cooperation as general secretariat has called the attack a blatant front to all religious and normal values which require a decisive action. in the coming days i'll continue to consult with my fellow leaders around the world and continue to consult with congress, and i will make the best case that i can to the american people, as well as to the international community, for taking necessary and appropriate action. and i intend to address the american people from the white house on tuesday. the kind of world we live in and our ability to deter this kind of outrageous behavior, is going to depend on the decisions that we make in the days ahead. and i'm confident that if we deliberate carefully and choose wisely and embrace our responsibilities, we can meet the challenges of this moment, as well as those in the days ahead. so with that, let me take some questions. i've got my handy list and i

will start with julie pace from a.p. >> thank you, mr. president. you mentioned the number of countries condemned the use of chemical weapons but but backing your call for military action. putin indicated a short time ago it may only be a handful of countries including france and turkey and saudi arabia. can you tell us who is backing your call for military action and putin mentioned your meeting with him earlier today. did you discuss both syria and edward snowden? thank you. >> the -- i believe that there will be a statement issued later this evening, although hopefully in time for you guys to file back home, that indicates some of the additional countries that are making public statements. last night, we had a good discussion and i want to give president putin credit that he

facilitated i think a full airing of views on the issue. here is how i would describe it. without giving the details or betraying the confidence of those who were speaking within the confines of the dinner. it was unanimous that chemical weapons were used, a unanimous conclusion that chemical weapons were used in syria. there was a unanimous view that the norm against using chemical weapons has to be maintained, that these weapons were banned for a reason, and that the international community has to take those norms seriously. i would say that the majority of the room is comfortable with our conclusion that assad -- the

assad government was responsible for their use. obviously, this is disputed by president putin. but if you polled the leaders last night, i am confident that you could get a majority who said it is most likely we are pretty confident that the assad regime used them. where there is a division, has to do with the united nations. you know, there are a number of countries that, just as a matter of principle, believe that if military action is to be taken, it needs to go through the u.n. security council. there are others -- and i put myself in this camp -- as somebody who is a strong supporter of the united nations who very much appreciates the courage of the investigators who have gone in and looked forward to seeing the u.n. report,

because i think we should try to get more information, not less, in this situation. it is my view and a view that was shared by a number of people in the room that given security council paralysis on this issue, if we are serious about upholding a ban on chemical weapons use, then an international response is required and that will not come through security council action. and that is where, i think, the division comes from. and i respect those who are concerned about setting precedence of action outside of u.n. security council resolution. i would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels

and through the united nations to get this done, but, ultimately, what i believe in even more deeply, because i think that the security of the world and my particular task, looking out for the national security of the united states, requires that when there is a breach this brazen of a norm this important, and the international community is paralyzed and frozen and doesn't act, then that norm begins to unravel and if that norm unra l unrave unravels, then other norms and prohibitions start unraveling and that makes for a more dangerous world. that then requires even more difficult choices and more difficult responses in the future.

you know, over 1,400 people were gassed. over 400 of them were children. this is not something we have fabricated. this is not something we are looking or using as an excuse for military action. as i said last night, i was elected to end wars, not start them. i've spent the last four and a half years doing everything i can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the american people. but what i also know, there are

times where we have to make hard choices if we are going to stand up for the things we care about and i believe that this is one of those times. and if we end up using the u.n. security council not as a means of enforcing international norms and international law, but rather as a barrier to acting on behalf of international norms and international law, then i think people rightly are going to be pretty skeptical about the system. and whether it can work to protect those children that we saw in those videos. and sometimes the further we get from the horrors of that, the easier it is to rationalize and not making tough choices. then i understand that. this is not convenient.

this is not something that i think a lot of folks around the wor world, you know, find an appetizing set of choices. but the question is do these norms mean something? and if we are not acting, what does that say? if we are just issuing another statement of condemnation for passing resolutions saying it wasn't that terrible, you know, if people who, you know, decry international inaction in rwanda and, you know, say how terrible it is that these human rights violations that take place around the world and why aren't we doing something about it and they always look to the united states.

why isn't the united states doing something about this? the most powerful nation on earth. why are you allowing these terrible things to happen? and then if the international community turns around when we're saying it's time to take some responsibility and says, well, hold on a second, we are not sure, that erodes our ability to maintain the kind of norms that we are looking at. i know that was a lengthy answer and you had a second part of your question. the conversation i had with president putin was on the margins of the plan recession and it was a candid and constructive conversation which characterizes my relationship with him. as i've said before, i know everybody is trying to look for

body language and all that, but the truth of the matter is my interactions with him tend to be very straightforward. we discussed syria. and that was primarily the topic of the discussion. mr. snowden did not come up, beyond me re-emphasizing where we have common interest, i think it's important for the two of us to work together. and on syria, i said, listen, i don't expect us to agree on this issue of chemical weapons use, although it is possible that after the u.n. inspector's report, it may be more difficult for mr. putin to maintain his current position about the evidence. but what i did say is that we both agree that the underlying conflict can only be resolved

through a political transition as envisioned by the geneva process. even if other countries disagree on this specific issue how to respond to chemical weapons use, it remains important for us to work together to try to urge all parties in the conflict, to try to resolve it, because we have got 4 million people internally displaced. we got millions of people in turkey, jordan, lebanon, who are desperate and the situation is only getting worse. and that is not anybody's interest. it's not in america's interest and it's not in russia's interest or the people in the region and not in the interest of syrians who have seen their

lives completely disrupted and their country shattered. that is a going to continue to be a project of ours and that does speak to an issue raised around this whole issue. you've heard some people say, wel well, if you're going to do something, you have to do something big and maybe this isn't big enough, or maybe it's too late, or other responses like that. what i've tried to explain is, look. we may not solve the whole problem, but this particular problem of using chemical weapons on children, this one we might have an impact on and that is worth acting on. that is important to us. and what i've also said is that as far as the underlying conflict is concerned, unless the international community is willing to put massive numbers

of troops on the ground, and i know nobody is signing up for that, we are not going to get a long-term military solution for the country and that is something that can only come about, i think, as different as our perspectives may, myself, mr. putin, and others are willing to set aside those differences and put some pressure on the parties on the ground. briana? >> mr. president, on the resolution to authorize the use of force, one of the big challenges right now isn't just republicans. but it's from some of your loyal democrats. it seems the more they hear from classified briefings, that the less likely they are to support you. if the full congress doesn't pass this, will you go ahead with the strike? and also senator susan collins, one of the few republicans who

breaks with her party to give you support at times, she says, what if we execute the strike and then assad decides to use chemical weapons again? do we strike again? and many democrats are asking that as well. how do you answer her question? >> well, first of all, in terms of the votes and the process in congress, i knew this was going to be a heavy lift. i said that on saturday when i said we are going to take it to congress. you know, our polling operation are pretty good. you know, i tend to have a pretty good sense of what current popular opinion is, and for the american people who have been through over a decade of war now with enormous sacrifice and blood and any hint of further military entanglements in the middle east are going to be viewed with suspicion, and

that suspicion will probably be even stronger in my party than in the republican party. you know, since a lot of the people who supported me remember that i opposed the war in iraq. and what is also true is that that experience with the war in iraq colors how people view this situation, not just back home in america, but also here in europe and around the world. you know, that's the prism through which a lot of people are analyzing the situation. so i understand the skepticism. i think it is very important, therefore, for us to work through systematically, making the case to every senator and every member of congress, and that is what we are doing. i dispute a little bit, briana, the notion that people come out of class by briefings and less in favor of it. i think when they go through the

classified briefings, they feel pretty confident that, in fact, chemical weapons were used and that the assad regime used them. where you will see resistance is people being worried about a slippery slope and how effective a limited action might be. and our response, based on my discussions with our military, is that we can have a response that is limited, that is proportional, that when i say limited, is both in time and in scope, but that is meaningful and that degrades assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons. not just this time, but also in the future. and serves as a strong deterr t deterrent. now, is it possible that assad doubles down in the face of our action and uses chemical weapons more widely?

i suppose anything is possible. but it wouldn't be wise. i think at that point, mobilizing the international community would be easier, not harder. i think it would be pretty hard for the u.n. security council at that point to continue to resist the requirement for action and we would gladly join with an international coalition to make sure that it stops. so, you know, one of the biggest concerns of the american people, you know, certain members of congress may have different concerns. there may be certain members of congress who say we have to do even more, or claim to have previously criticized me for not hitting assad an hour saying

they are going to vote no and you'll have to ask them exactly how they square that circle, but for the american people at least, the concern really has to do with understanding that what we are describing here would be limited. and proportionate and designed to address this problem of chemical weapons use and upholding a norm that helps keep all of us safe and that is going to be the case that i try to make, not just to congress, but to the american people over the coming days. okay? >> just to follow-up. do you have full congressional approval, the senate votes and the house does not. would you go ahead with the strike? >> briana, i think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate because, right now, i'm working to get as much spour as possible out of congress. but i'll repeat something that i

said in sweden when i was asked a similar question. i did not put this before congress just as a political ploy or as symbolism. i put it before congress because i could not honestly claim that the threat posed by assad's use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians and women and children posed an eminent direct threat to the united states. in that situation, obviously, i don't worry about congress. we do what we have to do to keep the american people safe. i could not say that it was immediately directly going to have an impact on our allies. again, in those situations, i would act right away. this wasn't even a situation like libya where, you know, you've got troops rolling

towards benghazi and you have a concern of time about saving somebody right away. this was an event that happened. my military assured me that we could act today, tomorrow, a month from now, that we could do so proportionately, but meaningfully. in that situation, i think it is important for us to have a serious debate in the united states about -- about these issues, because these are going to be the kinds of national security threats that are most likely to recur over the next five, ten years. there are very few countries who are going to go at us directly. i mean, we have to be vigilant, but our military is unmatched. those countries that are large

and powerful like russia or china, we have the kind of relationship with them that we are not getting in conflicts of that sort, at least, you know, over the last several decades, there has been a recognition that neither country benefits from that kind of great power conflict. so the kinds of national security threats that we are going to confront, they are terrorist threats, they are failed states, they are the proliferation of deadly weapons, and in those circumstances,, you know, a president is going to have to make a series of decisions about which one of these threats over the long term starts making us less and less safe, and where we can work internationally, we should. there are going to be times, though, where, as is true here, the international community is

stuck for a whole variety of political reasons and if that is the case, people are going to look to the united states and say what are you going to do about it? and that is not a responsibility that we always enjoy. you know, there was a leader of a smaller country who i've spoken to over the last several days who says, "i don't envy you because i'm a small country and nobody expects me to do anything about chemical weapons around the world. i have no capacity to do something." and it's tough because people do look to the united states. the question for the american people is that responsibility they are willing to bear? and i believe that when you have a limited proportional strike like this, not iraq, not putting boots on the ground, not some long drawn-out affair, not

without any risk, but with manageable risks, that we should be willing to bear that responsibility. chuck todd? >> thank you, mr. president. good morning or geood evening. i think it's still good morning back home. >> by tonight, we will all be back home. >> it seems the members of congress are responding to their constituents and you're teeing a lot of these town halls. the it seems the more john kerry pressures the case on your bhanks t behalf, the more the opposition becomes vocal. you keep talking about a limited mission. we have a report that indicates you've actually asked for an expanded list of targets in syria and one military official told nbc news, characterized it at mission creek.

can you respond to that report? >> that report is inaccurate. i'm not going to comment on operational issues that, you know, are sourced by some military official. one thing i got a pretty clear idea about is when i talk to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff about and what we have consistently talked about is something limited and proportional that would degrade mr. assad's capabilities. in terms of opposition, chuck, i expected this. this is hard and i was under no illusions when i embarked on this -- on this path. but i think it's the right thing to do. i think it's good for our

democracy. we will be more effective if we are unified going forward, and, you know, part of what we knew, there would be some politics interjecting themselves -- no, i said some. but what i have also said is that the american people have gone through a lot when it comes to the military over the last decade or so. so i understand that. and when you start talking about chemical weapons, and their proliferation, you know, those images of those bodies can sometimes be forgotten pretty quickly. the news cycle moves on. frankly, if we weren't talking about the need for an international response right now, this wouldn't be what everybody would be asking about.

you know, there would be some resolutions that were being proffered in the united nations and usual hocus-pocus but the world and the country would have moved on. so trying to impart a sense of urgency about this, why we can't have an environment in which, over time, people start thinking we can get away with chemical weapons use, it's a hard sale, but something i believe in. as i explained to briana, in this context, making sure that the american people understand it, i think, is important before i take action. john karl. >> thank you, mr. president. one of your closest allies in

the house said yesterday, when you've got 97% of your constituents saying no, it's kind of hard to say yes. why should members of congress go against the will of their constituents and support your decision on this? and i still haven't heard a direct response to briana's question. if congress fails to authorize this, will you go forward with an attack on syria? >> right. and you're not getting a direct response. briana asked the question very well, you know? >> it's a pretty basic question. >> you know, i was going to give you a different answer, you thought? no. what i have said, and i will repeat, is that i put this before congress for a reason. i think we will be more effective and stronger if, in fact, congress authorizes this action. i'm not going to engage in parlor games now, jonathan, about whether or not it's going to pass when i'm talking

substantively to congress about why this is important, and talking to american people about why this is important. now, with respect to congress and how they should respond to constituency concerns, you know, i do consider it part of my job to help make the case and to explain to the american people exactly why i think this is the right thing to do. and it's conceivable at the end of the day, i don't persuade a majority of the american people that it's the right thing to do. and then each member of congress is going to have to decide if i think it's the right thing to do for america's national security and the world's national security, then how do i vote? and you know what? that's what you're supposed to do as a member of congress. ultimately you listen to your

constituents but you've also got to make some decisions about what you believe is right for america. and that is the same for me as president of the united states. there are a whole bunch of decisions that i make that are unpopular, as you well know. but i do so because i think they are the right thing to do, and i trust my constituents want me to offer my best judgment, that's why they elected mean why they re-elected me, even after there were some decisions that i made that i disagreed with, and i would hope that members of congress would end up feeling the same way. last point i would make. those kinds of interventions, these kind of actions are always unpopular, because they seem distant and removed. and i want to make sure i'm being clear.

i'm not drawing an analogy to world war ii, other than to say when london was getting bombed, it was profoundly unpopular, both in congress and around the country, to help the british. it doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do. it just means people, you know, are struggling with jobs and bills to pay and they don't want their sons or daughters put in harm's way. these entanglements far away are dangerous and different. to bring the analogy closer to home, you know, the intervention in kosovo, very unpopular, but, ultimately i think it was the right thing to do and the

international community should be glad that it came together to do it. when people say that it is a terrible stain on all of us, that hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in rwanda, imagine if rwanda was going on right now and we asked should we intervene in rwanda? i think it's fair to say it probably wouldn't hold real well. typically, when any kind of military action is popular, it's because either there has been a very clear, direct threat to us, 9/11. or an administration uses various hooks to suggest that

american interests were directly threatened, like in panama or grenada and sometimes those hooks are more persuasive than others, but typically they are not put before congress. again, we just went through something pretty tough with respect to iraq. so all of that, i guess, provides some contact why you might people to be resistant here. >> your deputy national security adviser said it's not your intention to attack if congress doesn't approve it. is he right? >> i don't think that is exactly what he said, but i think i've answered the question. major garrett? >> thank you, mr. president. those of us who remember covering your campaign, remember you saying militarily when the united states acts, it's not just important what it does but how it goes about doing and when america sets its courses it's important to engage the international community and

listen to different ideas as it is pursuing that action. i wonder if you leave here and return to washington see is the skepticism there and it might delay military action? for example, some in congress giving the syrian regime 45 days to sign the chemical weapons convention and get rid of its chemical stockpiles and do something to enhance international sense of accountability for syria but delay military action. are you, mr. president, looking at any of these ideas or are we on a fast track to military action as soon as congress renders its judgment one way or another? >> i'm listening to all of these items and some of them are constructive and i'm listening to ideas in congress and i'm listening to ideas here. look. i want to repeat here. my goal is to maintain the in this norm on banning chemical weapons. i want that enforcement to be

real. i want it to be serious. i want people to understand that gassing innocent people, you know, delivering chemical weapons against children is not something we do. it's prohibited in active wars between countries. we certainly don't do it against kids. and we have got to stand up for that principle. if there are tools that we can use to ensure that, obviously, my preference would be, again, to act internationally in a serious way, and to make sure that mr. assad gets the message. i'm not itching for military action. recall, major, i have been criticized for the last couple

of years by some of the folks who are now saying they would oppose these strikes for not striking, and i think that i have a well-deserved reputation for taking very seriously and soberly the idea of military engagement. so we will look at these ideas. so far, at least, i have not seen ideas presented that, as a practical matter, i think, would do the job, but, you know, this is a situation where part of the reason i want to foster a debate was to make sure that everybody thought about both the ramifications of action -- >> currently the only way to enforce this international norm is militarily and even giving us the assad regime extra time would not achieve your goals? >> what i'm saying, major, is that so far what we have seen is

a escalation by the assad regime of chemical weapons used. you'll recall that several months ago, i said, we now say with some confidence that at a small level, assad has used chemical weapons. we not only sent warnings to assad, but we demarched, meaning we sent a strong message through countries that have relationships with assad that he should not be doing this. and rather than hold the line, we ended up with what we saw on august 21st. so this is not as if we haven't tested the proposition that the guy or at least generals under his charge can show restraint when it comes to this stuff and they have got one of the largest stockpiles in the world.

but i want to emphasize that we continue to consult with our international partners. i'm listening to congress. i'm not just doing the talking. and if there are good ideas that are worth pursuing, then i'm going to be open to them. i will take last question. tangy, afp. >> thank you, mr. president. yesterday night, you had two unscheduled committees with your -- counterparts after viced very strong concerns about being -- by the nsa. what was your message to them? and do relations constant stream of relations this summer make it harder for you to build confidence with your partners in international forums such as this one? >> i did meet with president

rusaf, as well as the president of brazil and mexico respectivelily to discuss these allegations that were made in the press about the nsa. i won't share with you all of the details of the conversation, but what i said to them is consistent with what i've said publicly. the united states has an intelligence agency and our intelligence agency's job is to gather information that is not available through public sources. if they were available through public sources, then they wouldn't be an intelligence agency. in that sense, what we do is similar to what countries around the world do with their intelligence services. but what is true is that we are

bigger, we have greater capabilities. you know, the difference between our capabilities and other countries probably tracks the differences in military capabilities between countries. and what i've said is that because technology is changing so rapidly, because these capabilities are growing, it is important for us to step back and review what it is that we are doing because just because we can get information doesn't necessarily always mean that we should. there may be costs and benefits to doing certain things and we have got to weigh those. i think that traditionally what has happened over the decades the general consumpion you pull

in and take what is available. it means that it's important for us on the front end to say, all right, are we actually going to get useful information here? and if not, or how useful is it if it's not that important, should we be more constrained in how we use certain technical capabilities. now, just more specifically on brazil and mexico. i said that i would look into the allegations. i mean, part of the problem here is we get these through the press and then i've got to go back and find out what has gone on with respect to these particular allegations. i don't subscribe to all of these newspapers. although i think the nsa does, now at least. and then what i assured

president rusav and president pentino, i take these allegations very seriously. i understand their concerns. i understand the concerns of the mexican and brazilian people and that we will work with their teams to resolve what is a source of attention. the last thing i'd say about this, though, is that just because their tensions doesn't mean that it overrides all of the incredibly wide ranging interests that we share with so many of these countries. you know, there's a reason why i

went to brazil and there is a reason why i invited rusav to come to the united states. brazil is a incredibly important country and from authoritarian to democracy and for the two largest nations in the hemisphere to have a strong relationship, that can only be good for the people of our two countries, as well as the region. same is true with mexico. one of our closest friends, allies, and neighbors. so we will work through this particular issue. it does not distract from the larger concerns that we have and the opportunities that we both want to take advantage of. all right? thank you very much, everybody. thank you, st. petersburg. >> for almost 50 minutes in a

wide ranging news conference, president barack obama before the press. he is going to be heading back to the united states before a skeptical congress and a skeptical american public. he did say he has been encouraged by his talks at the g-20 with foreign leaders, although he did not say if any of them were going to join france in support of his proposed military strike. he also acknowledged that the polling had shown him that the american people would have difficulty with this and, boy, have they. he has got a tough hill to climb. he will address the american people to try to win them over on tuesday. i'm chris jansing. good morning. thank you for being with us. and watching the president's news conference. to talk about it, i want to bring in gregory meeks, a democrat from new york and former ambassador mark ginsburg and middle east adviser as well and a "the washington post" correspondent. i know you've been undecided in this. anything you've heard from the president that leads you one way or another to decide how you'll

vote on this? >> no, nothing that changes my mind specifically. i still have questions in my mind in regards doing a unilateral strike. the president did not say more than what has been said when the question was asked which countries would join us, who would be with us militarily. those are still issues. i saw a report today where the eu strongly condemned the actions of utilitization of chemical weapons but, yet, said military involvement should not be done at this time. part of my issue is why should we do this in a unilateral process, not in a multilateral process, when it's been an international norm, as the president has said, that has been broken, but yet it's not an international response. >> what are you going to be looking for? are you going to be looking for the statements that he says will be coming from the various countries at the g-20? what are you hearing from your constituents? have you gotten any phone calls either from the president or members of his administration trying to win you over?

>> yes, number one, my constituents, i would think, overwhelmingly are saying study this and make sure you make a judgment that is based upon the facts as you receive them. others are saying, of course, don't go to war. we don't want to go to war. they still look at this in the background of iraq. and i know it's a difficult -- i've been in congress 15 years. any time we have had these decisions, it's been a tough decision. kosovo was tough. i voted for going to kosovo but we had nato with us then. we don't have nato now and we don't have the arab league and we don't have the u.n. so i don't see where that coalition is coming from. i'd like to hear from the administration in regards the ultimate results that took place as a result of the g-20 meeting. yes, i've been hearing from the administration. i'm here in d.c. today to -- i attended a classified hearing

yesterday and i intend on hearing one today to hear more information. so i'm trying to, you know, give the president and the administration all of the respect that the office of the presidency deserves and to listen to their entire arguments and try to come up with a decision. >> ambassador ginsburg, anything you heard from the president that surprised you or you think could help change minds? >> he was clearly weary and dismayed president a coalition the invisible. despite the questions contesting whether or not he would still use military force if congress voted no, he was dancing around the head of this pen as best he could which, of course, raises more questions in congress. >> he said you're not going to get an answer is what he said. >> yes, you're not going to get

an answer but by not giving an answer, that is an answer in and of itself. secondly, he also gave really -- i was -- i was regretting this, as short shift to the diplomatic track, so many members of congress and democratic friends of mine who probably are discouraged that he went to the g-20 meeting to focus exclusively on getting support for military strike. he eluded to the geneva. i would like to give him cover to say we need to deal with the chemical attack but now deal with the fundamentals of the syrian crisis by bringing in unprecedently ir unprecedent unprecedently iran. that would provide, i think, more comfort to the american people about the fact the

administration is not so exclusively focused on hitting syria militarily. >>an, as "the washington post" diplomatic correspondent, is there any diplomatic means you see going forward? is there a proposal out there that this administration is likely to embrace and we heard a specific question about that, one proposal being that we get 45 days to bashar al assad and to sign the chemical weapons agreement as a way to avoid a military strike. >> yeah. you heard the president almost reject it. he didn't entirely -- he said we will look at these ideas but he came right back after that and said, well, assad essentially had his chance. we sent him mean notes in the spring and said, look, don't do this, we are watching and he went ahead and did it again was obama's answer. so on the legislative idea of a

diplomatic way forward here, i don't think he was signaling today he is willing to do that. it is still the administration's policy that eventually there has to be a diplomatic solution in syria. there has to be essentially a peace treaty. thus far, they have said, yes, they would like to have assad or his people come and talk with the rebels with the opposition in geneva, switzerland and get to work on that. that has been pushed off and no realistic change of happening soon. >> thanks to all of you. appreciate it. we will take a quick break and be with back with chuck todd who has been traveling with the president. mmm...ah... [ ding ] ah... ah... [ male announcer ] with the herbal botanicals of rose hips and chamomile... yes! yes! yes! you'll fall in love with your hair

again and again. yes! it's an experience... everyone will be asking for. [ ding ding ding ding ] herbal essences. say yes to naturally irresistible hair. share your love with herbal essences. say yes to naturally irresistible hair. - hugs from beneful baked delights... - [ barks ]rs ] are crispy, oven-baked dog snacks with soft savory centers, made with beef and cheese. beneful baked delights: a unique collection of four snacks... to help spark play in your day. we believe it can be the most valuable real estate on earth. ♪ that's why we designed the subaru forester from the back seat forward. the intelligently designed, responsibly built, completely restyled subaru forester. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.

but i feel skinnier, you know? . not really. aaah! jessica! whoa! your friend's a rate sucker. her bad driving makes car insurance more expensive for the rest of us. try snapshot from progressive. snap it in and get a discount based on your good driving. [pop!] stop paying for rate suckers! try snapshot free at progressive.com. president obama planning to address the american people on tuesday night about his proposal for a military strike against syria. he knows it's going to be a heavy lift convincing the american people and convincing skeptical members of congress. joining me now nbc news capitol hill director, chief white house correspondent and host of "the daily rundown" chuck todd.

chuck, obviously, you've been with the president throughout this. we just heard ambassador mark ginsburg describe hick looking weary. knows what a difficult job he has facing him when he gets back to washington. as someone who has been here throughout this, help us to understand what you saw in the news conference. read between the lines his mood, his tone. >> you could tell it is -- i would describe it as beleaguered a little bit. always the caveat these trips, you don't get any sleep. we are all human beings, including the president of the united states. the time zone changes. we are eight time zones away. you don't know if it's morning or night, all of those things. so you have to put those caveats in here. but you could see the wear and tear on him. you saw it last night. i saw it last night. i feel like i saw it here. this sort of beleaguered feeling he knows this is getting harder and harder. he is not disputing. it. i thought was interesting was

the tone shift and it was throughout all of his answers and maybe you can chock it up to weariness or maybe you chock it up to this is the decision he realizes this is the way he is going to have to sell it to the american people. acknowledge that this isn't easy. acknowledge that he gets that -- want to do it. but saying this is why i have to do it, but not being overly forceful about it to try to tug more at almost the patriotic nature of whether america likes it or not, this is what the united states is stuck being sometimes. he didn't quite say stuck, but he almost -- he almost said it when he was telling that story of the one smaller country saying, i wouldn't want to be in your shoes. i think the other thing about this issue, would he or wouldn't he go to congress some what is interesting why he didn't say whether he would go ahead without congress. every political adviser to the

president i've talked to can't imagine a scenario that if congress -- they would be defeating it based solely on -- admit it. they are acting very rationally here and hearing from their constituents and wanting to vote with their constituents on this one. they can't imagine a scenario where he would act without them, unless assad did something else. but there is a fear, i have heard, if the president shows it one way or another, that somehow it would increase or decrease momentum for or against this authorization one way or another. >> chuck todd, traveling with the president and heading back to washington. thanks very much. what. >> apologize for this, by the way, a little -- >> putting the pressure and showing the pressure that is on the president for this speech on tuesday night. you have this unusual coalition. people like congressman gregory

meeks so strongly in his corner. african-americans members of congress and liberal members of congress and now the coalition they have with many conservative members of congress, partly, as chuck just said, responding to constituents who just fear mission creep, who don't want to get into a situation where they believe that america will end up in a war. so a very important news conference from the president heading back here to washington and who will be working on a speech to deliver to the american people on tuesday night. we will continue our coverage. that wraps up this hour of jansing and co. i'm chris jansing. see you on monday. craig melvin is up next.

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.

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. ♪ i will make best case that i can to the american people, as well as to the international community, for taking necessary and appropriate action. and i intend to address the american people from the white house on tuesday. >> that was president obama just a few moments ago in his final

news conference at the g-20 in rusch announ russia announcing he will speak to the american people on tuesday. hello, everybody. i'm craig melvin. the president spent his last day at the summit engaging with other world leaders and, once again, making his case for a strike on syria. failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian they can use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence. >> the president' new comments coming as security threats provert the state department to issue warnings in lebanon and turkey. the same that i "the new york times" is reporting that president obama has directed the pentagon to