that is "all in" for this evening. happy new year. the rachel maddow show starts right now. remember when we used to have those conversations about who's not in the room, and we'd be like the random liberal on a panel of five people, who were totally opposed. thanks to you for joining us this hour. the verdict is in, and the verdict is, bipartisan support. and also bipartisan opposition. a 10-7 vote today, close vote today in the senate foreign relations committee with democrats and republicans on both sides of that unexpectedly close vote. congress does its job and starts voting and keeps debating whether the united states military should become the newest player in the ongoing civil war in syria. that two and a half year long war which has already killed over 100,000 people or for which some of the most recent 1,429 deaths according to u.s.

estimates have a special international significance. those deaths allege that the results of a chemical weapons attack two weeks ago in the suburbs of damascus, those deaths have led not so much to an international debate about how the world should respond to that kind of alleged attack. it's more like now an international debate about how the united states should respond to that kind of alleged attack. that juxtaposition of a world response on one hand and an american response on the other hand, that was very clear today, as president obama held a press conference in sweden alongside the swedish prime minister. listen. >> sweden believes that serious matters concerning international peace and security should be handled by the united nations. but i also understand the potential consequences of letting a violation like this go unanswered. in the long term, i know that we both agree that the situation in syria needs a political

solution. thank you once again mr. president for coming to sweden, i look forward to our program together this afternoon. >> thank you so much. >> i've just exhausted my swedish. the prime minister and i are in agreement that in the face of such barberism, the international community cannot be silent and failing to respond to this attack would only increase the risk of more attacks. and that possibility that other countries would use these weapons as well. i respect and i've said this to the prime minister. the u.n. process. the u.n. investigation team has done heroic work under very difficult circumstances. but we believe very strongly with high confidence that in fact chemical weapons were used

and that mr. assad was the source. and we want to join with the international community in an effective response that deters such use in the future. >> joining with the international community. that is not actually an option. at least that is not an option yet. to the international community is pledging no such support for any military response to what is happening in syria about we'll have more on that coming up in a moment. here at home, though, two senators from the president's even party joined with five republican senators in voting today against u.s. military intervention in syria, when the senate foreign relations committee took their vote on the issue. one senator from massachusetts ed markie, voted neither yes or no. he voted present today, saying he needed more time to learn about the issue and make up his mind. he said he would make up his mind before the full senate took a vote on the issue.

is this debate has been joined. not only in the halls of congress, but also in the public. the skepticism and opposition to the united states military getting involved in that war is deep and wide, and i have to say occasionally weird. this is the new polling that came out today from pugh on the matter. overall, americans are opposed to the u.s. military getting involved in syria. when you break it down by party, party doesn't much matter either, americans left, right and neither are pretty much opposed to us getting involved in syria. that pretty much dovetails the latest round of national polling on the issue by nbc news, which found overall opposition. opposition among republicans, democrats, and independents. so in terms of public opinion, this may change over time, but right now, public opinion is pretty strongly and pretty widely against getting the u.s. military involved in that war in anyway about the u.s. mission is

strong, broad and weird. the conservative media has decided they have figured out who was behind this alleged chemical weapons attack in syria. and when they figured it out, turns out it was exactly who you would think would do something like that. it was president obama. he arranged the whole thing. >> his article here is, that there is evidence, mounting evidence that the rebels in syria did indeed frame assad for the chemical attack. not only that, that obama, the regime may have been complicit in it. mounting evidence that the white house knew and possibly helped plan the syrian chemical weapon attack. >> obama, the regime. so if you were thinking that the lack of partisan identification on this issue might mean that the conservative movement, conservative media may be some help. it may be a rational actor in this discussion, their answer so far is that syria did not use

chemical weapons. obama did. in syria somehow. yeah, thanks. you guys, cheers. meanwhile, back in fact land, there remain the scientists, the actual u.n. weapons inspectors who are investigating these allegations in syria, that have given rise to this whole international fight. just like they were in the leadup to the iraq war, the u.n. inspections team in syria this year, is led by a swede. the swedish prime minister kept mentioning today, the swedes are proud of that. it was swedish guy hans blitz before. swedes do this, apparently. the evidence that the inspectors collected the samples they collected, the report they're putting together will be trying to confirm whether this chemical weapon as tack, the alleged chemical attack in the suburbs of damascus happened, and if it did happen, what chemicals were used that is key. syria's allies, russia and china, continue to say that they have no reason to disagree with their friend syria, when syria denies it had anything to do

with this. in two to three weeks, we will have the u.n. inspectors report, if they can definitively say chemical weapons were used and if they can say it and prove it in a way that makes clear to the world that it was the syrian government, that's not specifically in their remit, but if they prove this happened, it should be clear who done it. if they are able to -- frankly that is the only chance there ever will be of getting any actual international action. actual international enforcement of what's supposed to be an international rule against the use of chemical weapons. it may be hard to get international agreement on something like this, but there is a point to rules like this. although president obama is arguing that the united states alone will enforce this alone, even if nobody else will, there is a reason why no one country is supposed to be responsible for enforcing an international rule. that is because you do not want to give any would-be rogue nation anywhere in the world, any more excuses, any more justifications than they already

have for breaking that rule. it's uncomfortable to admit it, surely presidents don't like to talk about it. lots of countries all around the world hate us. for lots of different reasons. every country has enemies, even sweden. we have more than most. every country has some countries in the world that have a beef with them. we have more than most. some of it is deserved and some of it is not deserved. if the punishment for violating the rule against chemical weapons use is a punishment that is delivered by the united states, not by the international community but by us, then in lots of places around the world.

through that rule and inviting the condemnation and the retaliation of the united states will honestly be seen as some sort of perverse badge of honor. it's not smart to create a situation in the arab world or anywhere else, where countries that hate us see the use of chemical weapons now having the added bonus of kicking sand in our faces. president obama wants there to be an international response. what he's arguing for now is why the u.s. should respond alone anyway, even if the international community will not. >> i would argue that when i see 400 children subjected to gas. or 1400 innocent civilians dying senselessly in an environment in which you already have tens of

thousands dying. and we have the opportunity to take some action, that it's meaningful 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. >> there's a case to be made that doing nothing is a bad response to this alleged large scale use of chemical weapons. there's also a case to be made that it is a bad response to not exhaust every possibility of getting a true international response to that kind of alleged attack. why not wait for the u.n. weapons inspectors. there's also a case to be made that even if you do wait for the u.n. weapons inspectors, whether we are alone or in some sort of international coalition, that military force may not be some action that is meaningful.

might not be something that would mitigate this particular problem. it might be that military force is the kind of intervention that will make this problem any better. that will alleviate the threat of chemical weapons use in the future or deter anyone else who feels like using them. it is a world of bad options. why choose the one that involves cruise missiles. joining us now is one of the democratic senators who voted no on the authorization to use military force. chris murphy. thank you for your time tonight. >> why did you vote no against using -- authorizing the use of force? >> well, let me tell you, it was a close call for me. when i talked to people back in connecticut. it's a close call for many of them as well. i'm amongst the millions of people who watch those videos and saw those pictures, and saw

them in abhorrence, clearly assad has used chemical weapons on his own people, and violated an international norm. i think there is always a belief, a want, a need to believe that when there is a problem in the world that there is an american button we can press to solve it. i don't think there's a direct parallel between iraq, afghanistan and syria. one of the lessons learned is that we are not very good to the united states in using our military power to try to change the political realities on the ground in the middle east. i really worry, the reason for my no vote today, is that one, i think the military action could perhaps actually make the situation worse, could just lend more chaos to an already volatile situation. and second, today's action not only committed us to a potential military strike, but also committed the congress to supporting arming of the rebels. and those two actions together, i think bind us to this conflict for as long as it will last, which in a lot of commentators mind might be a decade.

that's not something i think the american public can stand by. i understand where the president is here, this was an egregious act and sometimes it is the united states that unfortunately has to stand up to uphold these international norms. i think it was a close call, in the end i worry these actions actually could move the situation backward in syria rather than forward. >> aside from the issue you raised about ongoing entanglement and getting further involved on the rebel side of that civil war, thinking about the response to the alleged chemical weapons attack, do you think there's a case to be made that the senate should wait, the country should wait for those u.n. weapons inspectors to come back with their results before voting on a course of action here. do you think that would be any more likely to bring in an international coalition? >> i think we have to be sober about what can happen at the u.n. when the united nations was set up, the process was established

by which you have to have consensus, you have to have unanimous agreement on the security council. the nations we included happens to now include syria's primary backer. russia has great security interests in keeping assad in power. and i'm not sure there is any evidence that is going to change their calculus. would it be preferable to have international support here? yes. would it be preferable to have the u.n. with us? yes. ultimately, i made my decision not based on the lack of international agreement, because i really do think that there's a potential -- 50% or more that our actions could make the situation worse for the syrian people. i'm not convinced we're going to get u.n. agreement here, we have to make this decision based on what's best for the syrian people, and what's best for u.s. security interests. >> i can see it in your face, having had difficult conversations with you about other policy matters. i can see it in your face that you are moved by the videos you saw of this alleged chemical weapons attack. the suffering we have seen, that the president is responding

today. you can see it in his face today too, when he was talking about why he feels there has to be a response. in your view, is there something that could be done by the united states, besides military action, that might be a better or more appropriate response in terms of achieving american goals here? >> well, we clearly have not used all the tools at our disposal to try to rally that international community. i think it will be difficult in the end. the president is right not to give up on it. there's so much more we can do with respect to humanitarian aid. there are going to be a lot more people fleeing into syria, in jordan, turkey and iraq. we have done much, but we could do much more. i urge the president to continue to work diplomatically and step up our humanitarian efforts. there's always this need to find that leverage that the united states can press to try to make the situation better around the world. and i just think we have to have

some very sober conversation about the limits of u.s. power. i'll tell you quickly, rachel, when i saw that video of the president, the look in his face reminded me of the look in his eyes when he came to newtown shortly after that shooting. i know he's moved here, i know the american people are moved. i think the reason why you see the american people lining up against this action, they're wary of war, and they question whether we can make the difference. make the difference as you mentioned, almost alone. >> i was thinking the same thing, when i was watching that video, it's interesting we saw the same thing. thanks for being here tonight. >> thanks for having me, rachel. how many parties does it take to make a community of nations. that and other questions that aren't about angels in the head of a pin. basically the same conclusion. stay with us. [ male announcer ] i've seen incredible things. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air.

suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪ okay, who helps you focus on your recovery? yo, yo, yo. aflac. wow. [ under his breath ] that was horrible. pays you cash when you're sick or hurt? [ japanese accent ] aflac. love it. [ under his breath ] hate it. helps you focus on getting back to normal? [ as a southern belle ] aflac. [ as a cowboy ] aflac. [ sassily ] aflac. uh huh. [ under his breath ] i am so fired. you're on in 5, duck. [ male announcer ] when you're sick or hurt, aflac pays you cash. find out more at aflac.com.

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. [ 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. a whip is a member of parliament or a member of the house of lords whose job it is to round up the troops, to make sure that enough party members stick together and show up and vote together when the party really needs them in order to get something passed. some votes are not whipped and people just get to vote their conscience or vote how their district wants them to vote. some votes are whipped. the whip is a person who rounds up members who rounds up votes. and in britain when the parties send around their agenda to members about their upcoming votes, that agenda ranks the upcoming votes, the importance of an issue is indicated by the number of times the whip underlines that issue on the agenda.

if an issue is underlined once, it's important enough to be whipped, in the great scheme of things it's not all that important. if it's underlined twice, it's not only being whipped. it really is quite important. and in the rare case that a particular agenda item is underlined three times, your paper's very crowded. it's super important. if you defy your party on a three-line whip, the website says you could effectively get kicked out of your party. if you defy a three-line whip, that is harrassy, that is never supposed to happen, that is important background to know about our friend as cross the pond. last week when david cameron went to the british parliament to make his case for action in syria. that vote was a three-line whip. to everyone in his party, they had the instruction there that you must attend and you must vote with the prime minister and if you do not attend and vote with the prime minister, you could face consequences up to and including being expelled from the party.

it's a three-line whip, be there. david cameron went to parliament, he made his best case for war. the debate went on for eight hours, in the end parliament did not buy it, and they voted against. more than two dozen members of david cameron's own conservative party showed up and voted no. members of his party didn't bother to show up. they defied the three-line whip. so many of them that they can't be kicked out of the party. david cameron lost, and the news was so shocking that gasps were heard around the chamber when the vote was tallied. and having lost a three-line whip, that is a rare enough and stunning enough defeat for the prime minister, that the opposition party called out in parliament in response to the vote, that the prime minister should resign. he does not seem to be resigning. prime minister david cameron's original plan had been to go

back to parliament for a second vote after the u.n. weapons inspectors had released their report now there are no plans for him to go back to parliament. >> it is very clear tonight that while the house has not passed a motion. 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. >> this is now a really interesting international situation, i think it's food for thought this means that our closest ally in the world is out. if you were going to argue the point about great britain being our closest ally, it might be because you argue canada is our closest ally. canada has also ruled itself out. and so has italy, our enemies in france have decided not to ask their parliament about it. they will not go it alone.

although you will recall that in libya, they were gun hoe ready to go. the same with mali and west africa. they might go if we go, but they won't go without us definitely. and they may not go. and then there's the countries right there in the region. the arab league signed on to military action in libya. they have not done the same thing here, it is not because they like the assad government in libya. they say they want him removed from power for two years now, cutter and saudi arabia and other members of the arab league have been arming the rebels and funding the rebels fighting against assad. the arab league put out a statement blaming assad for the chemical weapons attack for damascus, they said they wanted international response to that attack, and they wanted the u.n.

to get over its differences so the u.n. could lead to a response. why is that? the united states really is all alone in the world on this. maybe france. but all alone in the world. if the congress says no, it's not going to be the united states all alone in the world, it's going to be the white house all alone in the world on this. why is that? today the white house did a call to try to whip their own democratic vote on this issue, as reported by greg sergeant in the washington post. the white house held a call with progressive democratic members of congress to try to bring progressive democrats around to the president's way of thinking on this issue. the liberal congresswoman barbara lee of california told greg sergeant after that call, they have been very persuasive about the intelligence. about the fact that we must do something.

she said, though, they were not persuasive that the only option right now is a military option. will military strikes put assad in check? i'm just not persuaded that that is the case. there is the argument about whether something terrible and over the line just happened in syria. there's the argument about whether the u.s. shooting missiles in syria will alleviate that problem or stop it from happening again. if there are no good options, why pick the one that involves cruise missiles? food for thought. looking at that vote in the arab league in particular, if it is such a good idea for the u.s. to shoot missiles in syria, if it will make such a difference in the dangerousness and recklessness of the assad government, then why don't his neighboring countries who are literally invested in opposing

him who are literally funding an arming against him in the civil war. if it's going to work so well to make him less dangerous and less of a threat, why don't the countries nearest to him want us to do it? dumped me. oh dad, you remember my friend alex? yeah. the one that had the work done... [ male announcer ] sometimes being too transparent can be a bad thing. this looks good! [ male announcer ] but not with the oscar mayer deli fresh clear pack. it's what you see is what you get food. ♪ 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. ♪ your door to more. nascar is ab.out excitement

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

no two people have the same financial goals. pnc investments works with you to understand yours and helps plan for your retirement. talk to a pnc investments financial advisor today. ♪ yeah? then how'd i get this... [ voice of dennis ] ...safe driving bonus check? every six months without an accident, allstate sends a check. silence. are you in good hands?

just in case you missed them, the gang who brought us all the war in iraq, they're back with opinions about the wisdom of u.s. military action in the middle east. they have thoughts on the matter, would you like to hear them?

if the choices between hearing those opinions from those people and sticking pins in your eyes are you sure which one you would choose? hold on, there's more ahead. i got this. [thinking] is it that time? the son picks up the check? [thinking] i'm still working. he's retired. i hope he's saving. i hope he saved enough. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. whether you're just starting your 401(k) or you are ready for retirement, we'll help you get there. [ male announcer ] staying warm and dry has never been our priority. our priority is, was and always will be serving you, the american people. so we improved priority mail flat rate to give you a more reliable way to ship.

now with tracking up to eleven scans, specified delivery dates, and free insurance up to $50 all for the same low rate. [ woman ] we are the united states postal service. [ man ] we are the united states postal service. [ male announcer ] and our priority is you. go to usps.com® and try it today. [ male announcer ] and our priority is you. [announcer] there's no hiding the beneful baked delights.from new heartfuls are made with real bacon... ...and oven-baked to crisp perfection. add a soft apple-flavored center ...and say no more. new heartfuls from beneful baked delights. spark more play in your day.

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 was in sweden today, he's on his way to russia, or he's not going to meet with the president of russia. the g-20 summit this year is in st. petersburg, the white house announced publicly that the u.s. will snub vladimir putin and russia, by refusing to set up a one on one meeting between our president and their president while our president is in their country anyway. both men will be present at the big g-20 meeting everyone goes to, there's going to be no one on one meeting between obama and putin. to add injury to that insult, president obama will just not meet with vladimir putin, he's going out of his way to meet with russian gay people. oh, no. it was reported yesterday in buzz feed and confirmed today by the white house that president obama will meet with opposition figures. people that be fighting the putin government on human rights issues, and specifically on gay rights issues. on top of the big clash of the titans headlines fight that we are having with russia about

what to do in syria, and the public snub of putin, this meeting with his domestic enemies effectively is a reminder of the international kerfuffle happening this winter. if you're in the mood for an olympics mess, that is not the only olympics mess, be thankful that your job has nothing to do with the next big decision that has to be made about the olympics. so we know that next year 2014, those olympics are going to be in sochi, in russia this week. it's rio, two years after that, and pyeongchang two years after that. then 2020, the 2020 olympics are yet to be decided. this is the week when the international olympic committee is deciding who gets to host the olympics in 2020. they're going to make the announcement on saturday. there are three sights that are in contention, the first is madrid. in spain. which is in the fifth year of a crippling economic crisis, where the unemployment rate is 26% overall, and for young people in spain right now, it is a gob smacking 56% unemployment. the latest world news headline for nbc news in spain is this

one. basically about how anybody entering adulthood and trying to enter the workforce right now is a lost cause. that whole generation a lost cause. so that's option one. a country in abject economic crisis. option two, turkey. istanbul in turkey to be exact. which -- and turkey's fine, it's lovely, really. turkey also shares a long, hot furiously dangerous border with the country called syria. which is currently issuing for the role of arch duke ferdinand in world war ii. the other side is turkey's

border with iraq. there is option number three. which is japan. tokyo, japan. japan, who's the government official in charge of luring the olympics to japan just recently wrote to the international olympic committee, wrote this weekend to say that the committee should be confident that everything in japan is fine. everything is fine, especially with that whole nuclear situation just a couple hours outside tokyo. the japanese official wrote that letter to the international olympic committee on the same day that these guys in this tape here from the bbc took a radiation leak reading at the fukushima nuclear plant that said, anyone standing in that spot for a few hours would find themselves in a dangerous enough place, a radioactive enough place that they would be dead in four hours.

>> just how worried should the outside world be about the latest radiation readings coming from the fukushima nuclear plant. on sunday, tokyo electric power said it had taken a reading close to water storage tanks of 1,800 millisieverts an hour, that is 18 times higher, than a reading taken at the same spot two weeks ago. >> 1800 millisieverts an hour, enough to kill you in four hours, and 18 times what that reading was two weeks ago. but do not worry, olympic committee, everything is totally under control in japan. except for the out of control nuclear disaster. other than that, everything else is totally under control. we got this. as the japanese government bucks for the olympics, the prime minister is leaving the g-20 early to go lobby the international olympic committee in person. the japanese government is also announcing that it as the

government will take over the management of the ongoing catastrophe at fukushima. they had up to this point left in the hands of the power company that owned and operated the plant when all this happened in the first place. the government will take over. is that reason to feel more hopeful about them getting that situation under control? for context, yesterday, there was another earthquake in japan, a 6.99 magnitude earthquake. and also yesterday, the same workers from the bbc clip went out and took another radiation leak reading at the site of the nuclear plant. and what had been an 1800 millisieverts reading this weekend is now a 2200 millisieverts reading. this is now two and a half years long, a two and a half year long ongoing accumulating ecological disaster. why is it still getting worse and when will it stop getting worse? joining us now is edward lyman. he specializes in nuclear power safety.

thanks for being with us tonight. >> good evening, rachel. >> the japanese government says it is taking over. do we have any reason to believe that they have better ideas about how to make this situation better than the people who have been handling it thus far? >> i'm afraid not. because the japanese government is as culpable as tepco was in the genesis of this crisis to begin with. and the government is scrambling to try to come up with a solution so they can tell the world that everything's fine and bring the olympics here, and i think they're being too hasty. >> what about this plan that we've been seeing written up in the press about creating an underground ice wall to try to seal off the highly contaminated areas of the plant from groundwater, from any water flow through that's resulting in all of this radioactive water leaking into the ocean. >> the ice wall isn't as crazy as it sounds. it isn't technology that's been used in other applications, but it's never been used for a

nuclear disaster like this one, it's never been uses to contain this much radio activity. and it's never been used for a periods of time that may require decades before the site is cleaned up. i think it is actually a very risky plan and a lot more complicated than just digging trenches and packing them full with clay. >> on that point, what's the better idea? are there solutions that are either more proven or more sustainable that the government and tepco haven't tried that you think might make sense. >> well, as they say in so many other contexts. there are no good options. and the frozen won't -- the problem is, that it requires a continuous power source to keep that soil frozen. and i think i would prefer a simpler more straightforward method of simply constructing a permeable material wall. >> we are told and the press reports differ on this, we're told in at least some press reports of hundreds of tons that are leaking into the pacific ocean daily from this site.

and obviously, the ocean is a big thing. and delusion is a big factor. what do you see as the potential impact of all of this water leaking into the ocean overtime. how worrying is it? >> it is true that the missions that are going on now from the site are much, much smaller than they were. in the weeks after the reactors exploded. but it is a continuous low level leak of radioactive material. there is safe food that concentrates radio activity. the fishing industry in the region has been devastated and it looks like it's not going to come back any time soon. and there will be occasional levels of contamination in seafood much further away, that will be unacceptable. people are going to be slowly consuming the radioactive material coming out of

fukushima. >> this is the biggest disaster since chernobyl. the response after the initial declaration that this was a cold shutdown and everything was fine has now been ramped up from a one to a three on the nuclear accident scale. and it doesn't feel like they've got it under control. do you think there should be some sort of international parachute in, to help japan out here, that this is beyond. this is a problem that is bigger than that one country and they need more help than they're getting? >> one of the problems that has been around since the beginning, japan has been reluctant to seek international help. it waited for several days after the accident started. it was hoping it could stabilize the situation, and then tell the

world that there was no problem. it's that kind of pride, i think, which is also continuing to be a problem. certainly they slu be trying to get the best ideas from anyone they can find. unfortunately, i think the range is very limited and the ice wall is an idea which has been applied in the united states, for example. so it is worth examination, but the fact is, that their options are limited. you have a radioactive soggy mess at the site. what really needs to be done is purification of the water, packaging of the radioactive material, and stable -- in a stable form so it can eventually be disposed of in a way that's isolated from the environment. >> dr. david lyman, it's nice to have you back even though we're always talking about super depressing things. >> i know, tell me about it. >> sorry, this is your life, i know.

we will be back in just a moment. i will warn you that there's little tiny bit of donald rumsfeld ahead. before william hughes fought in vietnam... and john hughes jumped into normandy... and john anderson hughes served in world war i... and before robert hughes joined the spanish-american war, there were families connected to the belief that freedom was worth fighting for. join us in thanking them at bankofamerica.com/troopthanks.

your husband left his cell phone on. and you're not necessarily proud of that. but tonight, he made the pizza. ...with johnsonville italian sausage. the premium cuts of pork and perfect blend of herbs and spices gave every bite even more flavor. and everyone loved it.

and you're definitely proud of that. johnsonville. served with pride since 1945. so you want to drive more safely? of smart. stop eating. take deep breaths. avoid bad weather. [ whispers ] get eight hours. ♪ [ shouts over music ] turn it down! and, of course, talk to farmers. hi. hi. ♪ we are farmers bum - pa - dum, bum - bum - bum - bum ♪

the boy who cried wolf, which proves the point of just why nobody trusts a liar.

and had aessop run a cable news network, aessop would not have booked the boy who cried wolf to talk about the imminent threat of wolves. he would have known better. 2500 years later, we apparently do not know better. the band of foreign policy experts who completely and comprehensively blew it for us and the world with the iraq war is back. they have formed a new chorus to advice the country on what to do about syria. how should we handle that as a country? that story is next. ♪ [ crashing ] [ male announcer ] when your favorite food starts a fight, fight back fast with tums. heartburn relief that neutralizes acid on contact and goes to work in seconds. ♪ tum, tum tum tum tums!

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. ♪

he was a matted messiley siness. in a small cage. ng day. 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 when her sister dumped me. oh dad, you remember my friend alex? yeah. the one that had the work done... [ male announcer ] sometimes being too transparent can be a bad thing. this looks good! [ male announcer ] but not with the oscar mayer deli fresh clear pack. it's what you see is what you get food.

man: sometimes it's like we're still in college. but with a mortgage. and the furniture's a lot nicer. and suddenly, the most important person in my life is someone i haven't even met yet. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. as you plan your next step, we'll help you get there. i'm very mindful that around the world and in europe, here 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. >> on the first friday of october 2002, the bush white house announced that president george w. bush would make a speech in cincinnati, in the only union terminal there, an old train station that had been fixed up and made into a museum center. the speech would be about whether or not bush wanted to wage war on iraq. he had not announced it yet. we know that from the press and luminaries lined up at the speech, and the dignitaries trying to get in. they say the white house didn't cover that speech. the press said president bush was not expected to say anything new. but the night in cincinnati

became a significant event in us history because it was the first time president bush made his case for war just like this. >> we know iraq and al-qaeda share a common enemy, the united states of america. we know that iraq and al-qaeda have high-level contacts that go back ten years. iraq could decide on any given day to work with a terrorist group. alliance with terrorists could allow the iraqi regime to attack america without leaving any fingerprints. >> that became the central argument for the bush white house, for going to war in iraq, saddam hussein has weapons of mass destruction. he is going to give them to al-qaeda and al-qaeda will use them to attack us. that became their central argument and remained their central argument all the way into that decade-long war. saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he is going to give them to al-qaeda, al-qaeda is

going to attack us with them. that was not true, saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, to the extent that al-qaeda posed a threat, that threat had nothing to do with saddam hussein. the bush white house made a case for war that was not proven. they lied our country into war with so many lies that the center for public integrity started charting them by months. the arguments that the white house made for the war were based on lines, not just by lies, but by utter moral abandon. and in trying to make that case for the united states, and having that personal stake that wmds were around the world or countries possessing the wmds or a country having the lack of control of the wmds, president bush's way to use that argument, they broke that bone. they used it disingenuously, maybe doing so they broke it forever. here is the question, we still have the question of who to do if there is the back door terrorists.

we have a question on how to answer it. because now it is in five pieces because the bush administration bent it in half, waited for elephants to roll over it, and then set it on fire. we can't use that argument anymore. it makes your skin crawl, but in deciding to use the weapons, the president is trying. >> how to justify taking action, i know you talked about international norms because of chemical weapon use and not because of the 100,000 people who were killed there in the past. the 2 million refugees who fled across the border. >> well, what is happening has been heartbreaking. but when you start to talk about chemical weapons in a country that has the largest stock pile of chemical weapons in the world, over time their control

over chemical weapons may erode. where they're alive to known terrorist organization that in the past has targeted the united states, then there is the possibility that the chemical weapons that could have devastating effects could be directed at us. and we want to make sure that does not happen. >> maybe you think the u.s. should make a military strike against syria, maybe you think the u.s. should not. i think the debate should happen, i am heartened that congress is having the debate, if you can't come up with arguments good enough to convince the congress and american people to go to war, you shouldn't go to way. too important, and at the same time president obama is making his case. he is skeptical when u.s.

leaders talk about going to war, based on what happened last time. the fear because of the wmds is hard to hear because of the echo, it is not because of the way he is making the argument. it is how the other guys made the argument by misusing it, by lying about it. and now, while the debate is going on, on syria, they are staging an issue on this. on donald rumsfeld's appearance on the fox news channel, when he called president obama a so-called commander-in-chief, criticizing him for not making a good enough case for war, not like george bush did, in that conversation, the word "iraq" was not mentioned. not even once. you know, nobody called michael brown this past weekend on the anniversary of hurricane katrina to ask how we're doing on the hurricane preparedness. nobody seeks the advice of lance armstrong on the use of peds,

you may ask some of them about prison, or hair care, or how they feel about the red sox. but no, you would not seek their advice or counsel on the thing that ended their careers in humiliation. you would not ask their opinion on that, if you were one of the primary actors on the iraq war, possibly the most crazy foreign disaster in american history, your opinion is no longer required on matters of war and peace. please enjoy painting portraits of dogs or something, painting portraits of yourself in the bathroom, trying to get clean. please enjoy the comfort of your family and loved ones, and your god. but we as a country never ever need to hear from you about war ever again. you can go now. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow

night, now it is time for "the last word" the lawrence o'donnell. >> putin still blocking any kind of action. >> is he playing a game, was he serious? >> i was able to get a sense of his soul. >> the memory of iraq resulted in a narrower authorization of force. >> the senate foreign relations committee will vote on a resolution.