there's not one way to do something. no details too small. american express open forum. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. rachel has the night off. we start with the top story in the country tonight, today, this week. that is the renewed u.s. military action in iraq. where there have now been multiple rounds of u.s. strikes on isis targets near the city of irbil. two separate predator drone strikes on a mortar position, location from which mortars were being launched as well as a strike from navy fighter jets that dropped eight 500-pound bombs on a convoy of seven isis vehicles. u.s. military's first strikes came early this morning, about nine hours after president obama announced he had authorized them. when two u.s. f-18 fighter jets

bombed a piece of isis artillery as well as the vehicle that was pulling it. according to the pentagon, isis has been using that artillery to shell kurdish forces fighting to save irbil, capital of kurdistan, which has found itself under siege by isis forces. u.s. has also dropped a second round of aid packages into the mountains. it's where thousands of yezidis, religious minority in iraq, are trapped without food and without water. isis cut the roads off trying to starve the fleeing civilians to death and threatening to kill anybody who came out of the mountains. nbc news has not been able to independently confirm this, but the "associated press" is also reporting now that hundreds of yezidi women in mosul, the second largest city of iraq, that hundreds of yezidi women there have been taken captive by isis. last night, the president said that although u.s. will not be entering war, no boots on the ground, it is coming to help.

>> i ran for this office in part to end our war in iraq and welcome our troops home. that's what we've done. as commander in chief, i will not allow the united states to be dragged into fighting another war in iraq. even as we support iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, american combat troops will not be returning to fight in iraq. when many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action. that is our responsibility as americans. that's a hallmark of american leadership. that's who we are. earlier this week, one iraqi in the area cried to the world, "there is no one coming to help." well, today america is coming to help. >> so america is coming to help, but what does that constitute? what help does that constitute? well, that isn't entirely clear. how long are we going to be offering this help, exactly? that also isn't clear. with those questions in mind,

today white house press secretary josh ernest repeated even as the missions are being carried out he repeated the united states will will not be dragged into another combat in iraq. and also said there is no set end date for these air strikes. that they have been authorized by the president on an open-ended basis. since january, isis forces have been on a steady march across iraq. they now control a wide swath of that country as well as syria to the west. among the many open questions tonight is this. just how effective can american air strikes be in weakening the grip isis currently has across that region? want to bring in nbc news national security producer courtney kube now. what's the latest you know at this hour? >> you mentioned at the top there have been three sets of strikes today, total of 12 bombs dropped from 2 different platforms. navy fa-18s flying off a carrier

in the gulf. they topped several 54s there, giant 500 pound j-dam bombs. there were two predator drone strikes earlier today as well. what they're taking out essentially are any kind of targets, weapons systems striking near irbil. so far, we're hearing from u.s. officials, military officials that they're not actually getting into irbil. these strikes. but they're going near. many of them are kind of errant strikes going near irbil but threatening just the same. you mentioned there was a humanitarian drop overnight, another humanitarian drop planned for this evening. they're sending in food and water to the yezidis trapped in the sinjar mountain range. there are tens of thousands of these people. so far, last night, at least, they sent in meals ready to eat, feed about 8,000 people and several thousand gallons of water. clearly for tens of thousands of people, that's not enough. the humanitarian effort is going to have to continue to help all those people.

>> well, courtney, there are two sort of almost contradictory questions that i'm thinking of today and other people have been talking about today. i'll run them by you one at a time. maybe you can shed some light. start from this angle. the idea this is an open-ended commitment. there is no set date on the end or the air strikes, that's what the white house is saying. the idea of iraq, the idea of anything being open ended makes anybody nervous. when you look at the people trapped on the mountain, activity going on outside of irbil, what specifically is the white house saying? is there anything specific that would say not a date when this ends but specific things that have to happen on the ground for this to be over? >> i don't think there will be a date for this to end. at this point, it looks like it's not going to continue, but could even, i don't want to say escalate, but could even grow. both the white house last night, president obama then today ben rhodes from the white house both opened up the possibility that if isis, if the islamic state begins to threaten other areas,

baghdad particularly, these air strikes would be allowed to be used against isis near baghdad as well. so far, you know, this conflict began weeks ago when they first were beginning to pulse toward baghdad. but they haven't yet moved directly into baghdad. they haven't made very offensive actions toward baghdad. but if we see them moving that way, the same way we have toward irbil recently, that would be another area for potential air strikes. so that -- that mission is certainly not going to come to a close any time soon unless isis takes the hint from what they've seen here and starts to pull back. isis could very well decide to just consolidate what they have in areas that the u.s. is not going to necessarily go after them for. areas that they've already been working in. fallujah, ramadi, mosul. the u.s. was not conducting any kind of air strikes when they

were just focusing on those areas. the two differences now are baghdad and irbil. if they're in any way potentially threatening those two cities, the u.s. will act. >> let me just quickly go to the second question, though, because we -- all of this emphasis is placed on the concern, the obvious and understandable concern that everyone in this country has, and the white house is so sensitive to about not want to be drawn into another conflict in iraq. when you start talking about, when the white house starts talking so persistently an this being a precise, limited, narrow mission in scope, it raises the second question of, given what isis is, given what they represent, given how dogged and determined they are, is something this precise and this narrow going to be enough to stop them? >> absolutely not. i mean, these are really more, you know, pinprick kind of strikes. these are things that are specifically meant to deter, tactically deter isis from going into irbil and potentially going into baghdad as well. but the only way that you're ever going to make any kind of real impact on the islamic state

is strikes inside syria. the majority of the command and control, if not all of their command and control, still exists on the other side of the border, on the eastern side of syria, then more up in toward the north of syria. what existed on the iraq side right now is primarily the fighters. the ground soldiers. they're not the ones who are going to make any kind of real difference against the islamic state in that region. >> already. nbc news national security producer courtney kube, thank you for your time tonight. lot of great insight. >> thank you. it was february 27th, 1991, february 267th of 1991 when president george h.w. bush made a special address to the nation from the oval office. >> kuwait is liberated. iraq's army is defeated. our military objectives are met. kuwait is once more in the hands of kuwaitis in control of their own destiny. we share in their joy.

a joy tempered only by our compassion for their ordeal. this is a victory for the united nations, for all man kind, for the rule of law and for what is right. after consulting with secretary of defense cheney, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general powell, and our coalition partners, i am pleased to announce that at midnight tonight, eastern standard time, exactly 100 hours since ground operations commenced and six weeks since the start of operation desert storm, all united states and coalition forces will suspend offensive combat operations. >> what president george h.w. bush said there did not sound all that complicated. basically this was good news. this was good news back in february of 1991. this is news the country had been praying for, in fact. the united states stopped iraq's leader, saddam hussein, from seizing a sovereign independent nation. nation of kuwait. that was the story of the first

gulf war. one a lot of people call the good gulf war. it was short. it lasted just six weeks in winter of 1991 and there were relatively few casualties among american service personnel. nothing like some of the dire predictions that had been made as the u.s. was amassing troops in the desert before that war. now when bush made that statement, now it was over, and it was time to celebrate. this was the first full scale u.s. military engagement since the disaster of vietnam. and now in this triumphant moment, it was said america had finally kicked its vietnam syndrome. the country was cheering. president george h.w. bush very much wanted this to be the end of the story. when it came to american military involvement in iraq under his watch. but even as all those celebrations you were just watching, even as all those parades were taking place, there was another story playing out. there was a humanitarian tragedy unfolding in iraq. in the wake of the withdrawal of u.s. troop after that first gulf war. and it was clear that it was a

tragedy made in party due to the way we ended that war. as that war was ending, as saddam hussein's forces were getting routed in kuwait, being called into question, as all of that was happening, george h.w. bush decided to make a plea directly to the iraqi people, especially to the kurds. to the kurdish people. an ethnic minority group that had long been persecuted by saddam's regime. what bush told them to do was step up and overthrow hussein once and for all. here is what the kurds heard. it was a message to them from bush on the "voice of america," a u.s. government funded radio network. this aired in the kurdish parts of iraq just days before the war ended. >> another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the iraqi military and the iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force saddam hussein, the dictator, to step aside. >> couple days after american troops withdrew, bush repeated

that message. iraqi people should force saddam out, push him aside. that's what he said. with the encouragement of the president of the united states whose army just humiliated saddam hussein, the kurds acted. in march and april of 1991, the kurds in the north of iraq and also some shiites elsewhere in the country staged an uprising, heeded bush's call and moved to get rid of saddam, but they were unsuccessful. they didn't win. many of them had thought, many of them had expected the mighty american military would have their back. but it didn't. america did not step in to help them. it did not intervene to keep them from getting crushed by saddam. the backlash they then felt was swift and it was brutal. they had thought saddam was weak, that the moment was right to strike.

saddam still desperate to show he still had power in his own land, still had control, so he undertook a brutal campaign of retribution against the kurds, people he long considered to be an enemy. in an eerie parallel to what we're now witnessing, seeing today, iraqi kurds in the spring of 1991 left villages in droves in order to escape the vengeance of saddam hussein's army. the kurds hid in refugee camps in the mountains for months. they were dying from cold, they were dying from hunger, from thirst. they were afraid to descend the mountains knowing saddam's army would be there waiting to kill them. >> winter is coming to the camp just inside iraq's border with iran. at least 150,000 kurdish refugees are in the area. it's miserable and dangerous, but saddam hussein frightens them more than the cold. some are past caring what happens to them. >> translator: it's better to die than to live like this. >> they know if they return to the valleys and the plains, the

weather will be warmer, but too many of them believe saddam's men will kill them if they try to go home, and they prefer to take their chances in the mountains. >> the u.s. military did in the end help the refugees with humanitarian aid. president bush refused to help them militarily. even in the face of criticism that he had encouraged them and then abandoned them, even after risking them to urge to risk their own lives. >> president bush had hoped after the war was won, he would be able to enjoy sporting holidays like today's free from the carping of those who opposed his gulf policy. but his aides say bush feels he's now taking a bum rap for the suffering of kurdish and shiite refugees. >> conflicts have been raging in iraq for many years, and we're helping out and we're going to continue to help these refugees, but i do not want one single soldier or airman shoved into a civil war in iraq that's been going on for ages. and i'm not going to have that.

>> more than 2 million kurds fled saddam in 1991 during the fallout from the failed uprising. for a period of time that year, as many as 2,000 kurds were dying every single day. trapped in the mountains and the border between iraq, turkey, and iran. united states did eventually help impose a no-fly zone over kurdish iraq which gave the kurds a degree of security against saddam's military forces. more than a decade later, more than a decade after that first gulf war, when the next bush administration, the george w. bush administration made the case for a second war with iraq, well, a key part of their justification for going in was based on what had happened back in 1991, what happened when saddam unleashed his forces on the kurds. and not just then, there was also a long history of saddam targeting and persecuting the kurds and other minority groups in iraq. that targeting and that persecution was one of the reasons that the george w. bush administration cited for removing hussein from power. and it was during america's

second iraq war that the kurds faced a choice. would they, could they, trust the united states against saddam hussein? would they join america's war against saddam? their answer back in 2003 was resoundingly, yes. fought alongside america, and fought to topple saddam hussein. >> these are the soldiers who will fight with gis. 90,000 kurds say u.s. officials are ready today to protect paratroopers dropping into northern iraq. >> we have a good military capability. hardened and tested in the battlefield. these forces have been in the forefront of democracy in iraq. >> though he refused to point out likely u.s. bases, nbc news has learned there are at least three. >> in northern iraq, u.s. forces fought the war side by side with kurdish fighters. in the aftermath of the iraq war in 2003, as fighting threatened to disintegrate the rest of the country, kurdistan, that kurdish

area in northern iraq, it actually began to flourish. it's a region that had a degree of autonomy. people there had something rare that the rest of iraq, none of the kurds had. none of the kurds had had in their past. almost as if they had their own country. their capital, irbil, has grown in the last ten years into a powerhouse. crux has pwaopld in boomed in irbil. the kurds are entitled to roughly a fifth of all of iraq's oil revenue. there's been reporting lately that they're striking their own export deals with neighboring countries. all of this is giving the kurds the wealth to grow their capital, irbil, into not just an island of stability in iraq, but also into an invaluable strategic base for the united states. there are several american personnel stationed in irbil, now with this current crisis in iraq, it is irbil, it is the stable existence that the kurds have made for themselves in post-saddam iraq that is now facing a grave threat from isis. up until now, isis has taken over large swaths of mostly sunni iraq. but now, they are moving into the kurdish region.

they are threatening the kurdish capital. america's relationship with the kurds and iraq is a complicated one. we let them down back in 1991, but we fought alongside them a decade later and they have been one of our staunchest allies in the region ever since. and now we're faced with a decision of how far we're going to go to protect the kurds and their interests. interests that in many ways do overlap with america's interests. since the president's announcement last night he authorized targeted strikes in iraq, american military forces have now carried out some of those strikes including hitting isis targets near irbil. among the questions facing the obama administration tonight, are these strikes going to be enough to protect our allies, the kurds, from the advancing isis army? if the united states, is the united states prepared to stay in the fight with the kurds as long as it takes? does that mean we're risking another protracted military engagement in iraq? if we're not prepared to make

that commitment or if we change our minds, does that mean we're once again going to abandon the kurds in their time of need? dianne feinstein put out this statement today supporting president obama's decision to employ air strikes and warning that isis may be planning an attack against americans. "in our backyard." we can't allow this to happen, she said. "it takes an army to defeat and army. i support actions by the administration to coordinate efforts with iraq and allies to use our military strength and targeting expertise to the fullest extent possible." those are strong words from dianne feinstein. what is possible for this current american engagement in iraq? what isn't possible? does america, does this nation that is so tired of war, especially war in iraq, do the people in this country think that protecting the city of irbil, protecting the kurdish people from isis is worth our military reengaging in iraq now? the obama administration tonight is facing some complicated questions and some very high stakes.

(son) oh no... can you fix it, dad? yeah, i can fix that. (dad) i wanted a car that could handle anything. i fixed it! (dad) that's why i got a subaru legacy. (vo) symmetrical all-wheel drive plus 36 mpg. i gotta break more toys. (vo) introducing the all-new subaru legacy.

it's not just a sedan.

two questions about president obama's use of force in northern iraq. question one, did he need congressional approval? question two, why is no one asking question one? stay tuned. works anywhere in the house. even in the garage. max what's going on? we're doing a tech startup. we're streamlining an algorithm. we're going public! [cheering] the fastest in-home wifi for your entire family. the x-1 entertainment operating system. only from xfinity. that's keeping you from the healthcare you deserve.. at humana, we believe the gap will close when healthcare gets simpler. when frustration and paperwork decrease. when grandparents get to live at home instead of in a home. so let's do it. let's simplify healthcare.

let's close the gap between people and care. two u.s. navy fa-16s struck first taking out isis military. hours later an unmanned drone hit an isis mortar position not once but twice with hell-fired missiles followed by four fa-18s that obliterated an isis convoy

with eight 500 pound laser-guided bombs. >> nbc news chief pentagon correspondent today. it prompted renewed military action by the united states, making barack obama, who was elect odd a platform of extricating america from iraq, the fourth consecutive u.s. president to authorize new military action in that country. joining us, senior fellow at the center for american progress. specializing in national security policy in the middle east and south asia. thanks for joining us tonight. so we had a bit of a setup in the last segment about the significance of the u.s. relationship, the history of the u.s. relationship with the kurdish people and the significance of the city of irbil which the u.s. is now using some of these air strikes to try to protect. i guess my question for you is we had our national security producer on earlier in the show. she was saying in terms of really stopping isis, the sort

of, you know, pinpoint focal air strikes that we're talking about right now are not ultimately going get that job done. the question i would have for you is how far should the united states be willing to go to protect irbil, to protect the kurdish region in northern iraq? >> i think it should do its utmost without putting u.s. troops on the ground in a combat role to help the kurds. i thought your setup was really, really good. provided a thorough history of what's going on. flash forward to today and what's happening actually this day. you have kurdish peshmerga who have very gritty, determined and fighting in sinjar and other places. essentially president obama's strategy here is to provide support from the background to those forces. and i don't think it means the u.s. needs to have extended air bombing campaigns and it certainly doesn't mean that the u.s. goes back in there with

combat boots on the ground. but we do need to back capable and reliable allies like the kurds and i think that's going to be a centerpiece of dealing with this problem of the islamic state. the kurds, our friends in jordan, turkey, which is a nato ally, they are going to be the ones that i think are on the front lines of this. and we need to offer that vital support. >> well, i guess the question, then, do you think the kurds are capable, in terms of ground personnel, are the kurds capable of fending off isis with assistance from the united states in the air? i guess the question that's haunted me the last day and a lot of people, what if that's not enough and the united states has made this commitment of protecting irbil and we find out the air strikes aren't enough? we're committed then. what do we do? >> i think that's a key question people are looking at right now in this administration. i think -- i've been to the

northern part of iraq several times. i think that they're much stronger, the kurdish peshmerga, than the forces in june. there's a unit cohesion there. i think the most important thing, steve, is they're fighting for an idea. not only fighting for pieces of territory but fighting for what they fought for for decades and makes the kurdish peshmerga different. even the limited efforts from the united states by the air will help stiffen their spine and resolve to go after this threat, protect what they've got right now. >> you know, obviously we've talked about this the last two nights. this is a country, such a war-wary country right now, the united states, especially when to comes to iraq. there's this understandable sensitivity, certainly in the part of the administration, this country wants little to do with iraq going forward militarily. making the case for we need to protect a crucial kurdish city, stand up for the kurdish population. maybe that isn't as easy a sell

as it is to talking about limited personnel. we have limited personnel in the city of irbil. chris matthews has been on this network making the point if that was the main objective, we could have easily evacuated the personnel and gotten them out of here. is there an effort in your mind by the administration, putting the emphasis on protecting americans when the real strategic game is protecting the kurdish people in their region? >> if you look at what president obama said last night and several administration officials said today, they're going through the full list of what our interests are and what our values are that are at stake here. so i think at core, it is about protecting some u.s. personnel, but more broadly, we want to prevent the collapse of some of our closest and most capable allies like the kurds. that's what's happening right now. again, i want to stress, you know, what we see right now is not a strategic shift on the part of the united states. its policy is not going to be going down the faith of getting involved in another quagmire here. it is simply trying to enable those partners to actually defend themselves then turn back

the tide hopefully against the islamic state. >> national security expert with the center for american progress. thanks very much for sharing time with us tonight. appreciate it. much more ahead, and the president's motives in iraq, coming up. when folks think about what they get from alaska, they think salmon and energy. but the energy bp produces up here creates something else as well: jobs all over america. engineering and innovation jobs. advanced safety systems & technology. shipping and manufacturing. across the united states, bp supports more than a quarter million jobs.

when we set up operation in one part of the country, people in other parts go to work. that's not a coincidence. it's one more part of our commitment to america. ♪ ♪ ♪ woooooah. ♪ [ male announcer ] you're not just looking for a house. you're looking for a place for your life to happen. zillow. take them on the way you always have. live healthy and take one a day men's 50+. a complete multivitamin with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. age? who cares. in the places you want to be.

where you can explore super destinations and do everything under the sun. twelve brands. more hotels than anyone else in the world. for a chance to win one million dollars, visit wyndhamrewards.com female announcer: sundayduring sleep train's triple choice sale.

for a limited time, you can choose to save hundreds on beautyrest and posturepedic mattress sets. or choose $300 in free gifts with sleep train's most popular tempur-pedic mattresses. you can even choose 48 months interest-free financing on the new tempur-choice, with head-to-toe customization. the triple choice sale ends sunday at sleep train. ♪ sleep train ♪ ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ it was just two months ago that democrats in congress and even a few republicans were telling anyone who would listen that they needed to be asked permission before this nation goes to war. >> if the president is planning on launching a concerted

offensive attack that is not constrained by the exigency of the circumstances, he should come to congress first to seek and to receive authorization for the use of military force. >> that was senator ted cruz in june reminding the president that he cannot unilaterally take us into war. he must consult with and get authorization from congress first. last night, the president authorized the use of force in iraq. now that this is no longer a hyperbole, hypothetical policy point, what is congress saying now? does the president have a legal justification for taking military action? more on that, ahead. from 2000 to 2011, on average 17 manufacturers a day shut down in america.

there's no reason we can't manufacture in the united states. here at timbuk2, we make more than 70,000 custom bags a year, right here in san francisco. we knew we needed to grow internationally, we also knew that it was much more complicated to deal with. i can't imagine having executed what we've executed without having citi side by side with us. their global expertise was critical to our international expansion into asia, into europe and into canada. so today, a customer can walk into our store in singapore, will design a custom bag and that customer will have that american made bag within a few days in singapore. citi has helped us expand our manufacturing facility; the company has doubled in size since 2007. if it can be done here in san francisco, it can be done anywhere in america. virtually all your important legal matters

in just minutes. now it's quicker and easier for you to start your business, protect your family, and launch your dreams. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side. scheck it out.? i just saved 15% on car insurance in 15 minutes, so i took a selfie to show everyone how happy i am. really? because esurance saved me money in half that time. can i...? oh you can be in it! no need to photo-bomb me. hashbrown. selfie. yeah... that's not how it works. 15 minutes for a quote isn't how it works anymore. start with a quote from esurance and you could save money on car insurance in half the time. welcome to the modern world. esurance. backed by allstate. click or call.

as early as 2007, presidential candidate and then-junior senator from illinois, barack obama, had already centered his presidential campaign ending the war if iraq. this call for bringing the troops home was what he was running on. the iraq war was what he was running against hoping to set himself apart in the early days of the democratic primary race. that was the summer of 2007. at the end of july that year, candidate obama was asked by the "associated press" about the

limits of his anti-war position. specifically if there were any circumstances that would compel him to leave u.s. forces in iraq, if, for instance, he would keep troops in iraq to prevent a potential genocide. to which he said, no. "if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of u.s. force, then by that argument, you would have 300,000 troops in the congo right now, where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife which we haven't done." he argued the u.s. military can't be used to solve humanitarian problems, even genocide is not something the united states military can necessarily fix. any discussion of genocide and potential u.s. military intervention to prevent genocide, any such discussion involves the very complicated political history. 20 years ago in 1994, when hundreds and thousands of ethnics were being killed in rwanda, the clinton administration, which was resisting military involvement

in the ethnic conflict, did not even want to use the word genocide to describe the devastating atrocities occurring there. even in the face of a growing international chorus calling on the united states to do something in rwanda, reports emerged that the clinton administration had instructed its officials to avoid defining what they were seeing there as a genocide. even when they were pressed. >> we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide has occur. >> how many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide? >> alan, that's not a question i'm in position to answer. >> you have specific guidance, not to use the word genocide in isolation, but to preface it with this word, acts? >> i have guidance to which i try to use as best as i can. i'm not -- i have -- there are formulations that we are using that we are trying to be consistent in our use of. >> that statement department briefing in march of 1994 where a state department spokesperson

tried her best not to call the violence in rwanda a genocide was just one example of what was administration-wide policy. declassified documents backed that up. the state department paper cautions officials to be, quote, careful. genocide finding could commit u.s. government to actually do something. in doing something in rwanda was exactly what president clinton and his team were trying to avoid. the young national security council staffer at the time, susan rice, reportedly argued against using the word genocide for fear it would have negative effects on the upcoming congressional elections. in the end, upwards of 1 million rwandans were killed in a span of a mere 100 days. president clinton now cites his failure to intervene in rwanda as the biggest single regret of his presidency. veterans of that conflict including susan rice have taken their experience to heart. susan rice was quoted saying "i

swore to myself if i ever faced such a crisis again, i'd come down on the side of dramatic action. going down in flames, if that was required." that article, taking a deep assessment of the clinton administration's failure to act in rwanda, was written by a reporter studying the issue of genocide for years and became a staunch supporter of intervention in humanitarian conflicts and that reporter's name was samantha power. now a decade later, samantha power and susan rice as part of president obama's foreign policy team, they would press the president to see the growing conflict in libya as a humanitarian crisis. one that the united states should do something to end. in march of 2011, president obama who as a candidate thad argued against the use of u.s. military in exactly these kinds of situations, in 2011, he authorized military intervention in the civil war in libya. >> the united states and the world faced a choice.

gadhafi declared he would show no mercy to his own people. he compared them to rats. and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. in the past, we had seen him hang civilians. in the streets. and kill over 1,000 people in a single day. now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. we knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, benghazi, a city nearly the size of charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. >> to prevent a massacre. that was the reason the president gave just a few years ago for his decision to authorize air strikes against libyan leader moammar gadhafi. seemingly a turning point for the president's foreign policy.

a president who had been voted into office to end wars but not necessarily one with predictable outcomes. in syria, which many described as a humanitarian crisis tantamount to genocide, in syria the obama administration has avoided defining it as such. recently here on this network, secretary of state john kerry speaking with andrea mitchell, refused to define the conflict in syria as a genocide, partly why what the president said last night was such a big teal. >> when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, i believe the united states of america cannot turn a blind eye. we can act, carefully and responsibly to prevent a potential act of genocide. >> a potential act of genocide. last night the president actually used the word "genocide" to describe what could be unfolding in iraq. something that presidents before him have refused to say.

that is now the justification for action. the reason u.s. military is now engaged in air strikes in iraq. joining us now is michael crowley, chief foreign affairs correspondent for "time" magazine. he wrote an article today titled "how obama evolved on the issue of genocide in iraq." he wrote about it today. it's fascinating to me because we have the quote from obama in 2007 saying about genocide, you can't prevent all of them. clearly there's been an evolution there. >> that's right. there's two points to make. one is on the practical side. you know, i got a lot of feedback on this point. it's fair. the war looks very different now than it did in 2007. so what the president was saying back then was, no, we're not going to leave 100,000-plus ground troops in the country to prevent a genocide, we've got to get out. in this case, we're talking about dropping supplies to these people on the mountaintop or limited air strikes. it's a different scenario. another shift as you put your

finger on, his implication in the first answer, i don't know if it's exactly what he meant, the clear implication, as you say, we can't do it everywhere, so why would we do it there? what we heard from him last night and also heard when he explained why he was in intervening in libya was kind of a twist on that which is to say, we're doing it in this place, in a very targeted, limited way because we're able to, but that doesn't mean i'm obligated to do it in all these other places where there's terrible suffering happening. and right now, of course, the big contrast a lot of people are asking about is syria. and so i think, you know, part of what's implicit in his statement last night is this is doable. there are a lot of reasons why we should do it and we can do it.

but that doesn't mean that it makes sense or it will work in syria. and some people say, well, that's inconsistent, and there's no clear obama doctrine. well, it's a very case-by-case thing. particularly with this president. i think he looks at each case individually. in this case, there was enough weight on the scale for him to act here. >> the word genocide, we went back and looked at the rwanda conflict in 1994 and had the white house basically saying back then, you know, to itself basically saying, don't go out there and use that word. and now you have, as we showed secretary of state john kerry so hesitant to use the word, refusing to use the word in the context of the conflict in syria. is the difference between saying genocide and not saying genocide the difference between we're willing to do something and not willing to do something? literal definition of genocide doesn't matter? >> yeah, i think that there's a kind of emotional resonance to that word. and, therefore, it has a political impact. so once you introduce it into the public debate, the natural question is going to be, if you're calling it genocide, why aren't you doing something about it? obviously you have to do

something about genocide. the clintonites weren't prepared to intervene in rwanda, so they did not want that word out there. actually an interesting twist in this story is then-secretary of state colin powell calling what was happening in darfur, i think in the kind of mid 00s, he actually called it a genocide in congressional testimony and i think was trying to spur more american action in response. you know, so in this case, i think that in iraq, when you're looking at the yezidi and the effort to basically massacre them, it does meet the definition of genocide pretty clearly. the genocide convention of 1948 has four criteria, and i believe it's race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion. and in this case, you have a religious group that is essentially being slowly starved and killed. it's possible when john kerry avoids using the word as it applies to syria, "a", it's administration policy not to get too deeply involved in the syrian civil war which i think they think is just not a place where we can have a practical useful effect. and "b," it's not really a case there where you have one of those four groups that's being sort of systemically wiped out by another one.

you kind of have everyone killing everyone in this horrendous way. it does have sectarian religious component to it. i'm not sure it is what we would typically call genocide. >> you get into there's genocide and atrocity, and delightful debate to be having. michael crowley, chief foreign affairs correspondent for "time." thanks for taking time on friday night. >> my pleasure, steve. thanks. where does congress fit into all this? does congress fit into all this? that's next.

[ blows whistle ] then spend your time chasing your point "b"... ...the war of 1812. [ bell rings ] you get to point "b", and sometimes things change. but your journey is not done. capella university is the most direct path to what's next, because our competency-based curriculum gives you what you need to move forward to your point "c". capella university. start your journey at capella.edu. been all fun and games, here at the harrison household. but one dark, stormy evening...

she needed a good meal and a good family. so we gave her purina cat chow complete. it's great because it has the four cornerstones of nutrition. everything a cat needs for the first step to a healthy, happy life. purina cat chow complete. share your rescue story and join us in building better lives. one rescue at a time. america's latest military intervention in iraq is the biggest story in the country tonight. back with more in a minute.

ah, got it. these wifi hotspots we get with our xfinity internet service are all over the place. hey you can stop looking. i found one. see? what do you think a wifi hotspot smells like? i'm thinking roast beef. want to get lunch? get the fastest wifi hotspots and more coverage on the go than any other provider. xfinity, the future of awesome.

today's military strikes in iraq were obviously authorized by the president of the united states. president obama's renewed force in iraq has precedent, which includes more than squawking from congress. june, when isis began its assault on iraq, the president deployed a limited number of u.s. forces to baghdad to shore up the defense of our diplomatic personnel there. >> we are prepared to send a small number of additional military advisers, up to 300, to assess how to best train, advise and support iraqi security forces going forward. >> the president later increased the number of ground troops to nearly 800. he did it without congressional approval, citing the war powers act by which he's allowed to do 60 days to do what he thinks is

necessary before asking congress for permission. when president obama acted back in june, some members of congress were alarmed. this was iraq. this was the president who came to power in 2008 largely on the strength of his opposition to the iraq war, who campaigned on a promise to end that war. very next day, the republican controlled house passed an amendment written by two democrats. the amendment said the president could not use pentagon funds to escalate the military response in iraq. and last month, the house past a resolution saying the president cannot deploy the u.s. military in a sustained combat role in iraq without specific authorization. so according to the war powers act, the president had 60 days from boots on the ground in iraq before a reckoning with congress. those 60 days are set to expire soon. if you go by the war powers act, there's another 60-day window before congress would be required to approve another action.

or so the white house vaguely suggested today. >> the administration will comply with any reporting requirements in the war powers resolution. sometimes these war power notifications are classified, sometimes they aren't. in this case, if one is necessary, and if our lawyers determine it is necessary, i would anticipate that it's something we would likely be able to release publicly. so stay tuned. >> stay tuned, that was the suggestion to the news media from the white house. and then within the last hour came that official notification from the white house to congress that "u.s. military forces had commenced targeted air strike operations in iraq." what about congress? what is their reaction to how the president of the united states has now decided to engage the military in iraq? members of congress are away from the hill, back if their

home districts for the month. most of the reaction we heard today, even from republicans, has been supportive. but there are voices that are again warning against getting mired in a long campaign. both democratic connecticut senators weighed in with skepticism, saying the president owes the american people a better explanation of military actions. senator chris murphy saying i will oppose any efforts to continue this military campaign. congresswoman colleen hanabusa from hawaii warned today "getting involved in air strikes moves us a step closer to direct involvement in iraq's sectarian civil war, something we must avoid." and the strongest voice of caution today belongs to congresswoman barbara lee, the

only member of congress to vote against military force after me feel. she said while the president has existing authority to protect american diplomatic personnel, i remain concern about u.s. mission creep in iraq and escalation into a larger conflict, which i oppose. there is no military solution in iraq. i will continue to call for the president to seek congressional authorization before any combat operations. for too long, congress has abdicated its constitutional role in matters of war and peace. the president should come to congress for authorization of any further military involvement in iraq. next wednesday will mark 60 days since president obama committed ground forces in baghdad. and 60 days from today puts us in october. today the president authorized air strikes against isis in northern iraq. democrats generally don't want the united states reengaged

militarily in iraq. republicans don't want president obama exerting his executive authority. so will members of either party say something or do something to determine the course of america's latest unilateral show of force? will congress step up and demand a role or will they, not for the first time, make some noise before deferring to the president. watch this. there's only two of us... how much dirt can we manufacture? more than you think. very little. [ doorbell rings ] what's this? what's that? swiffer sweeper. [ lee ] i came in under the assumption that it was clean. i've been living in a fool's paradise!

[ lee ] i came in under the assumption that it was clean. you fifteen percent or more on huh, fiftcar insurance.uld save everybody knows that. well, did you know words really can hurt you? what...? jesse don't go! jesse...no! i'm sorry daisy, but i'm a loner. and a loner gotta be alone. heee yawww! geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. jesse? there was like an i haderuption on my skingles. and burning. i'd lift my arm and the pain back here was excruciating. when i went to the doctor his first question was "did you have chickenpox?"

i thought it was something that, you know, old people got. that's keeping you from the healthcare you deserve.. at humana, we believe the gap will close when healthcare gets simpler. when frustration and paperwork decrease. when grandparents get to live at home instead of in a home. so let's do it. let's simplify healthcare. let's close the gap between people and care.

honey, look i got one to land. uh-huh (announcer) there's good more... honey, look at all these smart rewards points verizon just gave me. ooh, you got a buddy. i'm like a statue. i just signed up and, boom, all these points. ...and there's not-so-good more. you're a big guy... huh. oh no. get the good more with verizon smart rewards and rack up points to use towards the things you really want. now get 50% off all new smartphones. american air strikes against targets in iraq held and operated by the militant group isis was carried out today. at play are the humanitarian concerns for the jazidi people of iraq.

whom isis has targeted for killing and the safety and welfare of the kurdish city of irbil. stay tuned to msnbc this weekend where we'll report all the developments of president obama's military action in iraq. "weekends with alex witt" starts now. back in iraq. american fighter jets with renewed strikes against invading militants there. can the u.s. turn them back, and how did this group get so powerful? near miss. hawaii escapes serious damage from its first hurricane hit in years. but there's another storm sweeping through. the forecast in minutes. >> cause of death. former white house press secretary james brady's death a homicide. we'll tell you why officials came to that conclusion. your credit score. new changes could help you with your finances in the