the right way. protest in peace. not guns. not drugs. not alcohol. not violence. everyone needs to protest in the right way. with peace. no violence. none whatsoever. thank y'all. >> good job. good job. >> cameron sterling gets tonight's last word. chris matthews is up next.

>> it's the crucial factor? >> it is. it is definitely. at the same time, turkey and saudi arabia has sent more troops since that russian intervention started. in spite of that, it was the crucial factor. >> so you owe president putin a lot? >> everyone was beside us, russia, irania, and even the chinese. but each one in its own way. with the political, military, or economical. it's not one factor. you cannot only talk about the fire power or the human

resources. it's multi facet issue, all those countries supported syria, beside all the other countries who supported to a lesser degree. >> has president putin demanded anything of you? what's the deal? >> when you want to intervene, he didn't ask for anything. >> nothing? >> for simple reason, first of all, politics built on values. that's very important. the second thing is common interest with us, because they are fighting the same terrorist that they could fight in russia. we are fighting the terrorist that could be fighting in europe, in the united states, anywhere else in the world. but the difference between president putin and the other western, he could see that clearly while the others couldn't see that. that's why his intervention is based on values and on the same time, based on the interest of the russian people. >> do you speak much to him? >> when there's something to speak about, of course we speak.

>> how often this year have you spoken with him? >> i didn't count, but many times. >> how would you describe your relationship with him? >> very frank, very honest, mutual respect. >> but he has demanded nothing of you, is that the case? >> nothing at all. >> because the suspicion is that russia may be working in concert with the united states and secretary of state kerry is meeting vladimir putin thursday in moscow. the suspicion is that they are coming to some sort of deal that might be bad news for you. >> regarding the first part, if you wanted to ask me for something, he would ask me to fight the terrorists, because this is where his interest as president, and a country, i mean russia, lies. second, regarding that allegation from time to time that russia and they discuss something about the syrian issue, it's the impression they are deciding what's going to

happen in syria. many times, russia has said clearly that the syrian issue is for the syrian people. and yesterday, minister lavrov said that clearly, we cannot sit with the americans to define what syria wants to do. this is syrian issue. only the syrian people can define the future of their country. the role of russia to offer the international atmosphere to protect the syrian from intervention, the russians are honest, the american didn't in that regard. but this is not to take the difference about what we have to do as syrians. >> so just to be clear, neither vladimir putin or foreign minister lavrov has ever talked to you about a day when you would leave power? >> never come up. only the syrian people define who is going to be the president, when to come and when to go.

they never said a single word regarding this. >> and you're not worried about secretary kerry meeting with putin and coming to an understanding in which you may have to leave power? >> no. for one reason, the russian politics is not based on making deals. it's based on values. that's why you don't see any achievement between them and the american. because different principles. they make politics based on making deals, regardless of the values, which is not the case for the russians. >> but it's not just russia that's bombing your enemies, it's the united states. do you welcome american air strikes against isis? >> no, because it's not legal. first of all, it's not legal. >> it's not legal for russia to do it, is it? >> no. they are invited legally and formally by the syrian government. it's the right of any country to invite any other country to help with any issue. so they are legal in syria.

the americans are not. since the russian intervention, the terrorism has been, let's say, regressing. while before that, the american illegal intervention, isis was expanding, the terrorism was expanding and taking over new areas in syria. they're not serious. so i cannot say i welcome the unseriousness and to be in syria illegally. >> thousands of missions, hundreds of air strikes, the united states is not being serious in syria? >> the question is not how many strikes. what the achievement, that the question. the reality is telling. the reality is telling that since the beginning of the american air strikes, the terrorism has been expanding and prevailing. not vice versa. it's only shrinked when the russians intervened. so this is reality. you have to -- we have to talk about facts. it's not only about the pro forma action that they've been

taking. >> so american air strikes are ineffective and counterproductive? >> yes, it is counterproductive somehow when the terrorism is -- yes, it is counterproductive, that's correct. >> whose fault is it? the military, or is it president obama not being, let's say, ruthless enough? >> no. first of all, it's not about being ruthless. it's about being genuine. it's about intentions. it's about being serious. it's about having the will. the united states doesn't have the will to defeat the terrorists. it has the will to control them and to use them as a card like they did in afghanistan. that will reflected on the military aspect of the issue. if you want to compare, more than 120 or 30 russians air strike in few areas in syria. compared to 10 or 12 american air strikes. in syria, it means nothing.

but that military, ineffectiveness is a reflection of the political will. >> there was a political will, as you put it, to remove you from power. that was the will of washington. that seems to have changed. have you any idea why the united states has changed its mind, apparently about your future? >> no, because the problem of the american official, they say something and they mask their intentions. they go in different way. they say something, they say the opposite. they something, they do something different. so you cannot tell what their real intentions. what i'm sure about, they don't have good intentions toward syria. maybe they are making tactics, maneuvers, but they haven't changed their intention, as i believe.

>> president obama wanted you out. he's leaving office soon. and you're staying. did you win?

>> no, it's not between me and him. it's between me and whoever wants to invade this country, mainly the terrorists. this is where we can win as syrians, if we can get rid of the terrorists, restore stability to syria, this is where we win. otherwise, we cannot talk about winning. that's true, they did not succeed, but if they don't succeed in their plans, it doesn't mean we win the war. we have to be realistic about using the terms in that regard. >> but one of the president's key aims, which was to remove you from power has cleared failed. do you believe it's failed? >> yes, it is failed, but it sdnts mean i win. because to him, the war is to remove me. for me, not the same. for me, it's to restore syria. it's two different wars. i'm not fighting my war. i'm not fighting the war to stay as president. for me, i don't care about what

the other presidents want. if i care about what the syrians want. if they want me to stay, i'm going to stay. if they want me to leave, i'm going to leave. so it's a completely different thing. >> do you feel the united states has fundamentally misunderstood your war with isis, with what you might call a common enemy? >> again, it's not common enemy. we are genuine fighting and al-nusra and every affiliated to al qaeda organization within syria. they are the same -- all of them are terrorists. they want to talk not about the terrorist groups, we wanted to defeat those terrorists, while the united states wanted to manage those groups in order to topple the government in syria. so you cannot talk about common interests, unless they really want to fight those terrorists, and they didn't do that. like in 2006, they didn't fight to defeat them. >> but america is very genuine about fighting isis. isis is a threat to the american homeland, how can you say america's not serious? >> because isis has been set up

in iraq in 2006, while the united states was in iraq. not syria was in iraq. so it was growing under the supervision of the american authority in iraq, and they didn't do anything to fight isis at that time. it's been expanding under the supervision of the american airplane and they could have seen the isis using the oil field and exporting oil to turkey. they didn't try to attack any convoy of isis. how could they really be against isis? cannot see. how the russians have seen it from the first day and start attacking. the russian intervention unmasked the american intentions regarding isis and the other terrorist groups of course. >> three years ago, president obama made a threat against you, he drew a red line and then withdrew from that and did not attack you. what do you feel about that?

is that the sign of a weak president? >> that part, the united states has been promoting for four years now only good president is ruthless or who should go to war. this is the definition. otherwise, it's going to be a weak president. which is not true. actually, for the american administration, since the second world war, they have share in the violent conflicts in every part of this world. and as the time goes by, those administration are becoming more and more pyro maniac. the difference now is only about me. not about the goal. one of them sent his own troops. like bush. the other one is using surrogate mercenaries, the third one, using proxy and so on. but the quality is the same. nothing has changed. >> to go back to that moment three years ago, was that the sign of a weak united states and a weak president? >> if you want to talk about the

war, attacking syria, they've been attacking syria through proxy. they didn't take any pressure on saudi arabia in order to tell them, stop sending money and personnel and logistic support to that terrorist. they could have done so. they didn't. so actually, they are waging war, but in a different way. they didn't attack with me, but they send mercenaries. that's what i mean. >> did it surprise you that they didn't attack? >> no, no. it wasn't a surprise. but i think what they are doing now had the same effect. so between mercenaries and between missiles, this one could be more effective for them. so, no, i couldn't say that i was surprised. >> you're a leader. by drawing a red line and not following through, has that damaged america's credibility, not just in the middle east, but in the world? >> it hasn't ever existed for

us. at least in the early '70s, to be frank with you. since we restore our relationship with the united states in 1974. we never saw any administration with real credibility. with any issue, they never had it. so i cannot say that it harmed. many of their lies, they don't believe them. not because of what you mentioned, because of their politics in general, their mainstream politics are at an all-time low. that's how we see it. >> an all time low in terms of its credibility in the world? >> the politics in general, not regarding syria, yeah. >> do you welcome the end of president obama's term of office? >> it means nothing for us. because if you change administration, but you don't change politics, it means nothing. it's politics. in syria, we never bet on any president coming or any president going. we never get, because what they say in their campaign is different from they practice

after they became elected. >> you've talked about presidents being the same, never changed their policy, but there will be a new president in the united states next year. do you hope for a new relationship? do you believe anying like that is possible? >> yeah, of course we hope always. we hope next president would be much wiser than previous one, less pyro maniac, as i said, less militaristic, adventurist president, that's what we hope. but we never saw. and the difference is very marginal, so we keep hoping, but we don't bet on that hope.

>> so there will be a new president. there are two main choices. one of them is donald trump. what do you know of mr. trump? >> nothing. just what i heard in the media. that what i say, we don't have to waste our time hearing what they say during their campaign, they're going to change after they become elected. and this is where you have to start evaluating the president, after the campaign, not during the campaign. >> and what are you hearing in the media about mr. trump. >> the conflict between the american. we don't pay much attention to it. even this race between the

different, let's say, nominees, is changing the campaign. so what you hear today is not relevant tomorrow. so we cannot base our politics on day-to-day politics. >> but you're following this election? >> not really. not really. because as i said, you don't follow anything that you cannot consider as connected to the reality. it's only connected to the reality when they are in office. so far, it's only rhetoric. we don't have to waste our time with rhetoric. >> simply rhetoric, talking about mr. trump, anything mr. trump says, you wouldn't necessarily believe that would be the policy of a president trump? >> i'm not talking about trump or anyone. i'm talking in general. it's not about the names. it's the principle for every president -- american president in every campaign. >> he's made very few comments about syria or the middle east, but he's described you as a bad guy. does that worry you? >> that's his opinion.

no, it's personal opinion. he doesn't have to see me as a good guy. the question for me, do the syrians see me as a good guy? not american president, i don't care about it. it's not part of my political -- >> one of the things he's said is that he would be much tougher on isis. you would welcome that, wouldn't you? because you just said president obama isn't serious. >> you don't have to be tougher. this word doesn't have any meaning in reality, in real life. you have to fight isis in different ways. isis not only fighters, you have to attack them with the strongest bomb on the side. it's not like this. the issue of terrorism is very complicated. it's related to the ideology. how can you be tough against the ideology of isis? that's question. how can you tough regarding their economy, how they offer money and donations? how can you deal with that? >> i think mr. trump is talking

about military toughness. he wants to -- >> it's not enough. you have to be smart. it's not enough to be tough. first of all, you have to have the will, you have to be genuine, then you have to be smart, and then you can be tough. being tough and military active, this is important, but it's the last option when you fulfill the first criteria. >> from what you know of mr. trump, is he smart enough? >> i don't know him. when i sit with him face to face, i can judge him. but i only look at the person on the tv. on the tv, you can manipulate everything. you can make, how to say, you can rehearse, you can prepare yourself. >> do you like what you see on tv of mr. trump? >> i don't follow the election. we don't bet on it, we don't follow it. >> he seems to respect president putin, does that give you hope that maybe he's a man you can do business with? >> if he's genuine.

if he every person on earth, whether they agree or not, they should respect him, respect his values, respect the interest of his own people, and he's honest and genuine. so how can you respect someone with those descriptions? if he's genuine, i think he's correct, that's what i can say. >> mr. trump has also made comments about muslims. and not allowing muslims into the united states. did that anger you, upset you? >> yeah, especially in syria. it's a country made of many, many religions and sects and ethnicities. we think this diversity is richness, not the opposite. it's the way the government and the way the influential forces in society that made it a problem or a conflict. if you can have all those people living in one society, with real

integration, with harmony, this is richness. this is for the interest of any society, including the united states. >> so mr. trump should not have made those comments about muslims? >> anyone shouldn't make any sdrim native rhetoric in any country. i don't believe in this kind of rhetoric, of course.

>> here's what's happening. donald trump says he will announce his vice presidential pick on friday at 11:00 a.m. eastern in manhattan. he made the details public wednesday night on twitter. thousands of mourners gathered to remember three of the five police officers killed last week in dallas. funerals for two other officers will be held later this week. and authorities say the suspect who fatally shot two bailiffs at a courthouse on monday faced a life in prison term for kidnap and rape. now it's back to our program. >> mr. trump has no experience in foreign policy. does that worry you? >> who had this experience

before? obama? or george bush? or clinton before? none of them had any experience. this is the problem with the united states. you have to look for a statesman who has real experience in politics for years. not because to have position in congress for few years or minister of foreign affairs, for example. that doesn't mean you have the experience. the experience in states could be much, much stronger. so we don't think that most of the presidents of the united states were well versed in politics. >> so a man with no experience in foreign policy, in the white house, is not necessarily dangerous, in your view? >> if anyone who doesn't have experience in any position, a white house or in the presidential palace in syria, or another country, of course it's dangerous for the country generally. of course the united states as a great power, it could have more impact on the rest of the world, but it's not only about the

experience. when you have institutions, they can help. it's about intention. is it going to be with good experience, but with militaristic intentions, and so on. so you have to talk about many factors. it's not enough to talk only about experience. >> someone with more experience in affairs is hillary clinton. she's known to you, in one sense. what would the consequences be if hillary clinton wins the election? >> again, the same. depends on her politics. what politics is she going to adopt? is she going to prove that she's tough and take the united states to another war? or to make escalations? this is going to be bad for everyone, including the united states. if it's going to go in another direction, that would be good. but again, i will focus more about the intentions, before talking about the experience. the experience is very important, but the intention is the most crucial thing for any president. so, can you ask the question,

can they tell genuinely, the american people and the rest of the world, what their real intentions about their politics? are they going to make escalation, are we going to see more enitant around the world? >> one difference between them clearly is mrs. clinton is determined still to get rid of you. that's her stated position. mr. trump says, he's focusing on isis, leave you alone. i'll ask you the question. does hillary clinton represent more of a threat to you than donald trump? >> no. because in the beginning of this as well, the same motto i must go, many times from nearly every western official, whether leader or any level. we never cared about it. we never. so you cannot talk about this is a threat. this interfering in our internal issues. we're not going to respond to. as long as i have the support of the syrian people, i don't care

about whoever talk, including the president of the united states himself. anyone. it's the same for us. that's why i say clinton and trump and what obama say, for me, nothing. we don't put it on the mailing. we don't waste our times with those recordings, or even demands. >> but if hillary clinton as president establishes a no-fly zone, over your territory, over northern syria, for example, that makes a huge difference. >> of course. this is where we can talk about it. that's why i said, the policy is the crucial thing for us. when they started supporting the terrorists with such projects or plan or step, this is where you can have more chaos in the world. that's another question. do the united states have interest in having more chaos around the world? or the united states have more interest in having stability around the world? that's another question. of course of the united states can create chaos. they've been creating chaos for the last 50, 60 years around the

world. it's not something new. are they going to make it worse, more prevailing? it's not about me. it's not about the president. it's about the whole situation in the world, because you cannot separate the situation in syria from the situation from the middle east. when the world is not stable, the world cannot be stable. >> let me probe you about how much you might want a relationship with the united states. isis is headquartered in your country, in raqqah. if you knew that isis was about to attack the united states, would you warn america? >> in principle, yes. because they may attack syria. and i cannot blame the innocents in the united states for the bad intentions of their official. this is not correct. as i said many times, i don't consider the united states enemy because they don't occupy my land. but at the same time, this is not realistic, because there's

no relation between us and the united states. this kind of information or cooperation needs security cooperation based on political cooperation. we have neither. so you cannot have it anyway. >> i've spoken to your foreign minister many times and he's described to me the danger of isis exploding not just across syria, but across the middle east, and that has clearly happened. >> yeah. >> as isis is drink back or broken, is there a danger that their fighters scatter? is there a danger that as you defeat isis, the united states becomes more vulnerable to terrorism? >> no. if we defeat isis, we are helping the rest of the world. because those terrorists coming from more than a hundred countries around the world. including the western countries. if they are defeated, they go back with more experience and

more extremism and they're going to attack in those countries. so if we defeat them here, we are helping every other country, including the united states. >> but isis fighters may leave raqqah, and as we've seen with terrorist attacks in europe, they come to france, they come to belgium, they could come to the united states as well and attack. that is a real risk, isn't it? >> that's what i'm talking about. i said, if we defeat terrorism, they cannot go back, we are helping them. if they leave, if they escape, if we keep having this terrorism, this is where you can start exporting those terrorists to -- as what happened in france recently. so what you said is correct. that's what i mean. if we defeat them here and they cannot go back, this is where we help. if they go back, they will be a danger to the rest of the world.

>> like any war, there are two sides. your forces have been accused of doing terrible things. i've been here many times and i've seen some of the terrible things as a result of your forces air strikes, bombardments and so on. do you believe one day, you will face an international court? >> first of all, you have to do your job as president. when you are attacked by terrorists, i mean, as country, you have to defend your country. and that's my job, according to the constitution. so i'm doing my job, and i'm going to keep doing it, no matter what i'm going to face. let's be clear about this. defending the country cannot be balanced with the personal future of president is going to face criminal court or anything like that, or to face this. doesn't matter. if you don't want to face all the things, leave that position and give it to someone else. >> but the reason people are

saying you should face a war crimes tribunal is that you are clearly using any means whatsoever. i mean, i know you don't agree that there's such a thing as a barrel bomb. >> yes. >> never mind the metal, the charge is that you are using indiscriminate force, indiscriminate weapons, in civilian areas. that's true, isn't it? >> first of all, those people, do they have any criteria that what they mean you should use with the terrorists. they don't have. so this is irrelevant. it has no meaning from legal point of view and from realistic point of view. second, if you talk about indiscriminate, no army would use indiscriminate in a situation where there is nearly intermingle -- or between the two sides -- >> with respect, mr. president, i've seen a bomb thrown from a helicopter. that was indiscriminate. >> yeah, yeah. let's say technically, that's not the issue, whether to throw

it from helicopter or aircraft. that's not the issue. the more important thing, if you want to talk about besides, like the united states using the drones and the highest precision missiles in afghanistan. how many terrorists they have killed so far? they've killed many, many civilians and innocents. >> even if that's true, that doesn't make anything that you do right. >> no, no, no. i mean, first of all, the kind of argument it's not related to high precision or less precision. there's no such criteria. this is only part of the media campaign recently. >> with respect, it's not just a media campaign. the united nations has you well know has spoken about this. human rights groups have spoke know about this. not just indiscriminate use of weapons against civilians, but the u.n. spoke about the problems in aleppo, in daria,

which is very close to here, of the use of starvation as a weapon of war. >> yes. >> sieges. that's going on right now close to us. >> we're going to talk about this issue. now, regarding the armament is what's been banned by international law. it's our right to use any of it to defeat the terrorists. >> and you know there's a charge you have used chemical weapons, which you deny. >> we didn't. no one has offered any evidence of this. >> there's plenty of evidence, but you reject them. >> there's no evidence. >> graphic, scientific, eyewitness. >> you have allegation from the international organization of chemical weapons. they came to syria and they

didn't have any evidence. they collected everything, samples and everything to offer evidence. they couldn't. there's no evidence. so we didn't use it. and there's no logic in using it. >> let's talk about the methods your forces are using close to here, which is cutting off an area and besieging it, and there are thousands of civilians, very close to here, who are starving. >> yeah. >> do you recognize that? >> let's presume you are saying -- what you're saying is correct. let's presume that. now you're talking about inside, or besieged by the army for years now, not for month. for years. they don't have food and every basic because the government doesn't allow them, but at the same time, they've been fighting if are two years and shelling us with mortars and killing civilians from their area. it means, according to this narrative, that we are allowing them to have armaments, but we don't allow them to have foot. that's not realistic.

>> that's what the u.n. said. in mediya it's only managed to get four aid convoys in in all these years. >> how do we prevent them from having food, but we allow them having armaments to kill us? this is contradiction. second, the proof that this is not correct, that you have every video about the conveys coming from the united nations to reach those area, otherwise how could they survive for years, if they are under besiege? it's been years. they've been talking about the same narrative repeating, reiterated for years now, but people are still alive. how could they live without food? qo :é @d888888@888jj

as you know, targeting civilians in a war is a war crime. and just recently, the family of maria colvin, an american journalist, has launched a suit

in the united states, charging you and your government with deliberately targeting and killing her. you know maria colvin. >> yeah yeah. >> she was a friend of mine. did your forces target marie colvin and her colleagues with an intention to kill her? >> no. unfortunately the army forces didn't know that she existed. it's a war and she came illegally to syria, she worked with the terrorists and because she came illegally, she's being responsible of everything that befall on her. this is first. second -- >> she's responsible for her own death. >> she came illegally to syria. we can be responsible for everyone in our country when they come legally. she came illegally. and she went with the terrorists. we didn't know anything about

it. >> that doesn't complain why missiles hit the home she was in. >> nobody knows which home or which missile, or where it came from. no one has any evidence. this is just allegation. it's a conflict area, it's war. you know about crossfire. when you're caught in crossfire somewhere, you cannot tell who killed who. so these are allegations. second, we had hundreds of journalists came to syria legally and illegally, and they covered for the terrorists, be not for the government. and we didn't kill them. so why to single out this person, in order to kill them? there's no logic. this is second. third, tens of journalists working for the government and supported by the government has been killed. did we kill them? we didn't. so this is war. have you heard about good war?

i don't think anyone has. it's a war. you always have innocent people being killed and no one can tell how. >> the impression you give is of a man who bears no responsibility for the terrible things that are done in his name, to the syrian people. you have an air of oh, well, it really doesn't matter. >> you only bear responsibility of the decisions that you take. you don't bear responsibility of the decisions that you didn't take. >> some of the decisions you've taken have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. >> like? like? >> attacking certain areas, launching campaigns, air strikes, release of certain weapons. >> the only decisions we've taken, to defend our country against the terrorists ask, that's correct decision. the second one is to make dialogue with everyone. we make dialogue with everyone, including some terrorist groups who wanted to give up their armaments and we made it.

we're very flexible. we don't make any decision to attack areas where there aren't terrorists, or where terrorists don't shell. >> do you ever see photographs, pictures, videos, of children, for example, in rebel-held areas? and if you have seen those photographs, what do you feel? sorrow, regret? >> how can you tell that the children are from that area? >> an answer like that, reinforces people's views that you don't care for the people on the other side that your forces kill. >> that question could be answer, if you answer that question. how can you blame bush for the one million iraqi dead for the war in iraq in 2003? >> i'm talking about president bush. i'm here to ask you -- >> it's the principle. the same principle.

he attack sovereign country, while i defend my country. if you want to use one standard, it's one thing. if you want to do double standard, that's another thing. >> you're still not giving me the impression that actually you care very not. >> well i talk to american audience. so there must be analogy between the two things. it's about the logic that you use to explain something. it's not only about my answer. he attack sovereign country while we are defending our country. he killed iraqi people on their land. we are defending mainly against terrorists who are coming from different places in that world. so this is our right. what you talk about, the clean war, where there's no casualty, no civilian, no innocent people to be killed, that doesn't exist. no one could make it. no war in the world. >> is this how you've explained the war, for example, to your children at the breakfast table? i'm sure -- >> of course, i talk about reality, about the fact. to talk about the children being killed, the children of where?

how? they are talking about propaganda and about media campaign and about sometimes fake pictures on the internet. we cannot talk but about the facts. we have to talk about the facts. i cannot talk about allegations. >> have you ever cried about what's happened to ssyria? >> crying doesn't mean you are a good man. it doesn't mean you have a lot of passion. it's about the passion that's within your heart. it's not about your eyes, it's not about the tears. this is first. second, as a president, it's about what you are going to do. not about how you're going to feel. how are you going to protect the syrians? when you have incident, bad incident, and you have it every day, do you keep crying every day? or do you keep working? my question is, how can i help? whenever i have bad event or incident, i ask myself, how can i protect the other syrians who are having the same problem? >> what are you going to do next? are you just going to go on and

on and on? you and your father have been in power for 46 years. is that right? >> no, it's not right. because he's a president, i'm another president. so it's not right at all. he was elected by the syrian people. i was elected after he died. he didn't put me in any position. so you cannot connect. i'm president, and he's president. i've been in power for 16 years, not for 45 years. >> you've been in power for 16 years. my question is, are you going to go on and on and on? >> in my position, you have to ask the syrian people. if they don't want me, i have to leave right away. today. if they want me, i have to stay. if i want to stay, again their will, i cannot produce, i cannot succeed. and i don't think i have the intention not to succeed. >> how do you think history will remember you? >> how i hope history will remember me. i cannot foretell. i'm not fortune teller.

i hope that the history would see me as the man who protected his country from the terrorism and from the intervention and saved its sovereignty and the integrity of its land. >> because you know what the first draft of history is saying, that you're a brutal dictator, a man with more blood on your hands than even on your father? >> no, again, the example, do you have the doctor who cut the hand of the patient to save the gangrene, to save the body. so when you defeat the terrorists, you're not ruthless. that's how you look at yourself. and that's how the people want to look at you. >> that's how you see yourself, as a patriot? >> i cannot be objective about looking at myself. the most important thing, how the syrians look at me. that the real and objective opinion, not my opinion. i cannot be objective about myself. >> mr. president, thank you very much for answering nbc's

questions and for taking time to talk to me, thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> president assad, a man not just defiant, but seeming confident, sure of victory, sure of his position. happy with russia, unhappy with president obama. but this war is far from over. just miles from here, people are still dying. syria's agony is still unrelenting. i'm bill neely from damascus. goodbye.