a resolution will be amended. there will be rule and amendments to the rules. by the time, karen, this so-called authorization come out, i guarantee you that it will be far more constrictive than what the president originally hoped for when he

went into this battle. >> a part of the argument, we heard the president making, was the national security argument. some of the criticism and the questioning we've heard, the tea party members in particular, is why is this in our national interests. we've got some sound from the president and let's talk about it. >> while i believe i have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, continuing country will be strong ferry we take this course and our actions will be even more effective. we should have this debate. the issues are too big for business as usual. >> so that's actually a different -- let me read to you. the president said this attack is on human dignity. it presents a serious danger to national security because it risks making a mock rift global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. this will be the crux of this argument. the first part was, we have proof. we believe very strongly in our

proof. and here's why we believe this is in the united states's national interests as well as the world. >> i think also for israel, the interests of neighboring countries like turkey, qatar, jordan, saudi arabia. i think the degrees the right choice. he is waiting. waiting for the american people to speak through their representatives. noonld, he is waiting for the u.n., people that came back from syria to swhaes really happened. at the same time, they are connecting all kind of intel and they are waiting also for the arab league to come around when it come to this issue. this is not only a civil war. this is a prox proxy war between two countries, iran and saudi arabia. to get into that war and make it an american war is a tragedy. then everybody will blame the united states for what's happening there and they will never blame anybody else. we have to engage with our partners in the region and we have to wait and be careful. the major question is not how we

go in. what we do after that. what will be the outcome. what is the end game in syria. regime change? who are the others? we know that there are islamists elements. today it is al qaeda. >> did he have the question for you, that will become a part of the debate we will see unfolding in congress. and again we had secretary kerry did a good job making the case based on the proof. we focused much more on who's the proof. not so much on outcomes, not the end game. what happens the next day. how difficult will it be to contain that conversation in congress to get the froofl move forward? and the second part of my question would be, that also buys time for both sides of the debate, frankly, outside the united states gearing up as they watch what we hope won't be

chaos in the united states. >> karen, i actually don't think that you want to short circuit that debate. i think that is a core element of the de bait that needs to occur. and i honestly couldn't disagree more with the ambassador. i think the president did the right thing. first, i think he will get approval. i think it will be broad. second, the difficult question is not about the strike. it is about what happens after this round of strikes. if assad continues to be aggressive and use chemical weapons. the hardest question is, what happens and what does syria look like in six months, in a year, in two years. that really does require a coalition and a backing of congress that i think this president understood that he was going to have a difficult time maintaining if he went forward without actually seeking greater congressional approval. >> i agree with you. i'll let you get in here, mr. ambassador. speaking about it from the political angle, i'm sure the

administration recognized that while yes, in a normal situation, a debate is a good thing. given what we've seen with this congress, that is going to be potentially something that not only slows the process down. i think it creates uncertainty. while you're trying to proceed as firmly as possible on a diplomatic front, our allies and friends around the world now know that this is going to be open to a debate here in the united states. that political congratulations is, where i think the president and the administration was initially coming from, in trying to contain the conversation, again, on the authority to go in as step one. >> well, karen, listen. i understand. and michael's point is well taken. this is really hopefully he'll be right and hopefully, i'll be wrong. i want to see the president succeed here. i desperately would like to see the president succeed. given the track record politically of his ability to move legislation and congress, given the public opinion here, and given the fact that there are very few allies, no matter

what we try to do, the arab league is not going to come around and support us. the only country that is prepared to do so militarily france. no amount of arm twisting at the g-20 will give angela merkel, the chancellor of germany, to support war ships. what could happen in the worst-case scenario, the president, even if he eeks out a victory here, if he is ham strung in his ability to do this, then in the end, what level of attack can he accomplish the goals that he needs to do, and secondly, what, if he decides that he is going to go ahead no matter what the vote in congress is, fine. what if assad continues to use chemical weapons. what if the president then decides like he just changed his mind today, that he says well now the congress has rejected my desire to you've my commander-in-chief authority. i'm not going to go ahead. and assad continues to use

chemical weapons. i would have rather have seen him stand to his principles early on. call congress into session. present the evidence to them. move quickly because the more that this is debated, the more people will say that any vote of congress will give us, give the president more authority to put boots on the ground. that's what i think will be the danger here. >> we're going to have to leave it there for now. my panel will stick with me and we'll talk more about the international response and the politics here at home. coming up, next. >> let me say this to the american people. i know well that we are weary of war. we've ended one war in iraq. we're ending another in afghanistan. that's why we're not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else's war. ♪ we go, go, we don't have to go solo ♪ ♪ fire, fire, you can take me higher ♪ ♪ take me to the mountains, start a revolution ♪ ♪ hold my hand, we can make, we can make a contribution ♪ ♪ brand-new season, keep it in motion ♪ ♪ 'cause the rhyme is the reason ♪

♪ break through, man, it doesn't matter who you're talking to ♪ [ male announcer ] completely redesigned for whatever you love to do. the all-new nissan versa note. your door to more. ♪

that lets you swipe images to multiple people. the new droid ultra by motorola. when intelligence matters. droid does. this military's position to strike. and they may be there a little while with at least a week before congress takes up the

issue and no deadline for action on syria. >> the children of the joint chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. more over, the chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time sensitive. it will be effective tomorrow or next week or one month from now. and i'm prepared to give that order. >> it may come as a surprise to the people of syria who have been evacuating by the thousands from damascus and other expected targets. it is not sitting well with the opposition. a spokesman for the free syrian army, president obama is sending contradictory messages. he promised to help and now he promises delays. let's bring back our panel. we're joined now by nbc's reporter from beirut. i want to start with you and get your reaction. what are you hearing in reaction to the president's comments today and this idea of a new

timetable? >> certainly, there are a few mixed reactions coming out of the region depending on hue ask. if you start by asking the syrian opposition. and it is being portrayed very differently on syrian media. the syrian opposition sources we've been speaking to have been very disappointed. they say that the president had a moral obligation to get involved. not to simply defer the issue to congress. that has been one of the criticisms coming out. syrian state television has now actually been calling this the retreat of president obama that president obama has retreated and knowing that he would have faced dire consequences if there was a syrian, or rather u.s. military action against the syrian government. other countries have been rather muted so far in terms of official responses. leading up to today's decision, you got a sense from a few key members of the region that there were serious reservations about a possible military strike. that the region wasn't prepare,

not necessary they strike but the day after the strike. that was a major concern for the major countries here. they may have been on one hand pushing the u.s. to carry out the strike. at least had their own reservations about possible iranian retaliation. possible retaliation from hezbollah inside syria and what it would mean to pro long this civil war that has been going on there for two years. >> it sound like at this point, it is all on standby. we haven't completely stood down, if you will. there is still going to be a vote. it may take a couple of weeks. so in terms of the mood there, the tension, are people relaxed? feeling like we've got some time? or are they prepared for whatever may come? >> reporter: i think one of the important points that president obama made is that he personally said that he believed that military action should be taken. he wants to open this up for discussion within the american public, given the history of mill involvement in the middle

east. so the issue has become a debate about the american process of leading a country to a military confrontation. he has come out now publicly saying he believes president assad should be punished but he wants the backing of congress. from the perspective of the people here in the middle east, that nuance may be lost on most of the people at this particular point. it may be lost in the sense that american foreign policy often proceeds solely in the hands of the commander-in-chief, president obama. they may not understand why the nuance of going to congress to get further support from the american public to carry out this time have type of strike. i think a large part has to do with the fact that the united states is not sure what the possible outcome of a strike can be. yes, it may be narrow and it may be in scope, this is a confrontation that could widen beyond syria. and that would require a much more substantial u.s. military commitment across the region, affecting the allies, affecting others. >> i have to believe that there are, i bring my panel in here in

a second. i have to believe that folks on the ground recognize that a surgical targeted strike, whether it is one day, three days, what have you. that question about what happens the next day and specifically, what happens to the people? the syrian people the next day. particularly if we're trying to say, it won't be regime change. what guarantees if any are there that it won't be chaos? or that assad won't try to retaliate against his own people? or that hezbollah or the others won't try to retaliate. >> reporter: you are absolutely right. the syrian president, one way or the other, is going to spin everything that has happened to his favor. to say that he remained defiant. in the face of defiance, he is continuing with his opposition against terrorists trying to break down his country. had there been a strike he would have come out saying he was defiant in that he did not, the regime didn't collapse. he is faced aggressions in the past including israeli air strikes and he survived those. he will spin it as he has done in the past to use that.

to create momentum on the ground. that's precisely what syrian opposition sources are complaining about. they're saying president obama's delay will now only embolden president assad on the ground to continue with his operations against rebel strongholds and even increase or accelerate. >> i want to get you in here. that seem to be a reasonable perspective for someone in the region to take. to see this as, it gives assad more time. it does not necessarily guarantee the safety of the syrian people. we also still know that there are threats from some of the assad's friends. that they, too, will retaliate when and when the united states strikes. >> if you look at the free syrian army, they have a lot of reform to do before opening their mouth. they have the hard core islamist element that recently, not only kidnapping some shiites, from lebanon, from iraq, from elsewhere.

they have also been killing soldiers and eating their hearts. we're talking, we don't have good choice and bad choice. all choices are bad there. so the syrian, the free syrian army has to do a lot of reform and they have to tell us what kind of country they want in the future. is it going to be democratic and inclusive country? a liberal country? what kind of country? what is going to happen to the minorities? to the christians? so before blaming president obama, they should look at what's going on in their country. other side, and this is what is really tricky, assad, of course he will spin everything around and we know that. but we have to push everything toward the political settlements. a military option alone will not end this conflict. it didn't end the iraqi conflict. didn't tend afghani could not flicks. we are lacking in this country a whole debate about diplomacy. this is what is missing. >> ambassador, to that point, it strikes me. and michael, i want to get you to reaction to this as well.

if this delay is perceived in the region or spun as weakness, that forces more time to, they are more emboldens. what signal does that send to people like iran or hezbollah? >> it sends a signal that the president is essentially politically weak at home. that he doesn't have, until this vote occurs, until they can prove that he has the power, that all of the crescendo that the strike is imsent in backing off. they will all look at david cameron's plight and say, aha! you see? there are leaders that don't have the support of their people. and there is a better chance that he will be voted down than voted up. the regions don't understand american democracy and they'll say that this is a problem. iran will construe this the way it always will construe this. the way assad will construe it. as hesitation by the american people to live up to their claims indeed assad was

responsible. and remember, here, the most important element that will prove whether or not the president can get this vote is not that the chemical weapon attack occurred. but the highly secret intelligence that is still class fade, even though it leaked out. that assad's commanders were held, were found to be from the intelligence that we gathered, have ordered the attack. is that going to be sufficient to convince everyone had a already is reluctant to support this. and that this information is secret. and how far will this secret information, michael may know much more about this than me. >> i want to you weigh in here. >> it is undoubtedly true that iran, assad, will look at this as domestic weakness from the president. the one thing we know from the region, we have to be in it and have congressional support in the long game. the problems in syria,

throughout the region, will not be solved with one set of tomahawk strikes. that's why i believe the president did the right thing. he has to build the domestic coalition for long term engagement in these problems which won't go away. the only thing that would undermine our credibility more than the situation we face stay a round of tomahawk strikes and nothing change in syria. that's far worse for us in the long run. and ultimately, he we won't commit to iran. putin won't believe what we're saying on the intelligence front. i have seen what they're talking about in my view, and i think in the view of sort of all people who are objective about this at all. this is clearly assad. it was his chemical weapons strike. what we have to do now is build that coalition, domestically and internationally, to have a real long term solution to a fractured and almost nonexisting country. >> thanks to my colleague. my panel. coming up, what would a military strike in libya look

like and how long would it last? a payment, so there's no late fee. really? yep! so is your husband off the hook? no. he went out for milk last week and came back with a puppy. hold it. hold it. hold it. at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card with late payment forgiveness. plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day men's 50+ is a complete multivitamin designed for men's health concerns as we age. with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day men's 50+.

>> arrest care of deliberation, i have decided the u.s. should take military action. we would not put boots on the ground. instead our action would be design to be limited in duration and scope. >> that was the president this afternoon telling the american people that any military action taken in syria would be limited in duration and scope. what exactly would that entail? joining me now, msnbc military analyst and retired army four star general barry mccaffrey. >> good to be with you. >> we're hearing about the tom talk missiles. tell us about what their capabilities are. >> let me unequivocally say how proud i am of what the president did. this was the right call. i would be confident that vice president joe biden, a 30-year

senator, was heavily involved in it. he was so far out on the limb it was pathetic. he didn't have backing from the u.s. coming, nato, arab league, denounced by egypt, denounced by jordan. this was a loser. a limited military strike wasn't going to change the situation on the ground. >> general, we have also seen reports that some within the military, actually, wrls concerned about the way the president was proceeding. i would assume this alays some of their concerns as well. >> nobody with eight brain cell who had military experience thought this was a good idea. there was a letter that said don't get involved in a ground civil war. if you do get involved. if you've written your political objective and you want to deter assad from threatening his own people. 100,000 dead. ruined half the country. then use meaningful military american measures. it could destroy the syrian armed forces in 60 days.

but not with 200 tomahawks. >> when you hear the president talk about a limited strike. that sounds shorter than 60 days. how realistic do you think it is? and what is realistic that can be accomplished in that limited period of time? >> it was utter nonsense in my view. we always say, don't talk about intentions. talk about capabilities. this was a fight to the death inside syria. the christians, the kurds will get slaughtered. there is zero possibility of giving up on this struggle. their lives are at stake. to change assad's thinking, you have to arm the people on the ground who are opposing him. and then possibly come in with overwhelming u.s. military power. what would have happened this

time around, the president had been out on a limb all by himself. congress did not want to be held accountable, by name, by vote. we would have had a reaction by going after the u.s. navy at sea. we would have beenon o'an escalation and not been able to get off. >> thank you. coming up, we'll get the latest on the humanitarian crisis in the region, the syrians flee to neighboring countries. [ male announcer ] when you wear dentures you may not know

that your mouth is under attack, from food particles and bacteria. try fixodent. it helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it. the united states government now know that at least 1429 syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children. even the first responders, the doctors, nurses, and medic who

tried to save them, they became victims themselves. we saw them gasping for air, terrified that their own lives were in danger. >> that was secretary of state john kerry explaining in horrific detail the carnage from a chemical attack in syria just deny today's ago. beyond the attack, another crisis persists, one that should have called us into action even before the deadly gases were released. the war has raged on and it has experts comparing to what we saw in 994 in rwanda. with more than 100,000 people dead and 2 million ref jaes. 1 million children have been forced to flee their homes and the u.n. warn more than half the population, 10 million people will need aid by the end of this year. with no end to the violence in sight, they continue to knock to neighboring countries in search of she will and survival. but can they withstand the toll on the resources? school, water, hospital?

jordan, a country half the sigh of syria, has already taken in ref jaes. that would be like the u.s. taking in 23 million people in the last two years. with an impending threat of escalation, these number are sure to rise. joining me now, executive director for human rights watch. kenneth roth. thank you for joining me. we focused on the use of the chemical weapons, and obviously, it is horrific as we were discussing. the other issue are though who are still trapped within different areas within syria where we can't get aid to them. let's talk about that. >> what many people don't appreciate, the civilian death toll in syria is not just a matter of a civilian being in the wrong place at the wrong time. assad is deliberately targeting civilians in rebel held areas as a way of showing them they will pay a price if the rebels prevail. so while 1429 people killed by the chemical weapon attack is

horrendous, we have to realize that tens of thousands, perhaps as many as 100,000 civilian have died. many very deliberately by assad, indiscriminately shelling or bombing in rebel held areas. and he goes after bread lines where people are trying to eat. everything after the clinics and the hospital where they go for medical care. everything after school. there was a horrible incident just last week of dropping incendiary bomb on a school. so that's the problem. and of course, when president obama talks about the need to stop the use of chemical weapons, he's right. that's a terrible weapon. the big question is how do you stop this very deliberate slaughter of syrian civilians? >> particularly when we're talking about, at this point we're suggesting that there will be no boots on the ground. we're not talking about regime change. i think one of the big questions on the other side of this, whatever this targeted limited air strike is, will assad still have the cape bill to terrorize his own people.

>> that's the question. i hope congress asks that. president obama simply did not address that. they talk about punishing assad. but this is a man deliberately killing his own people he has watched his major cities be destroyed. how to you punish a guy like this? how do you make a difference? how do you stop this large scale lawsuit isser? you mentioned humanitarian problems. the people had a don't die. the people had a aren't killed have to survive. in many ways, the lucky ones are the 2 million who have fled to the neighboring countries. the people inside are the ones in desperate need. and particularly the civilians in rebel held areas. assad is going after the infrastructure. and the human human relief being provided through u.n. channels -- >> they're essentially cut off from aid and relief. >> there is very little getting through. a trickle of u.n. aid gets through. what is really needed is cross

border operation from turkey, from jordan, from lebanon. assad is saying no to that. he is not letting the u.n. do that. the u.s. and others are funding this on an informal basis but there is not nearly enough going on. >> i want to talk about the impact of these refugees. 700,000 in lebanon, 12,000 arrived on thursday alone. half a million in jordan. turkey, 400,000, iraq, 150,000. we're starting to hear reports from pleb the hospital are overtaxed and concerns from jordan that perhaps there will be a back lash from the jordanian people because of the strain on their resources. this seem like this is spilling out into the region and becoming not only a sectarian problem in term of the violence but the refugee crisis. >> you have a place like turkey, a major economy, a big

population that's doing relatively well. a small country like lebanon, a relatively small countries like jordan, they are quickly getting overwhelmed. there is a need for assistance to them but then we have to not forget the people stuck inside syria. they are the ones really in need. >> thank you. we will continue to watch this. the timing, the actions, the reactions. everything has to synch up. my expenses are no different. receipt match from american express synchronizes your business expenses. just shoot your business card receipts and they're automatically matched up with the charges on your online statement. i'm john kaplan and i'm a member of a synchronized world. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. car sales events.ng, and that means... and now there's a new way to buy: truecar. at truecar.com we'll show you... what others paid for the car you want, so you'll know if that sales price... is a great price. save time, save money, and never overpay.

visit truecar.com nascar is ab.out excitement but tracking all the action and hearing everything from our marketing partners, the media and millions of fans on social media can be a challenge. that's why we partnered with hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center. hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights that help nascar win with our fans.

thanks for joining us. doengt anywhere. our msnbc coverage continues now with a special report from andrea mitchell. and here's the kicker... 0% apr for 60 months. and who got it? this guy. and who got it? this guy. and who got it? this guy. that's right... [ male announcer ] it's the car you won't stop talking about. ever. hurry in to the volkswagen best. thing. ever. event. and get 0% apr for 60 months, now until september 3rd. that's the power of german engineering. [ all ] who's new in the fridge! i help support bones... [ ding! ] ...the immune system... [ ding! ]

...heart health... [ ding! ] ...and muscles. [ ding! ] that can only be ensure complete! [ female announcer ] the four-in-one nutrition of ensure complete. a simple choice to help you eat right. [ major nutrition ] nutrition in charge. like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪

the president decides to take mill action. he decides to give congress a chance to vote first. >> while i believe i have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, i know that the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be even more effective. >> his decision made late yesterday and only today