been here for several hours, what have you seen? what actually inspires you? what do you want to import to the u.s. in terms of ideas for society? >> well, let me take the nsa question first. because this is a question that i've received in previous visits to europe -- >> and good morning from washington. this is "the daily rundown." you're looking at live pictures of president obama talking to reporters in sweden. i'm kristin welker. chuck todd is traveling with the president and will join us momentarily. for right now, back to the president. >> -- improve our understanding of what's happening around the world. and in light of 9/11, a lot of energy was focused on improving our intelligence when it came to combating terrorism.

and what i can say with confidence is that when it comes to our domestic operation, the concerns that people have back home in the united states of america, that we do not surveil the american people or persons within the united states. that there are a lot of checks and balances in place designed to avoid a surveillance state. there have been times where the procedures, because these are human endeavors, have not worked the way they should, and we had to tighten them up. and i think there are legitimate questions that have been raised about the fact that as technology advances and capabilities grow, it may be that the laws that are currently in place are not sufficient to guard against the dangers of us

being able to track so much. when it comes to intelligence gathering internationally, our focus is on counterterrorism, weapons of mass destruction, cybersecurity. you know, core national security interests of the united states. but what is true is the united states has enormous capabilities when it comes to intelligence. one way to think about it is in the same way that our military capabilities are significantly greater than many other countries, the same is true for our intelligence capabilities. so even though we may have the same goals, our means are significantly greater. and i can give assurances to the

publics in europe and around the world that we're not going around snooping at people's e-mails or listening to their phone calls. what we're trying to do is target very specifically areas of concern. having said that, what i've said domestically and what i've said to international audiences is with changes in technology, with the growth of our capabilities, if our attitude is because we can do it, we should go ahead and do it, then we may not be addressing some of the legitimate concerns and dangers that exist any time we're talking about intelligence gathering and surveillance. so what i've asked my national security team to do, as well as

independent persons who are well known lawyers or civil libertarians or privacy experts to do, is to review everything that we're doing. with the instructions to then that we have to balance the ends with the means. and just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. and there may be situations in which we're gathering information just because we can that doesn't help us with our national security, but does raise questions in terms of whether we're tipping over into being too intrusive with respect to the -- you know, the interactions of other governments. and that is something that we are currently reviewing

carefully. we are consulting with the eu in this process. we are consulting with other countries in this process. and finding out from them what are their areas of specific concern. and trying to align what we do in a way that i think alevates some of the public concerns people may have. but this is always going to be some -- there's going to be some balancing that takes place on these issues. you know, some of the folks who have been most greatly offended publicly we know privately engage in the same activities directed at us. or use information that we've obtained to protect their people. we recognize that. i think all of us have to take a careful approach to this problem.

given the fact that so many of our information flow today is so much internet that the risk of abuse is greater than in the past. with respect to sweden, i haven't had a chance to wander around stockholm as much as i would like. it is a gorgeous country. what i know about sweden i think offers us some good lessons. number one, the work you've done on energy i think is something that the united states can and will learn from. because every country in the world right now has to recognize that if we're going to continue to grow, improve our standard of living, while maintaining a sustainable planet, then we're going to have to change our patterns of energy use. sweden i think so far ahead of

many other countries. sweden also has been able to have a robust market economy. while recognizing there's some investments in education or infrastructure or research that are important and there's no contradiction between making public investments and being a firm believer in free markets. and that's a debate and discussion we often have in the united states. i have to say if i were here in europe, i'd probably be considered right in the middle, maybe center left, maybe center right, depending on the country. in the united states, sometimes the names i'm called are quite different.

and i think a third observation and final observation i'd make is although i'm sure frederick doesn't feel this, as he's engaging in difficult debates here, i do get a sense that the politics in sweden right now involve both the ruling party and the opposition engaged in a respectful and rational debate that's based on facts and issues. you know, i think that kind of recognition that people can have political differences but we're all trying to achieve the same goals. that's something that swedes should be proud of and should try to maintain. >> the first question from the american press goes to steve

holland of reuters. >> thank you, mr. president, thank you, sir. have you made up your mind whether to take action against syria, whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved, is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines, and were you able to enlist the support of the prime minister here for support in syria? >> let me unpack the question. first of all, i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. the world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. congress set a red line when it

indicates that in a piece of legislation titled the syria accountability act that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. and so when i said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't saying i just kind of made up. i didn't pluck it out of thin air. there's a reason for it. that's point number one. point number two. my credibility's not on the

line. the international community credibility's on the line. and america and congress' credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage. how can this happen in this modern world? well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations. and so the question is how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed.

the question is how credible is congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons. and i do think that we have to act. because if we don't, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity. and those international norms begin to erode. and other des pots and author tarn regimes can start looking and saying, that's something we can get away with. that then calls into question other international norms and laws of war. and whether those are going to be enforced.

so as i told the prime minister, i am very respectful of the u.n. investigators who went in at great danger to try to gather evidence about what happened. we want more information, not less. but when i said that i have high confidence that chemical weapons were used, and that the assad government through their chain of command ordered their use, that was based on both public sourcing, intercepts, evidence that we feel very confident about, including samples that have been tested showing sarin from individuals who were there.

and i'm very mindful of the fact that around the world and here in europe in particular there are still memories of iraq and weapons of mass destruction accusations and people being concerned about how accurate this information is. keep in mind, i'm somebody who opposed the war in iraq. and i'm not interested in repeating mistakes of us basing decisions on faulty intelligence. but having done a thorough evaluation of the information that is currently available, i can say with high confidence chemical weapons were used. by the way, iran doesn't deny it. even syria doesn't actually deny they were used. and that is what the u.n. investigators are supposed to be determining. frankly, nobody's really disputing that chemical weapons were used. the only remaining dispute is

who used them. which is outside the parameters of the u.n. investigate. so the u.n. investigation will not be able to answer that preliminary. they're not supposed to. but what we know is the opposition doesn't have the capability to deliver weapons on this scale. these weapons are in assad's possession. we have intercepts indicating people in the chain of command both before and after the attacks with knowledge of these attacks. we can show that the rockets that delivered these chemical weapons went from areas controlled by assad into these areas where the opposition was lodged. and the assuccumulation of evide give us high confidence that

assad carried this out. the question is, after we've gone through all this, are we going to find a reason not to act? and if that's the case, then think the world community should admit it. because you can always find a reason not to act. this is a complicated difficult situation. and an initial response will not solve the underlying tragedy of the civil war in syria. as frederick mentioned, that will be solved through eventually a political transition. but we can send a very clear strong message against the prohibition or in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. we can change assad's calculus about using them again. we can degrade his capabilities so he does not use them again. and so what i'm talking about is an action that is limited in

time and in scope. target at the specific task of his capabilities. and we will continue to engage the entire international community in trying to find a solution to the underlying problems. which brings me to the last question. and that is what happens if congress doesn't approve it. i believe congress will approve it. i believe congress will approve it because i think america recognizes that as difficult as it is to take any military action, even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground. that's a sober decision. but i think america also recognizes that if the

international community fails to maintain certain norms, standards, laws, governing how countries interact and how people are treated, that over time this world becomes less safe. it becomes more dangerous not only for those people who are subjected to these horrible crimes but to all of humanity. we've seen that happen again and again in our history. and the people of europe are certainly familiar with what happens when the international community finds excuses not to act. and i would not have taken this before congress just as a symbolic gesture. i think it's very important that congress say that we mean what we say. i think we will be stronger as a

country in our response if the president and congress does it together. as commander in chief, i always preserve the right and it is responsibility to act on behalf of america's national security. i do not believe that i was required to take this to congress. but i did not take this to congress just because it's an empty exercise. i think it's important to have congress' support on it. okay. >> and the next swedish question goes to swedish international television. >> mr. president, you've given very eloquent talks about the moral force of nonviolence. i was wondering, could you describe the dilemma to be a nobel peace prize winner and getting ready to attack syria? and also, in what way did the talk that you had today with prime minister reinfeldt move the world a step closer to resolving the climate crisis?

>> i would refer you to the speech that i gave when i received the nobel prize. i think i started the speech by saying i was certainly unworthy. what i also described was the challenge all of us face when we believe in peace but we confront a world that is full of violence and occasional evil. and the question then becomes what are our responsibilities. i've made the effort to end the war in iraq. to end the war in afghanistan. to strengthen our commitment to

multilateral action. to promote diplomacy. as the solution to problems. the question though all of us face, not just me our citizens face, not just our political leaders, we need to confront actions that are violating our common humanity. and i would argue when i see 400 children subjected to gas, over 1,400 innocent civilians dying. in an environment which you already have tens of thousands dying.

we have the opportunity to take some action, even if it doesn't solve the entire problem, may at least mitigate this particular problem. then the moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing. but it's difficult. this is the part of my job that i find most challenging every single day. i would much rather spend my time talking about how to make sure every 3-year-old and 4-year-old gets a good education than i would spending time thinking about how can i prevent 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds from being subjected to chemical weapons and nerve gas. unfortunately, that's sometimes the decisions i'm confronted with as president of the united states.

frankly, as president of the united states, i can't avoid those questions. because as much as we are criticized, when bad stuff happens around the world, the first question is, what is the united states going to do about it? that's true on every issue. it's true in libya. it's true in rwanda. it's true in sierra leone. it's now true in syria. that's part of the deal. what was the second question? i think we have great opportunities. i think there's a good chance for frederick to talk about our shared views here. because we have i think a joint belief that developed countries have to make progress but we have to make an international framework to address where the increases in emissions are now

occurring. >> okay, well, totally agree to that. i think it's been a very interesting development after copenhagen. i learned we were both present in copenhagen. we were saying u.s. had the highest emissions in the world and china was catching up. now only a few years later we have a situation where china has now doubled the emissions of the ones we have in u.s. this is actually reshaping the situation when it comes to climate protection. we are both responsible for lowering our emissions and we are doing so. but we must also face the fact we will very soon have a situation where 25% of the global emissions is from european union and united states together. so the world can say, solve it. they need to take in the percent outside the european union and the united states. that is our problem. we want to deal with this but it has to be a global answer. >> the final question goes to

margaret talav of bloomberg news. >> thank you. mr. president, tomorrow you'll see president putin at the g-20. with russia and u.s. relations seriously strained. do you see value in trying to get him to drop opposition to a syria strike? or are you efforts now aed eat excluding russia from a decision? looking back at your reset, do you believe you overestimated what you could change or do you believe mr. putin changed the rules along the way? if you will indulge me, i have one more. >> go ahead. >> could you take us behind the scenes on that 45-minute walk around the south lawn where you changed your mind and decided to take this before congress? and, mr. prime minister -- >> oh, goodness, margaret, you're really press things now. so this is question number four now. >> this is for the prime minister. >> okay.

>> you have expressed some doubts about military action in syria. i'm wondering if you could be a little more specific about what your concern the consequences may be and whether you believe president putin shares any responsibility for mr. assad's actions. thank you. >> okay. i'm going to try to remember all this. first of all, the reset in the russian relationship was not done on a whim. there were specific u.s. interests that i believed we could pursue with russia where interests overlapped that would help us both on our long-term national security and our economy. and we succeeded. we succeeded in a new start

treaty that reduced nuclear stockpiles for both the united states and russia. russia joined the wto, which bound them to a set of international rules governing trade. which i think ultimately will be good for the russian economy, but is also good for its trading partners and potential companies that are investing in russia and that includes u.s. companies. we worked together on counterterrorism issues. they have provided us significance assistance in supplying our troops in afghanistan. there were a whole host of outcomes from that reset that were valuable to the united states. now, there's no doubt that, as i indicated a while back, we've kind of hit a wall in terms of additional progress.

but i have not written off the idea that the united states and russia are going to continue to have common interests, even as we have some very profund differences on some other issues. and where our interests overlap, we should pursue common action. where we've got differences, we should be candid about them. try to manage those differences but not sugarcoat them. one area where weem got a significant difference right now is the situation in syria. russia has a long-standing relationship with the assad regime. and as a consequence, it has been very difficult to get russia working through the security council to acknowledge some of the terrible behavior of the assad regime.

and to try to push towards the kind of political transition that's needed in order to stabilize syria. and i've said to mr. putin directly, and i continue to believe, that even if you have great concerns about elements in the opposition, and we've got some concerns about certain elements in the opposition like al nushar, and even if you're concerned about the territorial integrity of syria, if you, in fact, want to end the violence, you've got to have a political transition. it is not possible for mr. assad to regain legitimacy in a current where he's killed thousands of his own people.

so far mr. putin has rejected that logic. as far as security council action, we have gone repeatedly to the security council for even the most modest of resolutions condemning some of the actions that have taken place there, and it has been resisted by russia. and do i hold out hope that mr. putin may change his position on some of these issues? i'm always hopeful. and i will continue to engage him. because i think that international action will be much more effective and ultimately we can end deaths much more rapidly if russia takes a different approach to these problems. in terms of my decision to take the issue to congress, this had

been brewing in my mind for a while. some people had noted, and i think this is true, that had i been in the senate, in the midst of this period, i probably would have suggested to a democratic or republican president that congress should have the ability to weigh in on an issue like this. that is not immediate imminent time sensitive. when the chairman of the joint chiefs indicated to me whether we struck today, tomorrow, or a month from now, we could still do so effectively. then i think that raised the question of why not ask congress

to debate this in a serious way. i do think it raises issues for us and the international community for many years to come. under international law, security council resolution or self-defense or defense of an ally provides a clear basis for action. increasingly what we're going to be confronted with are situations like syria, like kosovo, like rwanda, in which we may not always have a security council that can act. it may be paralyzed for a whole host of reasons. yet we've got these international norms that we're interested in upholding. we may not be directly

imminently threatened by what's taking place in a kosovo or a rwanda. our long-term international security will be impacted in a profound way. and so i think it's important for us to get out of the habit in those circumstances. again, i'm not talking about circumstances where our national security's directly impacted, we've been attacked, et cetera, where the president has to act quickly. in circumstances in the type i described, it's important for us to get out of the habit of just saying, we'll let the president kind of stretch the boundaries of his authority as far as he can. congress will sit on the sidelines. snipe. if it works, the sniping will be a little less. if it doesn't, a little more. but either way, the american people and their representatives are not fully invested in what

are tough choices. we as a country and the world are going to start to take choices. any time you're involving military action, people will say, this does more harm than good. i understand those arguments. i wrestle with them every day. i do have to ask people, if you're outraged by the slaughter of innocent peeoplpeople, what u doing about it, and if the answer is, well, we should engage diplomatically. well, we've engaged diplomatically. the answer is, well, we should shine the spotlight and shame these governments. well be these governments oftentime show no shame. well, we should act internationally. well, sometimes because of the various alignment, it's hard to act through a security council resolution.

and so either there's nothing we can do about it and we'll shake our heads and go about our business, or we make decisions even when they're difficult. i think this is an example. it's important for congress to be involved in that decision. >> i think -- i think i should answer the question. i think you're right in saying this very difficult decision to take. as always, it's a balancing act. just to remind you, you're now in sweden. a small country with a deep belief in the united nations. you're also in a country where i think yesterday or the day before we took the decision that all the people that are now coming from the war in syria are allowed to stay permanently in sweden. so a lot of the people following this press conference here in

sweden are actually just now coming from syria. and of course wondering what is the view of their country. they have a lot of their countrymen also in this country. we have a lot of roots and links to syria. i think the main problem has been for 2 1/2 years now that we have a war without a clear political solution. and that at the end of the day must be -- must get a cease-fire. must get a peace process. must get people to talk to each other. i totally understand the complex situation on the opposition. we have part of the opposition also here in sweden. they want to get assad out of the picture. but what do they want instead. that is of course a question we need to attend to. the weapons inspector that was present in damascus is headed by a swede. so in this country of course we are asking for the time to be able to see what were their

findings. especially since president obama has sent the decision also to congress. we think that that gives us some more time. and we are welcoming that. having said that, i also said i understand the absolute problem of not having a reaction to use of chemical weapons. and what kind of signal that sends to the world. in a time where we are developing our view on international law. not saying you're allowed to do whatever you like to your own people. as long as it's inside your own borders. we have these -- we need to protect people. we need to look at the interests of each and every one. this is the development we're seeing. that same discussion we're having in sweden. so i understand, especially for the u.s. president, he needs to react, otherwise he will get another kind of discussion. this country will always say let's put our hope into the

united nations. let us push on some more to get a better situation. of course president putin has a responsibility in that. of course. because everyone understands, russia, china, has been outside of decision making that we would have needed a long time ago to put more clear pressure and more political solution. so that is what we have been discussing today. if you balance all these sentences, that shows how difficult this is. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. that con clupds this press conference. >> president obama and the prime minister of sweden wrapping up a news conference there in stockholm. president obama calling on the international community to take action in syria. that press conference largely dominated by the topic of syria. i want to bring in my cole laeg and friend chuck todd who is traveling with the president in stockholm. at times the president sounded defensive. he said, quote, my credibility

is not on the line, the international community credibility is on the the line. he dodged a question about what he would do if congress doesn't give him the green light. what were you takeaways? >> well, i think it was clear that the president was trying to depersonalize the syria issue aa little bit. that red line explanation is one senior advisers made over the weekend right after, you know, when they held a background briefing about the president's decision on saturday, when he made that announcement he was going to congress. they were asked about this issue of the so-called red line. it's a question -- it came actually in response way back in august 2012. it was during the heat of the campaign. campaign press conference. i asked him about syria. just simply if he was concerned about the security of the chemical weapons. when he talked about it, that's when he indicated if the use of chemical weapons, that that would be a red line for him. and that's when that phrase first sort of entered the current political debate. but on this issue, it seemed to

me it was the white house's intention on saturday and the president today to say, you know, stop making this about the president personally, depersonalize this. part of that reason is there are some house republicans who are looking at this only through the view of the prism of their disagreements and dislike for president obama rather than the policy itself. they're trying to make the policy argument. forget who's in the seat as commander in chief. would the united states believe this was a red line no neither who was president. that's been the argument they're making. that's the argument they're making on the hill. i do think it's interesting. we ought to note. the impact that the nsa leaks and the nsa story has had with european relations. the very first question from the european press corps on that issue, anybody who spends any time reading europe media knows that the nsa issue and what's happened there has been a dominant topic of discussion for a couple of months.

once again, the president having to be on the defensive on that before he got on the defensive on syria. >> all right, chuck, thank you. for your analysis as always. safe travels. we will check in with you later. we will be right back with some breaking news from capitol hill. she loves a lot of the same things you do. it's what you love about her. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help

for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

♪ 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. ♪ [ male announcer ] that's why there's ocuvite to help replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite has a unique formula not found in your multivitamin to help protect your eye health. ocuvite. help protect your eye health. we know in the cyber world, threats are always evolving. at first, we were protecting networks. then, we were protecting the transfer of data.

and today it's evolved to infrastructure... ♪ ...finance... and military missions. we're constantly innovating to advance the front line in the cyber battle, wherever it takes us. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman. welcome back to "the daily rundown." i'm kristin welker in for chuck todd. fast-moving developments this morning. nbc's kasie hunt with some breaking news about senator mccain. >> senator mccain told me he can't support the senate's version of the resolution that would authority force in syria. that resolution came out last night. it includes limitations on putting combat troops on the ground and limits the window during which the president is allowed to act.

mccain told me it doesn't make any reference to changing the momentum on the ground in syria and it also doesn't say anything about arming the free syrian army which is one of the rebel groups there. he says that means it's not good enough for him. that's a potentially significant blow for the white house as they're trying to rack votes up here in the senate. while the leadership was involved in drafting that resolution and has been on board behind the scenes, the white house still needs every vote at this point. and there are a lot of senators who are undecided. mccain also said there are several other senators who feel similarly to how he does. so i talk to mccain as he was going into the classified briefing with the senate foreign relations committee. so we'll see what happens when they come out of that. >> kasie, talk about the significance of this. senator mccain, certainly one of the more hawkish members of the senate. he was going to coral some of those republicans who were on the fence. losing him, as you say, is a big

blow. what could it mean? what is your sense about the momentum today? because yesterday it felt like the momentum was moving in the direction of the president. as of this morning, and what you are reporting right now, it doesn't necessarily seem to be the case. >> you saw a number of jewish groups come out in support of it. both boehner and pelosi saying they were going to support this. you had republicans saying they want to support the president. this is definitely a blow from the perspective of they were trying to walk a very fine line in trav in drafting this resolution. senator bob corker was demanding these also. at the same time, not tying the president's hands so much that they would lose hawks like mccain and potentially graham.

mccain wanted to support this and it's clear now he doesn't think this resolution goes along with it. >> staying on top of all those developments, we appreciate it. let's bring in our wednesday gaggle. we have ramesh panori of national view. "the washington post's" ruth marcus and jackie collins of "the new york times." appreciate it. first, your take aways from this news conference. president obama defending his red line, sounding a little bit defensive at times. >> he did sound defensive. it wasn't just the question, it's what came before it. there's been a lot of commentary in the press about was it wise of him to set that red line? it shows the dangers of a

president being too specific about what -- if you do a, i'll do b. but i think the other thing about the red line, a lot of that was not so much -- not specifically about syria. it was about iran and north korea and it was about reassuring the israelis that the united states would be willing to get involved if these countries that are a threat to israel would be emboldened to hit israel. >> he got a question about what he would do if congress votes no. he dodged it. the administration continues to dodge this question. what do you make of that? are you getting the sense this president would move forward without congress? >> i don't think we know. and they clearly don't want to box themselves in yet again. but i thought it was very interesting that he talked about this exercise. he said he didn't think of it as an empty exercise.

to ask congress to come in. if he's not willing to say i won't act if congress says no, then it is an empty exercise. i thought the most revealing verb that he used among the many, many verbs in those very long answers was "sniping." and that really gives you a sense of his vision of congress. he just got, in addition to the constitutional concerns that he raised, in talking about what is his view might have been as a senator, he's just tired of them sniping from the sidelines. he wants them to own some of it. but he still wants to retain his ownership. it's going to be an interesting puzzle and set of tensions. >> ramesh, you have written about the comparisons or lack thereof between iraq and syria. you heard president obama get a question about that. he said, this is not iraq. they continue to make that case. how important is it that he convinces people of that? you see a lot of the american public not on board with this yet. >> think it's very important. i think it's one of the traps

that he faced in congress. because the more he tries to move in the direction of mccain and graham and satisfy their concerns, the more votes he's going way we end up overestimating the importance of mccain and graham. i don't think the public is on board and congress is on board for a full-blown regime change. >> jackie, the president is not having an official bilateral meeting with vladimir putin but the white house says he will likely talk to him on the sidelines. you didn't hear optimism from the president when he got a president about putin. is there a chance he could get putin on board with the u.n. resolution? >> i don't think so. that is why previously he was scheduled to go to moscow for a bilateral there with mr. putin, but it is not happening. there's just really no -- there's no value in him spending a lot of time with mr. putin. his views are well known. if i could just say. i agree with ramesh. i think we do overestimate

senators graham and mccain in the senate. i think it will pass there. >> ruth, what is your take on putin? >> oh, you know, you got to try, but if you have hope of changing his mind, you're incredibly naive. >> yes. >> the president is not naive on this subject. >> does president obama need to come out and address the american people? >> i think there is still a question oddly about his commitment to selling this to the public and to congress. you don't have public support for it and you need it. >> okay. all right. thanks. the gaggle is sticking with us. we are going to talk about former president become's remarks coming up in just an hour at his library in arkansas helping the administration's push on health care. chicken noodle, the president is not there to eat it today. do you mind grabbing my phone and opening the capital one purchase eraser? i need to redeem some venture miles before my demise. okay.

it's easy to erase any recent travel expense i want. just pick that flight right there. mmm hmmm. give it a few taps, and...it's taken care of. this is pretty easy, and i see it works on hotels too. you bet. now if you like that, press the red button on top. ♪ how did he not see that coming? what's in your wallet? mom? come in here. come in where? welcome to my mom cave. wow. sit down.

you need some campbell's chunky soup before today's big game, new chunky cheeseburger. mmm. i love cheeseburgers. i know you do. when did you get this place? when i negotiated your new contract, it was part of the deal. cool. [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right.

president obama is getting some key support from both hillary and bill clinton on a couple of fronts today. let's bring back our gaggle. bill clinton will be pushing health care later on today, ramesh. then hillary clinton coming out and saying she supports strikes in syria. what do you make of this and does this help hillary clinton if they decides to run as well? >> i think this is probably not the way president obama expected things to go in 2007 and 2008 when he was running against the clinton machine and saying they had failed to transform the country and now he is relying on them to rescue him from his quagmires. >> bill clinton, the secretary of explaining stuff so he is doing it again today? >> i'm not sure i would endorse the word quagmires for either, but i do think, you know, it's really interesting if bill clinton is going to be the secretary of explaining stuff, maybe we should get him on board to try to rally the country on syria as well, because it's going to take a lot of

explaining. >> we hadn't heard from hillary clinton but she spoke about it today. did she need to? >> i think so but it wasn't any surprise what she said. she needs to speak on the big questions but not get overexposed. >> i have a article on bloomberg about the syria and yes, the congress needs grenk approvcong approval. >> i'm looking forward to hearing from jeff who is talking to the staff today. >> i would say go to yytimes.com and go back and look for russia for a great story we had on sunday about the story of one, is a sad tale of adopting russian children. >> thank you for joining us this morning. that is it this edition of "the daily rundown."

coming up next is chris jansing and co. have a fantastic wednesday, everyone. the day we rescued riley was a truly amazing day. he was a matted mess in a small cage. so that was our first task, was getting him to wellness. without angie's list, i don't know if we could have found all the services we needed for our riley. from contractors and doctors to dog sitters and landscapers, you can find it all on angie's list. we found riley at the shelter, and found everything he needed at angie's list. join today at angieslist.com

we're gonna stop beating ourselves up about our weight. we're not gonna give up what we love. it's not gonna happen. and when the pounds still come off... we'll be like, "whoa!" one night we'll even eat a cupcake like it's our job. just not the entire cake. that's part of the weight watchers plan. we're gonna feel happy... healthy... and good. weight watchers. join for free. because we understand. because we've been there. because it works. hurry, join by september 14th and you'll get a free month. because it works. cheryl burke is cha-cha-ing in depend silhouette briefs for charity, to prove that with soft fabric and waistband, the best protection looks, fits, and feels just like underwear. get a free sample and try for yourself.

good morning. i'm chris jansing. breaking news. a key senator who was backing the president's plan to strike syria may be pulling his support. we just learned senator john mccain will not support the senate resolution as written on syria. right now, two senate committees are behind closed doors with the secretaries of defense and state at this critical moment for us foreign policy. while the obama administration is trying to build support for a strike on syria here at home, the president is in sweden laying the groundwork to lay a international coalition to get behind him too. he says he wasn't the one who drew the red line against the force of chemical weapons. >> i didn't make it up. i didn't pluck it out of thin air. there's a reason for it. my credibility is not on the line. the