president's call for action. >> i can't support something that i'm afraid may be doomed. >> let's have a real debate and not a meaningless debate. >> i assure you there's nothing meaningless. >> i opposed the war in iraq. >> we want to fair a shot across the bow and then he goes off and plays golf. >> watch this drive. >> there are known knowns. there are known unknowns. >> when bad stuff happens around the world, the first question is, what is the united states going to do about it. ♪ >> good afternoon. and moments ago, the senate foreign relations committee passed its bill authorizing the president to use military strikes against syria by a vote of 10-7. the amended bill, which limits the timetable to act and would prevent boots on the ground, now goes to the full senate for debate and a possible vote. the passage comes on day two of

the big sell. as the secretaries of state and defense, both in public and in closed door hearings, continued to argue for military strikes against syria. and while those discussions have been taking place in washington, the president himself in sweden en route to the g-20 summit offered a robust explanation for why he believes military strikes against president assad are now necessary. >> the accumulation of evidence gives us high confidence that assad carried this out. and so the question is, after we've gone through all this, are we going to try to find a reason not to act? and if that's the case, this eni think the world community should at mit it. >> indeed. the president raised the specter of the second world war and appeasement as he laid out a scenario where the use of chemical weapons in syria, if left unchallenged, would only

embolden nations like iran and north koreaing to test the world's resolve against weapons of mass destruction. >> i don't see a clear-cut or a compelling american interest. i see a horrible tragedy. >> those international norms begin to erode. and other despots and authoritarian regimes can start looking and saying, that's something we can get away with. >> the latest polls at home, however, have demonstrated that americans are not convince issed of the need for a military strike. indeed, pew research suggests that americans are convinced that such strikes will create a backlash, lead to a long-term commitment and yet, not discourage the further use of such weapons. more provocatively silent protesters with their hands painted red sat behind secretary of state john kerry as he testified this afternoon before the house foreign affairs committee. and it is that atmosphere of

doubt that has led a disjointed group of democrats and republicans to publicly doubt the need for military strikes. >> i don't see a clear-cut or a compelling american interest. i see a horrible tragedy but i don't see that our involvement will lessen the tragedy. i think it may well make the tragedy worse. >> i don't see any way that i a civil war in syria and the fact that this evil man is using chemicals to kill his own people, how that affects directly or indirectly our national security. >> for more analysis, let's bring in michael o'hanlon, a senior fellow at the brookings institution. good afternoon, mike. do you believe the senate bill is narrowly enough defined to satisfy those still unsure of that a missile strike is in the interests of the united states? >> you know, martin, i think if you're referring to the american people at large, the answer is probably not. i don't think americans are

going to take any great solace from language in a congressional authorization which as you and i know, it doesn't really have the force of law anyway per se. i think this is going to be one of those operations like most in military matters that has to justify itself by its effects. and so we will know if it's essentially achieved the president's goals in the ensuing months and for that to be a success, probably at least two things have to happen. one assad has to avoid using chemical weapons again or otherwise escalating. and then secondly, on top of that, we have to not be drawn into the war further. and you know, myself, if assad were to escalate, i would say we should respond again. i wouldn't see that necessarily as a tragedy. other people would disagree. other people abwho are the idea of another american commitment. but i think if the president can use the strike in a limited way and there's no further excalation org additional use of chemicals by as sad, americans will say, yeah, it probably was a pretty good idea.

i wasn't so sure at the time. but it turned out the president had thought it pretty well through. i don't think the resolution can accomplish that. >> let me read you a portion of a letter general martin dempsey is, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff wrote to the senate armed services committee about military strikes. he says this -- depending on duration, the costs would be in the billions. and he writes later, there is a risk that the regime could withstand limited strikes by disbursing its assets. isn't there now a significant risk of mission creep whether this strike works or not? >> there definitely is a risk of whether you call it mission creep or just the unpredictable. i think general dempsey is right to underscore that we don't really know what a first limited attack will do. i would go further. i would say it's probably not going to do that much militarily as much as anything, it's

sending a message. the president himself as you know used the expression last week on tv, are this would be a shot across the bow. in other words, it's designed so assad doesn't do it again. also so the iranians and the north koreans don't get the idea that when president obama sets a red line on weapons of mass destruction issues that heal later erase that red line or walk away from it because it problem inconvenient. you don't want to create that impression. i agree with his logic how these issues and countries are interlinked. i think that's the real question. we'll have to see how it plays out. i do believe that the president is correct to say an initial shot cross the bow and maybe that means a few dozen targets but it doesn't have to be any particular set of targets. that's necessary. but even if assad disburses forces, the main purpose here is not to tip the tide in the civil war. it's to accepted a strong message about chemical and nuclear weapons. >> we keep hearing that failure to punish syria will inevitably

embolden nations like iran and north korea. i'd like to you listen to what secretary john kerry said on that today. take a listen to this. >> but if we fail to enforce a standard that has been in existence for almost 100 years regarding weapons of mass destruction, we are putting that into question in the minds of a lot of observers. >> do you really think, mike, that iran will be affected in some way by a strike on syria and will that really curtail iran's ambitions for nuclear weapons? >> no, it won't do the latter, martin. but i hope that iran will continue to recognize as i think it has for years, that if they go for a nuclear weapon blatantly, that we will take extremely severe measures perhaps including military force as an option to stop that. it's a preferable world to the

one where iran kicks out the weapons inspectors and says we're going for the bomb and for president obama either to start a new war on a much greater scale than what's currently contemplated for syria or to allow the iranians to have a nuclear weapon. i don't want to give the iranians reason to think that this president has lost his commitment to words he's uttered previously. now, i take your point in the abstract, maybe chemicals are not the same as nuclear weapons. the latter are worse. >> right. >> i'm not sure we have a 100-year tradition of preventing chemical weapons use. we didn't do it in the 1980s when iraq used chemical weapons. i don't know that it makes such a huge difference when 98% of the casualties in this war were caused by conventional weapons. i am worried about iran drawing the wrong lesson and deciding to throw caution to the wind. that's a pretty big deal. i'm worried about assad gassing more people. >> thank you so much, mike.

for more, let's turn to democratic congressman jim moran of virginia. welcome. i know you rushed to our cameras. we're grateful to have you. the president speaking earlier today said that 98% of the world has signed up to oppose the use of chemical weapons. and get, there is genuine reluctance on the part of many americans and indeed, last week the british parliament to support any action against the syrian government. is this, sir, the legacy of iraq with many americans and british citizens feeling that they were lied to the last time around and they are simply reluctant to believe what they're being told? >>, of course, it is, martin. you very well know that it is. the british parliament would not have rejected david cameron's request had it not been for the prior experience in iraq with tony blair. the american congress would not

be so reticent to get involved in another war in the middle east had it not been for the mistake that was iraq. of course, this is about the legacy of iraq. just as president obama is dealing with the legacy of the bush tax cuts, et cetera, he's having to deal with the legacy of two wars, one of which was clearly not -- well, it was ill advised. it was based upon false information. and i voted against it as you may know even when 80% of the public supported it because i thought that the information we were given was specious and the motivation was suspect. but that's not the case here. we're talking about a very different action. we're talking about a surgical strike to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction. and you know, if we are the only

ones truly with the ability to stop weapons of mass destruction, this case chemical warfare but from becoming the new norm in the future, if we have that ability, it seems to me we have that concomitant responsibility to stop it. the president said he's going to stop it. he warned assad. now we've got to be true to our word. 98% of the rest of the world will talk the good talk. we're really the only ones who can walk the walk. at this point, i think we need to stand up and do so. >> you've spoken passionately about the moral obligation for action following assad's use of chemical weapons. do you, sir, regret that action was not taken the first time chemical weapons answer usage was mentioned some months ago? and if action had been taken then, is it not the case ta we could have prevented the devastating attack on august 21st when almost 1500 syrians were killed by chemical agents?

>> john mccain may very well prove in the long run that he was right in the beginning. but i'm very hesitant to second-guess the president. he's got a lot of information. he's got a lot of things to consider. and the fact is that that's in the past. we were not asked to our opinion on that. i think the earlier that he had done it, the less likely the congress would have been willing to act what i would consider to be appropriately. but now that we've been asked, i think it's time to step up and deal with the situation at hand. this is much more egregrious than any prior uses of chemical weapons but it's clear, the longer we let him continue to use chemical weapons, the more he will do so if he can do so with impunity. you know, killing 1,429

civilians, 426 children, i mean, i don't think he ever would have contemplated doing that before if we had made it clear we will not allow you to do this. we've now got to make it clear. we mean what we say. we've got to stop it. the rest of the world looks to us for leadership. that's just the way it is. we are really the only ones with the military capability to enforce what we say and i think the rest of the world, most of the rest of the world will applaud us for doing so although they're not going to be stepping up in line with us as we make it clear to assad that he went beyond that red line and now he has it 0 pay some consequences. so that's what we're faced with, martin. >> a final question, sir. do you accept that given where many of these chemical weapons are allegedly stored, that is around damascus and around other cities within syria, that any

kind of air strike is likely to result in civilian casualties? and do you accept that that may be something that you have to allow for if you're going to degrade assad's an munitions? >> i think there's going to be very little what we would consider to be collateral damage. i suspect, you know, i don't want to get too spec here, but i suspect that what we will do is to seriously degrade his ability to to deliver chemical weapons. to be able to control the skies. you know, he clearly has an advantage over the insurgents. and we will probably act in such a way that he will not have as clear an advantage over them. irregardless of the fact that he's obviously moving his troops, moving much of his equipment, moving his files into civilian areas. we expect to do that.

that's the problem with having now waited two weeks and i suspect we're not going to give clear authority to the president for another week or two. so it's a problem. our targets are going to be limited. it will not be the timely strike that it should have been. i hope that it will be as eb. i'm not sure. it's going to be more difficult for our military to make it as clear, but you know, that's the decision the president made rightly or wrongly. >> congressman jim moran of virginia, thank you for joining us this afternoon. >> sure, martin. >> thank you. coming up, the russian dressing on the syrian crisis. can our president break putin's stubborn support for the assad regime? or is the relationship officially underwater? [ male announcer ] ok, here's the way the system works. let's say you pay your guy around 2% to manage your money. that's not much you think. except it's 2% every year.

does that make a difference? search "cost of financial advisors" ouch. over time it really adds up. then go to e-trade and find out how much our advice costs. spoiler alert: it's low. really? yes, really. e-trade offers investment advice and guidance from dedicated, professional financial consultants. it's guidance on your terms, not ours. that's how our system works. e-trade. less for us. more for you. that's how our system works. i don'without goingcisions to angie's list first. with angie's list, i know who to call, and i know the results will be fantastic! find out why more than two million members count on angie's list. angie's list -- reviews you can trust. her busy saturday begins with back pain, when... hey pam, you should take advil. why? you can take four advil for all day relief. so i should give up my two aleve for more pills with advil? you're joking right? for my back pain, i want my aleve.

[ female announcer ] at 100 calories, not all food choices add up. some are giant. some not so giant. when managing your weight, bigger is always better. ♪ ho ho ho ♪ green giant

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 would be much more effective and ultimately weekend deaths much more rapidly if russia takes a different approach to these problems. >> this weekend's g-20 summit in russia will mark the collision of two presidents with stronglidy vernalent views on the matter of syria. in fact, vladimir putin has proposed sending a russian delegation to the united states to convince congress not to the vote for a military strike. and yet, despite this the president of the united states remains optimistic about working

with his russian counterpart. >> 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 profound 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 sugar coat them. >> for more, we're joined by senior editor for the new republic, julia yoffey. good afternoon. julia, can you provide us with some background as to why the russians are so supportive of the syrian government? what is the nature of the russian, syrian relationship. >> well, it's a small thing called the cold war. it's hard to understate how much that mentality still dominate in

two very important structures within the russian state which is the security apparatus, the fsb formerly the kgb of which vladimir putin was a memberen at foreign ministry which is front and center in dealing with this crisis. it's -- putin especially still sees himself as a counter weight to the u.s. globally. so whoever america supports we attack. whoever of america attacks we support. it's -- there's been a russian obsession since putin coming to power in 2000 after seeing the -- what they saw as the humiliation of russia in the '90s at the end of the cold war to restoring russian grandeur, their place in the world as i an superpower and an obsession in the russian political discourse with not having a monoor unipolar world. having two poles again. >> what does his friendship and

loyalty to assad provide to putin? why is he so willing to ignore the an trossets in order to maintain that relationship? >> well, there's two reasons. it's not really about the relationship. it's about first, it's about where it puts putin vis-a-vis the west. now, as you see, everybody's talking about putin. what's putin going to do? putin is the stick in the wheel of the u.s. this global superpower can't do anything without russia now. so youria tends to insinuate itself into these situations using these old cold war allies to get a seat at the table. otherwise, it would just have to vote, you know with the u.s. or france and britain. it's a way of asserting its power. it's not about assad. >> okay. >> then the second thing that i think is very important is look at what happened in libya. gadhafi was toppled around the time that anti-kremlin protests broke out in moscow.

gadhafi was not just toppled, he was brutally murdered by a mob and putin was reportedly very obsessed with the way he died, especially given the very personal nature of the protests at his doorstep in moscow right at the walls of the kremlin. >> right. >> and there's no way that he didn't see this as a personal thing. so when they say they're enforcing their own international means and when they're talking about national serenity, that means they're trying to preserve the right to do with their own citizens what they want. >> okay. now, president putin gave an interview to the associated press last night where he said this i'm quoting, if there are data that the mechanical weapons have been used and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the u.n. security council. it ought to be convincing and shouldn't be based on rumors and special information obtained through special services through

eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that. that appears to be a thinly veiled jab at the bogus intelligence used to justify the invasion of iraq. but hasn't putin already made it clear that he would veto any resolution that might emerge from the u.n.? >> well, he can't just come out and say i'm going to veto whatever you do. i can't look totally unreasonable. >> but he speaks with foreclosed tongue. >> yes, but look, he's already said he and his foreign minister and deputy foreign sminster have out of hand dismissed the evidence you're seeing from the state department and from the white house. they're saying you know what? you know, you think this is great evidence. but this is nothing to us. so you know, whereas our standard of proof is one thing, their standard is something else. i personally doubt that the white house or the state department or the pentagon can produce anything that would convince the russians to do something. there's no way that the russians can going in based on american intelligence. it looks terrible at home.

also, today, you see the russians providing their own intelligence assessment of chemical weapons use. they went out to aleppo of all places, tested some munitions or they said they were homemade shells. >> yes. >> so which is saying that basically the rebels did it which is what they've been saying all along. they're saying yes, it was sarin gas about you this he think it came from western produced sarin gas left over from world war ii. >> amazing. >> so it's apples and oranges. it's just -- it's -- i don't know who describe it. there's nothing that, no, evidence that you can provide to them that they would accept and then give us the go-ahead. the most that they can doing so that they don't look like they're marching to america's tune is then participate on some kind of political solution. that's right. after some kind you have strike. >> yeah. i've got you. >> unless the entire world piles on and decides this is something

worth doing, russia is not going to do it, especially now they've said is the intelligence is bogus. >> julia ioffe, thank you so much. >> sure. >> coming up, the return of the donald and sorry, mr. trump. this time we mean mr. rumsfeld. >> there are known knowns. there are things we foe we know. we also know there are known-unknowns. that is to say, we know there's some things we do not know. but they're also unknown-unknowns. the ones we don't know we don't know the. >> excuse me. but is this an unknown unknown? >> i'm not. >> several unknowns. >> i'm not going to say which it is. has it's ups and downs.

seasonal... doesn't begin to describe it. my cashflow can literally change with the weather. anything that gives me some breathing room makes a big difference. the plum card from american express gives your business flexibility. get 1.5% discount for paying early, or up to 60 days to pay without interest, or both each month. i'm nelson gutierrez and i'm a member of the smarter money. this is what membership is. this is what membership does.

♪ [ male announcer ] bob's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack, be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. ♪ 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. ♪ stay with us. donald rumsfeld is back in today's top lines. any luck finding those weapons of mass destruction?

>> and by the way, aren't you glad saddam hussein isn't around to be involved in this right now. >> by the way, what are the odds that the weapons of mass destruction we didn't find actually made its way to syria? i'm darrell and the walmart's super savings event is here! we have some of your favorite summer items on clearance. like this family pool. you'll save over $6. 50% off select summer apparel, like these shorts, tanks, and tees. get more for your money at walmart's super savings event. a writer and a performer. ther, i'm also a survivor of ovarian and uterine cancers. i even wrote a play about that. my symptoms were a pain in my abdomen and periods that were heavier and longer than usual for me.

if you have symptoms that last two weeks or longer, be brave, go to the doctor. ovarian and uterine cancers are gynecologic cancers. symptoms are not the same for everyone. i got sick... and then i got better.

from boots on the ground to facts under review, here are today's "top lines," heck of a job, rummy. >> some have tried to suggest that the debate we're having today is about president obama's red line. >> just because obama drew a red line doesn't mean we have to be doing this. >> i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. >> there are always risks in taking action. >> the risk of inactioning are far greater than the risk of action. >> do you consider the consequences of inaction greater than the consequences of action? >> i do.

>> keep in mind i'm somebody who oppose the war in iraq. >> looming over this debate time and time again has been the specter of iraq. >> i'm not interested in repeating mistakes of us basing decisions on faulty intelligence. >> do you personally take any responsibility for that or feel any responsibility for that? >> this is not iraq. and this is not afghanistan. >> all the appropriate steps were taken, and the democratic congress voted for regime change in iraq. >> what are the odds that the weapons of mass destruction we didn't find actually made its way to syria. >> i know the administration has zero intention of putting troops on the ground. >> would it be better to do something limited or nothing at all? >> maybe you ought to go in and change the regime or you ought not to do anything. >> it seems to me that's a false choice. >> you've been on record as saying you believe president barack obama is the weakest president in your adult lifetime. >> the instinct i have is to be supportive of the president. i think you know, the essence of

leadership really is clarity and a vision. >> let's get right to our panel. joining us now is the "washington post" nia-malika henderson host of on background, krystle ball who, of course is my colleague and the co-host of the "cycle" and mckay coppins political editor at buzzfeed.com. how about sean hannity and ann coulter, finally locating those weapons of mass destruction. >> amazing >> they found them. >> more than ten years later sean hannity has finally found the wmd. incredible, a day to be remembered. >> excellent. mckay, let's move on to donald who's neatly timed book tour, he's told the "today" show that the democrats controlled congress when lawmakers authorized the invasion of iraq. is that true or is this just the latest donald rumsfeld fantasy. >> the donald rumsfeld seems like he's been a little confused as i think those segments showed. he's been confused for the last couple days. >> last decades. two decades.

>> yes. >> keep going. >> part of the confusion comes from the fact he's not really litigating syria as he's talking about this issue. he's relitigating iraq and talking about his legacy and the brush administration's legacy there. there have been a lot of comparisons made over the last few days. he wants to remake the case ta going into iraq, spending years and years on nation building and you know, replacing the regime was the right move. that's what he's talking about when he says we need regime change or do nothing. those are the only options. i don't think you can apply the exact same less ones from iraq to syria but he's going to try. >> krystle, would you ever try and defend iraq if you were donald rumsfeld? >> he's making his best attempt. one thing i would say where he's right is that this president is very different from the last president. the last president was all too willing to use no evidence at all to beat the drums of war to force congress to pass a

resolution and to get us involved in a place where we really had no business with boots on the ground all the way in, poor planning, absolutely no idea of what would happen after mission accomplished. whereas this president, the criticism seems to be he's too careful, that he's too ret ent. i would take that any day or a cowboy who was all too willing to get us involved in conflicts all over the world. >> absolutely. nia-malika, the tea party faction has done away with responsible republicans like former senator dick lugar of indiana. he's still got a choice words for some in his party like senator rand paul of kentucky. take a listen to mr. lugar. >> the american public when it comes down to patriotism, taking a look at the best interests of our country is going to support people who were solid at the time. who did their homework, who took part in the debate. who made sure that they did their part as a part of the constitutional system. rather than random outliers who are trying to at least

capitalize on theization. >> oh nia-malika, is opposing this intervention going to help rand paul's chances of becoming president or will it hurt them? >> you know, i think to use donald rumsfeld term, i think that's an unphone unknown at this point. rand paul has said over and over again that he's very much thinking about running. it looks like he probably will in 2016. hard to know in 2016 where syria will be in terms of the minds of republican primary voters. i think he has staked out a position that a lot of people liberals including and libertarians thinking that it isn't wise to go into syria without a mission, without national security, a direct threat to national security and you see like rubio trying to figure out what his role in this republican party is following it rand paul's lead there, and of course, rand paul is following ron paul's lead and you saw in 2012, that ron paul didn't get

much traction with what some saw as his igslationist view. with rand paul, it seems like given the economic concerns that americans have this might get some traction with republicans. i got to tell you in, covering romney when he would go out and sort of do the saber rattling around syria and around just more engagement overseas, it didn't get the sort of applause i think it would have gotten in 2008. so i think it is a different party. >> mckay, rand paul's father has recently said we are potentially witnessing the end of the american empire. you're an expert on the conservative movement. what do the conservatives want? do they want the end of the american empire. >> nia is absolutely right that there is a deep divide within the republican party on this issue. the libertarian wing the party has pare appeared to be asce ascentent over the last year or two where neoconservative are back on their heels. what i don't agree with is in 2016 there's any way this comes

back to hurt rand paul. even the interventionists who think we should be out there expanding the american empire like you said, they don't say it, they don't trumpet that position with the same fervor that they used to. i just dote think in 2016, americans on either party are going to be punishing a politician for trying to keep america out of another war. >> final word to you on that. >> one thing i want to point out here, there's a lot of talk of the ascend answer of the libertarian wing of the republican party. it remains to be seen if it's really just a reaction to their hatred of the president and the desire to oppose him at every turn. >> interesting to see. krystle ball, anyia malik cag henderson, and mckay coppins, thank you. coming up, decency, decorum and online poker? really, senator mccain? ♪

♪ you make me, make me, make me go crazy ♪ ♪ you make me, make me, make me go crazy. ♪

[ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on an ancient burial ground. [ ghosts moaning ] surprise -- your car needs a new transmission. [ coyote howls ] how about no more surprises? now you can get all the online trading tools you need without any surprise fees. ♪ it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade. ♪ [ male announcer ] bob's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack, be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

as the nation's students go back to school after their summer recess, teachers will be confronted once again with a very 21st century challenge. cell phones in the classroom. from the internet to instagram, facebook and texting, these are the digital temptations that threaten to distract our children away from their studies. and as the father of an child who is about to embark upon her senior year, i've repeatedly tried to explain that a cell phone is not simply a distraction, it's also a mark of gross disrespect within the classroom. which is why i was somewhat dismayed by the example set by one senator john mccain. there he was during a critical hearing of the senate foreign relations committee playing digital poker on his iphone. having been caught red handed he offer this had maya cull parks perhaps inappropriately in a tweet. can dal, caught playing iphone games at three plus hours senate hearing. worst of all, i lost.

no, senator, that is not nearly the worst of it. what's worse is that you tried to laugh off your behavior like some high school student hurling spitballs from the back row. what's worse is that you appeared unable to maintain your attention during a critical discussion about chemical weapons in syria and america's response. and frankly, with an example like yours, good luck to america's teachers. still ahead, the white house deploys its explainer in chief to clear the air on the affordable care act. [ male announcer ] at hebrew national, we're so choosy about the cuts of beef that meet our higher kosher standards that only a slow-motion bite can capture all that kosher delight. and when your hot dog's kosher, that's a hot dog you can trust. hebrew national. i've got a nice long life ahead.

big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, it could save you thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call now to request your free decision guide. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and you never need a referral. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now. it's as much as you like, any way you like.

try new soy wasabi grilled shrimp and more. only $15.99, offer ends soon. so come in and sea food differently. now, try seven lunch choices for $7.99. sandwiches, salads and more.

this does give us the best chance we've had to achieve nearly universe coverage, provide higher quality health care, and lower the rate of cost increases which we have got to

do in a competitive global economy. and finally, it is the law. and i think we have -- we've all got an interest in trying to faithfully execute the laws. >> with large portions of the affordable care act going into effect in less than aent mo, the president has enlisted the assistance of his explainer in chief, former president bill clinton. speaking earlier today at his presidential braer in little rock, arkansas, president clinton focused his talk on the benefits the affordable care act would provide to the american people. and his talk could not have come at a better time as the republican national committee this week has haunch launches a new website, obama costs.org, part of a month-long effort to show the american people what they call the obama care train wreck. this seems a good time to remind viewers not everything you read on internet is actually true. for more, i'm joined by the director of africana studies at

lehigh university, professor james peterson and my colleague and the host of up with steve corn knack can i right here on msnbc, the great steve kornacki. professor, let's talk about the reality of the affordable care act. president clinton has pointed out some of the flaws in the law. but he suggested that all of them are fixable. some at the state level. is there any chance, do you think, that the gop will start to focus on these individual aspects of the law and improvements or will they simply stick to this ideological position, repeal the entire law, something that you and i know is not going to happen? >> we do know that's not going to happen but we also know our good friends on the other side of the right side of the aisle are deeply investmented in their ideological positions. look at the scorecard when you look at the exchanges set up in oregon, the exchange set up in new york, when you think about the fact that medicare costs are not shrinking but not growing as

fast. all the evidence suggests just by introducing a little bit of competition which our friends in the republican party should support, a little bit of competition is helping to control costs. >> professor peterson, these are facts that the rnc is not interested in. this is a train wreck. why are you giving me these facts? >> here's the sad thing though, martin. they can make it a train wreck. they can make it a train wreck through providing all kinds of political ob stacks. that seems to be the path they're taking. the nation is looking at our congress actually working for the first time. this congress is working for the first time around issues having to do with making this military intervention in syria and the american people are asking, wait a second. why can't we do this for every urgent issue on the national side of the political spectrum. >> indeed they are. steve, why does president clinton need to go out and argue the case? is it a problem with the law or is it fundamentally an issue of communication? >> yeah, i think it's an issue of communication.

i'm not sure that even bill clinton and he is the democrats' great communicator. >> i don't think that president clinton could resolve the problem because the basic problem that's defined public opinion on this is even republicans like the affordable care act when you explain the individual components, they are by and large popular or very popular. then you poll obama care and it's violently unpopular among republicans. there's the basic partisan divide, this basic tribal divide. when you look how this is going to be implemented, take arizona. so the average citizen of arizona going to benefit from this law is not going to get an obama care card, or something in the mail that assets you're enrolled in obama care. the state will call it the grand canyon exchange and you'll start getting your health care through that. i bet you people who have this experience will like this. by and large, they will like the experience. i'm not sure they will suddenly make the connection this is obama care working. they'll say this is the grand canyon connection working. i don't like obama care.

>> fak, brilliant. >> professor, speaking of future elections, senator ted cruz thought by many to be a leading contender for the 2016 nomination put out a tv spot about the affordable care act. take a listen to this. >> there's bipartisan agreement that obama care isn't working. democratic senator max baucus, the lead author of obama care said it's a huge train wreck. >> he continues to lie about the contents of this law, professor peterson. >> again, fakes matter. it is working. it is still a complex piece of legislation that will require some tweaking and require some effort from the politicals on both sides of the aisle to help make it work. both at the federal level, state level and local level. requires young people to get into the system. we need young people to be in the system in order for it to be viable long-term. there are some challenges. there are some things we have to do. just to steve's point, it's just so clear that there are too many on the republican side who feel

like they can score important political points just through the name brand of obama care to sort of stir up their base and garner votes. that sounds sad to us but that's the political reality of midterm elections in america right now. >> it's crazy. professor james peterson and steve kornacki, thank you so much. we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] this is claira. to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for her, she's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with her all day to see how it goes. [ claira ] after the deliveries, i was okay. now the ciabatta is done and the pain is starting again. more pills? seriously? seriously. [ groans ] all these stops to take more pills can be a pain. can i get my aleve back? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.

♪ 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. ♪ it's time now to clear the air. and this is proving to be a confounding moment as the nation considers what action it might take in relation to syria, and most particularly for the commander in chief. this president who came into office vowing to cease military interventions in islamic nations is now on the verge of launching air strikes on syria.

earlier today in sweden, the president explained that his request for military authorization is not about himself but about upholding a principle that's been embraced by almost the entire world. >> 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 for bidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. >> and yet, while seeking to uphold that principle and it seems ethically ound, it is in fact being undermined by our fear of the future and our regret for the past. the bogus and unfounded intelligence that led president bush and vice president dick cheney to wantonly stride into iraq now weighs heavily on the nation and nobody wants a repeat of that. and then there's the prospect of iran plunging into the process

of developing a nuclear weapon if it believes that the international community will do nothing if the government of syria deploys chemical weapons. so how does this president resolve this dangerous conundrum? >> well, he might consider a speech that he gave over ten years ago when he said that he would not support a dumb war, a rash war. i know, he said, that an invasion of iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east and encourage the worst rather than the best impulses of the arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al qaeda. a clear rationale and strong international support. over to you, mr. president. thank you so much for watching. and a reminder, you can catch chris matthews and "hardball" at 7:00 p.m. right here on msnbc.

but right now, "the ed show" with ed schultz. >> good evening, americans and welcome to "the ed show" live from new york. let's get to work. not war. ♪ >> we have the opportunity to take some action that is meaningful even if it doesn't solve the entire problem. >> i'm going to support the president's call for action. >> we must respond. >> if we hit syria, it's an act of war. >> my credibility is not on the line into this debate is about the world's red line. it's about humanity's red line. >> there's risk involved only for american men and women. >> why can't we concentrate on our own problems? >> because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. >> the use of chemical weapons against civilians is beyond