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. breaking news this morning -- secretary of state john kerry joins me to explain president obama's political gamble. why he breaking news this morning -- secretary of state john kerry joins me to explain president obama's political gamble. why he decided to seek congressional authority for military action against syria. >> this attack is an assault on human dignity. it also presents a serious danger to our national security. >> with the debate now shifting to congress, we'll have reaction from kentucky republican senator rand paul, a member of the foreign relations committee, plus our roundtable on president obama's leadership. has he presented a convincing case to a skeptical american public? will the abrupt delay of military action be interpreted by the world as weakness or careful deliberation? and the terrible human toll.

our own ann curry joins me with her firsthand account of the life-and-death struggles of the syrian refugee camps. i'm david gregory. all that ahead on "meet the press" for sunday, september 1st. >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the world's longest running television program. this is "meet the press." and good sunday morning. i'm joined by the secretary of state, john kerry. mr. secretary, welcome back to "meet the press." >> glad to be with you, david. thank you. >> let me get right to it. it's been a jarring 48 hours in the run-up to a potential conflict with syria. on friday, the president dispatched you, the secretary of state, to make the case to the country and the world that the assad regime used chemical weapons and you spoke with passion and great strength. this is what you said. >> it matters because if we choose to live in a world where a thug and a murderer like bashar al assad can gas thousands of his own people with

impunity, even after the united states and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will. >> that was friday. saturday morning the president decides in an abrupt change to delay and seek congressional authority. you were making the case for a military strike. why the abrupt change? >> well, the case remains the same, david. the president of the united states has made his decision. his decision is to take military action in response to this outrageous attack, this affront against the decency and sensibilities of the world. bashar al assad and now joins a list of adolf hitler and saddam hussein who have used these

weapons in time of war. this is of great consequence to israel, to jordan, to turkey, to the region, and to all of us who care about enforcing the international norm with respect to chemical weapons. >> and that i understand. >> the president has made the decision, he has made the decision that he believes we need to take a military strike. but the military understands that whether that happens this week or next week is not going to make the difference with respect to sending the message. the message remains the same, and it's a message, i might add, that any president of the united states and any congress ought to seek to enforce. use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. and we cannot, cannot stand by and allow that to happen and create an impunity for its use. that would be the end of the chemical weapons norm, and that's why the president has made the decision.

why go to congress? because the united states of america is stronger when the congress of the united states representing the people and the president of the united states are acting together. and the president wants that strength represented in this initiative. >> you're making the case, mr. secretary, which i understand, as you made it on friday. i think i'm still trying to understand the abrupt shift. i know that you and others on the national security team, based on my own reporting, were opposed to the president seeking congressional authority, thinking he didn't need it. the reaction from the syrian state media is that this is the beginning, they say, of an historic american retreat. do you feel undermined? do you think the united states has undermined its leverage in the world, its credibility, having ramped up the specter of military action as being imminent and then saying, well, no, we're going to go to congress first? >> david, i completely disagree with the fundamental premise that you set out.

no, i did not oppose going, nor did anybody else that i know of originally. the issue originally was should the president of the united states take action in order to enforce the credibility and the interests of our country and to deter assad from using these weapons and to degrade his capacity to do so. that was the issue. and that's the issue that we debated. there was no decision not to do that, and the president has the right to do that, and we argued -- argued -- we discussed the options in the context of his right to take that action. the president then made the decision that he thought we would be stronger and the united states would act with greater moral authority and greater strength if we acted in a united way. he didn't think it was worthwhile acting and having the syrians and a whole bunch of other folks looking at the united states, arguing about whether or not it was legitimate, or should he have done it or should he have moved faster. he believes he needs to move.

he's made his decision. now it's up to the congress of the united states to join him in affirming the international norm with respect to enforcing the use of chemical weapons. >> you look at the polling. our nbc news poll released late in the week, 50% of those asked oppose a military strike. the british vote in parliament failed as a vote for military strikes. and the abrupt shift now, does it undermine u.s. credibility or will it be seen as careful deliberation? >> i hope and pray it will be seen as careful deliberation, as appropriate exercise of american constitutional process. the united states is strongest when the congress speaks with the president, when the american people are invested because we've had an appropriate vetting of all of the facts. let me just add this morning a very important recent development, that in the last 24

hours we have learned through samples that were provided to the united states that have now been tested from first responders in east damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin. so this case is building, and this case will build. and i don't believe that my former colleagues in the united states senate and the house will turn their backs on all of our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norms with respect to the enforcement of prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, which has been in place since 1925. the congress adopted the chemical weapons convention. the congress has passed the syria accountability act. congress has a responsibility here, too. and i think that congress will recognize that and realize that our interests with respect to

iran, we are hoping we have a diplomatic resolution of this standoff on the nuclear program in iran. but if we don't, iran will read importantly what we decide to do with respect to the enforcement of this convention in syria. >> mr. secretary. >> likewise israel. israel is at risk. jordan is at risk. turkey is at risk. the region is at risk. and we believe that the congress of the united states will do what is responsible. >> mr. secretary, i want to underline the news you made this morning. this is a sarin gas attack perpetrated by the assad regime. this is a slam dunk case that he did it. >> we don't -- the words "slam dunk" should be retired from the american national security issues. we are saying that the -- that the high confidence that the intelligence community has expressed and the case that i laid out the other day is growing stronger by the day. we know where this attack came from. we know exactly where it went. we know what happened exactly afterwards.

we know the preparations were being taken before, for this attack. we know that people were told to use their gas masks, to prepare for the use of a chemical barrage. we also know that after it took place they acknowledged that they had done it and were worried about the consequences and whether the u.n. inspectors were going to find out. i think this is a very powerful case, and the president is confident that as that case is presented to the united states congress and the american people, people will recognize that the world cannot stand aside and allow -- >> okay. >> -- an assad or anybody else to break an almost 100-year-old acceptance. these weapons are not to be used. >> so here's the fundamental question. president's made his decision you say to take military action. if you go to congress and congress says no, you don't have our authority to strike, will the president move forward with

military action against syria anyway? >> david, let me be very blunt. i do not believe congress of the united states will turn its back on this moment. i think the interests that we have with respect to potential future confrontation, hopefully not, but the challenge of iran, the challenges of the region, the challenge of standing up for and standing beside our ally israel, helping to shore up jordan, all of these things are very, very powerful interests. >> i understand. but if congress says no -- >> i believe congress will pass it. >> if congress says no, the president will act regardless of what congress says? >> i said that the president has the authority to act, but the congress is going to do what's right here. >> you know there's a debate, and the debate will continue in congress about the future of assad and what the united states actually ought to do. the president talks about narrow, limited action, almost punishment against assad. you've called assad a murderer and a thug. in the past, the president has

said that he has to go. you know senator mccain and others have said they would only support a strategy that ultimately topples assad. why not go beyond something that's limited and narrow? why not try to erode his conventional capability and indeed even try to topple him from power? >> well, let me draw a distinction here, david. the president of the united states has said that assad must go, and this is the policy of the united states. but we do not believe that this military action the president has decided to take should be more than an effort to try to deter and prevent the use of chemical weapons and to degrade his capacity to use those weapons. so the military operation is not calculated to become involved in the effort to topple him, but the political operation and the

support for the opposition is. and the president of the united states, as you know, has declared that we will provide additional support to the opposition. we do not believe there is any scenario under which assad can continue with any kind of authority whatsoever to govern in syria. and so, yes, the policy is politically through the geneva process, through our commitment to the ultimate negotiated settlement that will have to take place, there is no future for assad in that governance. but this military operation is specifically geared to prevent a future chemical attack and to deter and to degrade the assad capacity to be able to do that. now let me be clear. whatever the president ultimately decides to do in that context i assure you assad will feel its impact and they will know that something has happened. >> before i let you go, how can

americans feel confident that america's first strike against syria in this civil war will be its last? >> david, that will depend on whether assad decides to use chemical weapons or not. the president of the united states does not intend to and does not want to see the united states assume responsibility for syria's civil war. that is not what he is setting out to do. what he is setting out to do is enforce the norm with respect to international convention on chemical weapons. and it is targeted to do that. it will clearly have an impact on assad's military capacity. but we will continue and we will even i think sharpen the focus of our efforts to support the opposition, to work with allies and friends in the region, all of whom understand that assad has lost any legitimacy as a leader of syria and to try to hold syria together with a

political solution that can be achieved through the geneva process. and we will continue to work with russia in conjunction with us in that effort to try to achieve that political settlement. that is our top priority. that is the fundamental objective of all of our efforts. it is to recognize that there isn't ultimately a military solution. there has to be a negotiated political solution. and the president remains deeply committed to that. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your time. i appreciate it. >> thank you. i want to bring in senator rand paul, republican from kentucky. he's on the foreign relations committee as well. senator, welcome. >> good morning. glad to be with you. >> so you heard the secretary of state break news this morning that the evidence, the intelligence suggests now this was a sarin gas attack at the hands of the assad government. the secretary saying as he just did the case is building and will continue to build. is that enough for you to now vote to authorize the president

to use force? >> no. and i think it's a mistake to get involved in the syrian civil war. and what i would ask john kerry is, you know, he's famous for saying, you know, how can you ask a man to be the last one to die for a mistake? i would ask john kerry how can you ask a man to be the first one to die for a mistake? i would ask john kerry, do you think that it's less likely or more likely that chemical weapons will be used again if we bomb assad? i will ask him if it's more likely or less likely that we'll have more refugees in jordan or that israel might suffer attack. i think all of the bad things you can imagine are all more likely if we get involved in the syrian civil war. >> it's interesting because secretary kerry was pretty blunt, and i've got his remarks right here, talking about what you and your colleagues will do in the senate and the house. he said, i don't believe my former colleagues in the united states senate and the house will turn their back on our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norm with respect to the enforcement of the prohibition against the use

of chemical weapons, which has been in place since 1925. so you speak about the bad things that will happen. he says for you and others not to authorize force is really hurtful to u.s. credibility. >> well, the one thing i would say that i'm proud of the president for is that he's coming to congress in a constitutional manner and asking for our authorization. that's what he ran on. his policy was that no president should unilaterally go to war without congressional authority. and i'm proud that he's sticking by it. but you ask john kerry whether or not he'll stick by the decision of congress, and i believe he waffled on that and wobbled and wasn't exactly concrete that they would. but absolutely if congress votes this down, we should not be involved in the syrian war. and i think it's at least 50/50 whether the house will vote down involvement in the syrian war. >> you think it's 50/50. it's that close. you don't think that this is a compelling case that's been made and that congress will follow suit.

>> in the house. i think the senate will rubber stamp what he wants, but i think the house will be much closer vote. and there are a lot of questions we have to ask. i think it's pretty apparent there was a chemical attack. but we now have to ask are we going to go after chemical weapons with our bombing. everything i read says that we're unlikely to bomb chemical sites because of the potential for civilian damage and civilian loss of life. the other question is all of the bad things that are going on, one of the bad things going on is that hundreds of thousands of people have gone into jordan as refugees. if we begin a bombing campaign in syria, i think that accelerates, it accelerates the misery. if we get involved, you know, people say, well 100,000 people have died, we must act. well, if our weapons get involved and we get involved, do you think more people will die or less people? i think the war may escalate out of control. then we have to ask ourselves who is on america's side over there? if the rebels win, will they be american allies? assad's definitely not an american ally. but i'm not convinced anybody on the islamic side, the islamic

rebels will be american allies. >> it seems to me, senator, that what the president is saying in that drafted resolution that he'd like congress to authorize, that the united states must draw a line at the use of chemical weapons, any weapons of mass destruction, in war, that you simply cannot allow it and that if we strike assad and he uses them again, i heard secretary kerry say that the united states might strike assad again if he uses the weapons. why not draw that line in the sand as the president wants you to and say we can't allow wmd to be used? >> i think the line in the sand should be that america gets involved when american interests are threatened. i don't see american interests involved on either side of this syrian war. i see assad, who has protected christians for a number of decades, and then i see the islamic rebels on the other side who have been attacking christians. i see al qaeda on one side, the side we would go in to support, and i see it to be murky. i don't see a clear-cut american interest.

i don't see either party that is victorious, if either is victorious, being an american ally. >> you are a united states senator. you may at some point be a candidate for the presidency. how would the united states look if the president says i have decided to take military action, i want congress to give me authority, and congress does not give that authority? >> i think it would show that he made a grave mistake when he drew a red line. i think a president should be very careful about setting red lines he's not going to keep. but then again, when you set a red line that was not a good idea in the beginning with, and now you're going to adhere to it or try to show your machismo, i think then you're trying to save face and really adding bad policy to bad policy. >> your colleagues in the senate like senator mccain and senator graham, you've tangled with them on some of these matters before. they've made it very clear that the only resolution they would support must go farther. it must essentially really push

assad from power. secretary kerry is likening assad to saddam hussein and adolf hitler. you don't see a vital american interest despite those arguments? >> no, but i think they make an interesting and a valid point. if we're going to launch cruise missiles and it's not going to affect the outcome, basically what they're pushing for, and my interpretation of the current obama administration's policy, is they want to fight for stalemate, then they want to negotiate a settlement. they think that assad has the upper hand now. they want to balance it out. but what i've told them is i'm not sending my son, your son, or anybody else's son to fight for stalemate. you know, when we fight, we fight when we have to, but i see things in a very personal basis. you know, i see a young john kerry who went to war, and i wish he would remember more of how awful war is and that it shouldn't be a desired outcome. neither are chemical weapons, and they should absolutely be condemned, but i think the failure of the obama

administration has been we haven't engaged the russians enough or the chinese enough on this, and i think they were engaged. i think there's a possibility assad could already be gone. the russians have every reason to want to keep their influence in syria, and i think the only way they do is if there's a change in government where assad has gone but some of the same people remain stable. that would also be good for the christians. i think the islamic rebels winning is a bad idea for the christians and all of a sudden we'll have another islamic state where christians are persecuted. so i think really the best outcome for all the major powers would be a peaceful transition government, and russia could influence that if they told assad no more weapons. >> senator paul, we'll leave it there. thank you for your views this morning. >> thank you. coming up here, our own chuck todd, our chief white house correspondent, will be here with the inside story on what changed the president's mind. plus, our political roundtable weighs in on whether his decision weakens u.s. credibility and the rest of the

world. later, nbc's ann curry just back from a syrian refugee camp on the toll of war. what the u.n. says is the worst humanitarian crisis in 20 years. 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've got something for you too. (announcer) fancy feast delights with cheddar. a meal that is sure to delight your cheese lover. now available in the classic form she loves. fancy feast. the best ingredient is love.

and we're back. from war to now waiting for congress, president obama shifted his stance on military strikes in syria at the 11th hour. chuck todd is here to take us inside the president's thinking and what changed. >> it was remarkable. you know, ten days ago, it wasn't a matter of if but when the president was going to order a military strike to respond to the bashar al assad's use of chemical weapons. but in the intervening days, an extraordinary series of events overseas and here at home caused the president to shift gears. it's these horrifying pictures of lifeless bodies, some of them children, clearly victims of some sort of massive chemical attack that convinced the president and his entire national security team they had to act. and so a pr campaign began. >> the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. >> the president, mindful of a war-weary american public, promised a limited campaign.

>> i have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in syria. but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable. >> but as the drum beat got louder, some in congress wanted to tap the brakes. speaker boehner sent a very pointed letter demanding answers to some 14 questions. meanwhile, british prime minister david cameron called his parliament back from vacation to debate a role from the uk for any strike, but his efforts were ill fated. >> it is clear to me that the british parliament, reflecting the views of the british people, does not want to see british military action. i get that, and the government will act accordingly. >> cameron's defeat had a strong impact on mr. obama, who watched it all from the west wing. whatever his misgivings, the march to war reached a new level on friday as the president dispatched his secretary of state to argue his case forcefully to the american public. >> history will judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turn a blind eye to a dictator's

wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding and decency. >> but just a few hours after kerry's stirring churchill-like remarks, the president took a walk on the white house south lawn with his chief of staff, dennis mcdonough, and decided he needed congressional approval. earlier that morning a poll indicated nearly 80% of those surveyed said the president should go to congress first. and while the president's decision did not sit well with his national security team, by yesterday morning they were on board. >> i have decided that the united states should take military action against syrian regime targets. i have made a second decision. i will seek authorization for the use of force from the american people's representatives in congress. >> this was a president, david, that was realizing he was isolated. no united nations.

no arab league. and then no british support. and it was the uk moment that was sort of the straw that broke the president's back on this one, and that's why he's going to congress. >> always concern about the legal basis for a military strike. a change at the 11th hour, as you say. chuck todd, thanks very much this morning. let me turn now to senator chris murphy, democrat from connecticut. and senator, on the one hand he's coming to congress. perhaps that pleases you. but you also heard the president say in chuck's reporting and in his statement yesterday he's decided to use military force. >> well, listen, i think this is the right move the come to congress. i don't think we want to go into this kind of serious military action as a nation divided. and i frankly think that the time it's going to take to have this debate will allow for more deliberation. i agree with president kerry this is a moral obscenity. the question is, is military action actually going to make the situation better on the ground for the syrian people and how do you make sure this

doesn't escalate into something much more damaging and much more bloody within the region. and i think that this week or this week and a half is going to allow the administration to think through and work through with congress a plan that, a, makes sure that assad doesn't simply turn to more ferocious attacks on his own people, and make sure there's a plan in place such that this doesn't spill into something that ends up having even more people killed in the region. >> but senator, you heard secretary kerry say this was a sarin gas attack. that was news this morning based on new evidence and intelligence. and the president is saying in effect -- my words, not his -- you've got 100,000 people killed, you now have 1,500 people killed by chemical attack, including hundreds of children. how much bloodier does it have to get until the united states says wmd, that's the line you don't cross, we have to respond? >> listen, i mean, i'm thinking about my two little kids at home every time that i watch those videos and those photos. and the question really is not is this unacceptable but can we make the situation better.

and ultimately, my worry is, and what's going to be my guiding principle over the next week as i enter into these deliberations, is will a u.s. attack make the situation better for syrian people or worse. there's a potential you could end up allowing those chemical weapons into the hands of even worse people, a wing of al qaeda, and there is of course a potential that this could spill into a much broader conflict in the region, which could allow a lot more people to be killed. i think those are just the essential questions we have to ask. the guiding foundation and principle of american foreign policy should be do no harm, and i think that will be the foundation of our debate. >> so are you a yes or no vote, and does congress pass the authorization? >> listen, i think congress passes the authorization. i was on the losing end of a 12-3 vote in the foreign relations committee against giving the president the authorization to arm syrian rebels. i certainly enter this debate as a skeptic, but i'm going to allow the administration to make its case this week. i'm going to go back to washington to sit on the foreign relations committee. i'm certainly a skeptic going

in. but i'm going to allow the administration to present its evidence to congress and to the senate. >> senator murphy, thank you very much this morning. i appreciate it. >> thank you, david. coming up here, americans are split on their support for u.s. military action in syria. have the president and his administration made a convincing case to a war-weary public? er ] these days, a small business can save by sharing. 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. ♪ an arm wrestling match that mr. clean realized the way to handle bigger, tougher messes was better leverage.

that's why he created his new magic eraser handy grip. it has a handle that firmly attaches to the eraser so you get better leverage and more oomph with less effort. it's the perfect magic eraser for making stuff that's big and tough not so tough, after all. mr. clean's handy grip -- the newest member of the magic eraser family. in all purpose and bath. [ engine revs ]

we want to know what you think about the president's decision on syria. we've posted some poll questions exclusively on zbox. if you haven't yet, down load the app for your mobile device so you can join the conversation online. there's a link on our website, meetthepressnbc.com. when we come back, our roundtable, bill kristol, gwen ifill, katty kay, and robert gibbs. too big. too small. too soft. too tasty.

[ both laugh ] [ male announcer ] introducing progresso's new creamy alfredo soup. inspired by perfection. new creamy alfredo soup. how can i help you? oh, you're real? you know i'm real! at discover, we're always here to talk. good, 'cause i don't have time for machines. some companies just don't appreciate the power of conversation! you know, i like you! i like you too! at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card and talk to a real person. about the walmart low price guarantee, backed by ad match. look at walmart's price. awesome! if you find a lower advertised price, they'll match it at the register. really? yeah! ready? wow! that's the walmart low price guarantee. bring in your receipt before game time and see for yourself.

joining thus morning, bill kristol, gwen ifill, katty kay, and robert gibbs. joining thus morning, bill kristol, gwen ifill, katty kay, and robert gibbs. now here's david gregory. >> and welcome to all of you. great to have you all. so much to get to. bill kristol, you posted this yesterday afternoon, a full debate at "the weekly standard," a full debate in congress would be appropriate and desirable. do you applaud the president for making this switch? >> yes. i mean, i wish we had intervened or he could have intervened a year or two ago, we would have had better options. there was no reason not to go to congress and good reasons to go. i think he did the right thing. i think we'll have a healthy national debate if next week or two. i think he'll prevail in congress. and i think the republican party will support the president, do the right thing for the country despite doubts about the character of the military assault he's about to launch. doubts about past decisions as commander in chief. i think the republican party will step up and do the right

thing and support the president against a chemical weapons using terror-sponsored, iran-backed dictator. >> gwen ifill, the inside washington intrigue is about the whiplash. >> yes. >> the president was ramping up for war and then said, no, let's go to congress first. >> everybody was told that same story of him walking on the south lawn with his chief of staff and coming back with a change of heart. he's concerned about his credibility with the american people. he's hoping congress is now concerned about their credibility with the american people. and there's a credibility question involving the syrian rebels who are now saying they're feeling a little bit abandoned, as if all of a sudden the u.s. is taking their sweet time when they feel they've got a problem. it was interesting that david axelrod, robert's old friend, the president's adviser, immediately tweeted out yesterday, well, the republicans have now -- the dog can now clock the car. it's on them. the white house wasn't unhappy about that characterization. >> robert, i want to go to that.

as press secretary and been around the president a long time, i know he's spoken about the fact that congress will complain, congress will criticize, but congress doesn't cast a tough vote. congress has failed republicans and democrats to revisit the authorization given the president after 9/11. >> right. well, i think -- this is a deliberative president. this was a -- look, in many ways, this president became both the nominee of the party and the president of the united states as a reaction to the way we went into war without a rationale in iraq. right? so this is a president who's acting very deliberately and i think believes our coalition and the breadth of it is strengthened when not just the commander in chief but the representatives of the people weigh in on behalf of intervention by the u.s. military. >> is he deliberative or is he too cautious or did he -- was he angrier by saying let congress put up or shut up here? >> look, i think this is much,

much more about presenting to the world a united american front, because let's be clear, the audiences that you talk about are not just in damascus. right? they're in tehran. they're with hezbollah. they're in a lot of places in the middle east. and i think projecting a united front by the united states is tremendously important. you can certainly quibble with and criticize the sequencing of the week's events, having kerry go out so vociferously both monday and friday. but i think in the end the president believes the strength is in a broad coalition. >> katty, what do you say about all this? >> i think rob is being diplomatic at best. the sequencing of the week's events looks indecisive at best and perhaps weak and muddled at worst. i mean, it was an extraordinary week in which you had kerry come out effectively and say this terrible thing has happened, we have to respond, and then at the end of the week the president changes course. you can make the counter argument that people in israel

and people in iran are watching the deliberations this week and thinking america is going to vacillate and is not going to act until it goes to congress. that causes delays, and it's causing quite a lot of uncertainty around the world, in that region and europe as well. what is the american strategy here? it looks confused. it looks unclear. it looks even as if the military outcomes and the political outcomes are not clearly laid out and clearly aligned. >> bill kristol, what i heard secretary kerry say today is even if congress says no the president will say yes. he's decided. he's launching military strikes. he also said if assad were to use weapons again the united states might strike again. >> i think practically speaking it would be hard for the president to act absent a use of chemical weapons again, without getting congress on board, having gone to congress. but this is a difficult decision. in the first bush white house in 1990. there were people who did not want us to go to congress for the first gulf war. john kerry voted against that authorization. we got it through against the leadership of the democratic party.

i think in this case similarly republicans and i would think a majority of republicans will end up voting to authorize the use of force. what john kerry said to you, you mentioned he made news by mentioning the sarin gas. he also made news i think by trying to get senators mccain and graham and people like me who really want assad to go. the way to deter the future use of chemical weapons in syria is to get rid of assad. he's the one guy to use them. but senator kerry gave an opening to the hawks when he said the military option is limited, it's just to deter and punish the use of chemical weapons, but our political aim remains to get rid of assad and we will weaken assad appreciably. and i do think in fact there will be a way to recognize the views of the hawks like senator mccain and graham, maybe give the doves in congress something in the authorization resolution saying no ground troops at least for now, perhaps we should try to end this quickly. people forget this is a dynamic process. this authorization will go to the senate foreign relations committee for mark-up next week. >> written in a broad way allowing for lots of marking up. the members of congress say we made it better. but don't you have to have an

agreed-upon goal? senator paul, for instance, can say i'm against this because this is about regime change. i don't care what you say. how do you then make the case -- and i guess that's what the sarin gas revelation was about today. how do you make the case our goals are common? that's the challenge going forward not only persuading the congress to go along with the president but persuading the american people. the polls this week did not give much comfort to the white house to plunge ahead. >> i think that's what's tremendously important. i think we saw what happened in britain when plunging ahead caused a prime minister to lose a military vote for the first time in two centuries. this gives the president more time to make the case to a very this war-weary public about why we're doing what we're doing, to re-establish red lines, to re-establish societal and international norms. and i do think the onus is

certainly on the white house and the administration to enunciate if this isn't part of a longer term policy in syria, what is longer term policy in syria? giving the president a chance to make that case in a longer way is not necessarily -- >> i think the legacy of the iraq war, one of the chief legacies, is that the united states spent a decade trying to engineer the kind of democratic change in the middle east that has not taken root, and that the american public is not prepared to go there again, to say nothing of the fact that syria is even more complicated arguably as a sectarian matter than iraq, katty. >> yeah. i think the vote in london was a concrete example of the damage that has been done -- >> right. >> -- to american intelligence and american-led policy in the middle east by the iraq war. and it was clearly the ghost that hung over parliamentarians. a word of warning to the white house. my understanding from london is that whatever the evidence that are being presented to parliament, whatever the case cameron might have made -- and

yes, he called them back hurriedly, didn't give it much time, but there was so much antipathy in britain and the parliamentary body not to go along with another american-led venture in the middle east on the understanding that we don't know where this finishes, this could end well as it has in the past, and we don't want to be seen just to sign up on something -- >> that's why it's important too you have this vociferous debate, pass a congressional authorization to do so, and have everybody involved in a united front on this. none of that would be solved, quite frankly, that you just outlined, by going hurriedly and doing this in a way that doesn't -- >> but you have to the risk that congress votes no. >> the lesson learned from cameron is that he did rush it, he did bring everybody back from vacation, and this is something they don't want to do. he got martin dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, to give him a window, give him time. we were counting back from the president's departure from the summit in st. petersburg saying something has to happen in 48 hours, and you have the military saying no it doesn't. tomorrow, next week, next month. so he's buying time in part to put it to congress.

>> cameron lost partly because he's the conservative prime minister, held the majority of his own party. nonetheless, the entire labor party, tony blair's party, voted against him. president obama will not have that problem. he'll hold half the democrats, presumably. republicans will not be irresponsible as they have been in the past and i think put country ahead of party, and he'll get enough republican votes, a majority of republicans, especially if they can tweak the resolution to go to war. i think he'll go to war with bipartisan support. >> bill, a lot of people criticize the president and say what is his doctrine in foreign policy? what's his overall strategy? one thing i think is actually clear from all this is that his one bottom line is the united states cannot allow wmd to be used. hangover from iraq

notwithstanding, you cannot allow bad guys to use the worst weapons. >> right, and the implication of that is of course maybe you shouldn't allow bad guys, the worst guys to get the worst weapons in the first place. this does have implications. >> do you think he did that? >> of course he did. but better late than never. honestly late is more difficult. better late than never and it does establish a predicate, incidentally, for the dictators many the region seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. >> let's understand the fundamental difference from iraq, right. we know that there are chemical weapons and they have been used. we're still looking for the chemical weapons in iraq. >> saddam used chemical weapons. against his own citizens actually. >> right. >> and the world did nothing. >> the world did nothing and we should have done something then. >> for months we looked for rationale for iraq. we continued to look for that rationale for iraq after we started a war with iraq and still haven't come up with the chemical weapons rationale. so doing this in a deliberate way again, this is why the president was elected to be president, because we're going to -- >> i understand why it's easy to get caught up in the iraq hangover and reargue the iraq

war. but the question we should be listening for as we watch the case being made is iran. >> sure. >> you heard secretary kerry talk about it this morning. we saw the president allude to it not only in his public statements but in this authorization that's been sent to congress. that's going to be the case and worry not only for the president but also for allies in the region who are part of the tiny little coalition of the willing, jordan and turkey. >> isn't it interesting, to your point, that secretary kerry said, my former colleagues won't turn their back on the impact what iran sees and u.s. credibility. he put it out there, you know. he said this is about u.s. credibility at this point. >> to some extent we in a situation where not acting is worse than acting in terms of american credibility around the world and in the region and in terms of trying to prevent people in that region, whether it's president assad or the mullahs in iran from thinking that they can get away with this again. and one of the arguments that the white house is going to use to members of congress as they speak to them this week is this undermines the security of our

allies including israel in the region and because they know there are a lot of friends of israel in congress. that's part of the reason -- >> there's a broadening of a political argument to get folks more on bill's side of the aisle more comfortable with something that is not regime change but is limited to enforcing chemical weapons. >> look, it may be just in this town of washington, but the inside administration intrigue, do you think the secretary of state was hung out to dry? do you think he was undermined when the president sent him out there, only to have the president change his mind? >> say yes. say yes. >> you've never said anything on this show that made news. >> say it publicly. >> i will say this. as i said earlier, one, i think kerry made a forceful and persuasive case that he will have to make continually for the next ten days. again, i think the sequencing of the week's events was not in any way in the order that i think

was the way they would want to have unwound this. >> i think we get that. >> that sounded like yes to me. >> that was the press secretary. >> very quickly, then i have to go. >> to be fair, when i was in the first bush white house, we screwed up everything in september, october, november, in terms of the presentation. jim baker said this is a war about jobs, mixed signals. at the end of the day we got congressional authorization and the first iraq war is considered to have been a great success and the country was for it. i don't think the minor mistakes they've made over the last week or two affect the outcome. >> i have to leave it there. thank you all very much. more on this to come, of course. coming up, ann curry has just returned from the largest syrian refugee camp. she shares her firsthand account. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. i knew that i could smoke for the first 7 days. i knew that i wasn't putting nicotine back into my body to try to quit. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions

while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. if i could describe being a nonsmoker, i would say "awesome." [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

we're back this morning with our "sunday inspiration." an artist from seattle is trying to bring a glimmer of hope to syrian children now living as refugees in jordan. jean bradbury is headed to the syria/jordan boarder to share her love of art in a project called studio sierra, which provides children's educational and art supplies to the displaced families. she does it in hopes that her workshops help the so-called forgotten children imagine a better future while giving them a reason to smile. >> you've got to teach these kids this, that they have it within their imaginations to make a better world than they've been handed, i hope. >> and when we come back, ann curry is here. she just returned from that very camp.

sterone could affect sex drive, but not energy or even my mood. that's when i talked with my doctor. he gave me some blood tests... showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% testosterone gel. the #1 prescribed topical testosterone replacement therapy increases testosterone when used daily. women and children should avoid contact with application sites. discontinue androgel and call your doctor if you see unexpected signs of early puberty in a child, or signs in a woman, which may include changes in body hair or a large increase in acne, possibly due to accidental exposure. men with breast cancer or who have or might have prostate cancer, and women who are or may become pregnant or are breast-feeding, should not use androgel. serious side effects include worsening of an enlarged prostate, possible increased risk of prostate cancer, lower sperm count, swelling of ankles, feet, or body, enlarged or painful breasts, problems breathing during sleep, and blood clots in the legs. tell your doctor about your medical conditions and medications, especially insulin, corticosteroids, or medicines to decrease blood clotting.

in a clinical study, over 80% of treated men had their t levels restored to normal. talk to your doctor about all your symptoms. get the blood tests. change your number. turn it up. androgel 1.62%. 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.

here now, "images to remember" by nbc's ann curry from her reporting on the syrian refugee crisis. ♪ ♪

>> the images you just saw were from our very own ann curry. she just returned from a syrian refugee camp in jordan. nearly 2 million syrians have sought refuge in these camps and nearly 1 million are children. the u.n. has called the conflict in syria the worst humanitarian crisis in 20 years. ann, great to see you again. >> great to see you, david. >> the story of that last image, that little boy in zaatari refugee camp, his story got to you. >> his name is abraham, 10 years old, born with a birth defect. his mother said he was robust and walking, healthy, happy before the war. now having seen his father killed and now in zaatari refugee camp in jordan, he's lost nearly a fourth of his body weight, david. he's not walking. he can barely eat because the water is so bad. kids are complaining about their stomachs hurting and not being able to eat. he is one of a million children

who are refugees from this war, and they are the majority of this war. in fact, the true face of the syrian war refugee is not only a child, it's a child under the age of 11. >> so what happens to them? because things are not -- they're going to get worse before they get better. >> well, it's a very difficult scenario because on top of everything else, david, they are traumatized. many of them are mourning people who have been lost. their family members have been killed in the war. one little boy, 7 years old, talked to me about how the fighting is as close as i am to you, how he was crawling on his belly to escape the war, that he was scraping up his knees, that he had witnessed himself seeing his best friends cut down, sliced by. he said he described -- very descriptive words and words i probably shouldn't say on a broadcast. nevertheless, he experienced them at the age of 7, witnessing his friends killed in this way. the girls were outside playing house. the boys were outside playing cars when a shell fell and exploded.

these children and only about 20% of them have had any kind of psychotherapy, emotional help. that means 80% of these children are having to deal with their emotions of what they witnessed on their own. it is a tragedy just for now and they're suffering now but the head of hgr is raising the specter we may be looking at a lost generation because of what these children are enduring. >> you talk about the conditions of the camp. what is it like there for children and adults? we know now your reporting and others are saying people are trying to leave the refugee camps. where are they trying to go? >> some of the refugees are leaving to go back into syria because some have said we'd rather deal with the shelling in syria than deal with the food insecurity and the water insecurity, the really tough, tough, some might even say brutal conditions. the zaatari refugee camp is in a desert constantly hit by sandstorms. there's also the threat of insecurity because rebels are

using it as a staging area. they're also going into these camps and finding young people who are so angry at what's happened, young teenagers, even children who are so angry about what's happened, pick them up and take them back into syria to fight. >> you know, we spent the entire hour talking about u.s. military might and the international implications. among the kids that you're talking to, do they have any sense that the united states is prepared or is willing or is able to protect them? >> no. that's exactly what they need is protection. i think that to a person the children and adults will say, you know, whatever you're going to do regarding attacking or not attacking assad's government, we need protection. and what they talk about is a need for, you know -- the children don't say this but the adults talk about the need for a buffer zone or a no-fly zone. the truth is the world has not responded to the needs of these children and the needs of these refugees to the degree they require help. >> ann curry, your reporting so compelling. thanks so much. great to see you.

>> thank you. >> appreciate it very much. that is all for today. we'll be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press. good afternoon. you're watching msnbc. today new revelations about the deadly chemical weapons attack in syria. >> hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin. so this case is building and this case will build. >> will the white house build a strong enough case to swing congress in favor of military action in syria? the voices on capitol hill are mixed. >> this is a national security issue. this isn't about barack obama versus the congress. >> there's weakness on the part of the president. >> this is a clear failure of leadership. >> it's a mistake to get involved in the syrian civil war. >> i would pull out my voting card and vote no.