this sunday, that syrian chemical attack prompts outrage around the world and a uls military response. >> tonight i ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in syria from where the chemical attack was launched. >> this morning we have the story covered from all of the angles. u.s. ambassador nikki hailey. >> the united states took a very measured step last night and we're prepared to do more. >> senator lindsey graham. >> it was a wonderful signal to

send that needs to be followed up. >> senator tim kaine. >> and senator bernie sanders that thinks it could lead to another middle east quagmire. if steve bannon leaves, does the agenda leave with him. we have helene cooper joining us today. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." the longest running show in television history celebrating it's 70th year. this is "meet the press." good sunday morning. this breaking news there was e

tacks on two egyptian christian churches this morning. it killed two dozen people and wounded scores of others. hours later a suicide bomber killed 11 people in front of a church of alexandria. isis as claimed responsibility for both of those attacks. president trump became the 7th consecutive president to attack. it involved 60 cruise missiles to an air base. they say it was a appropriate response for a chemical attack.

it scrambled political allian s alliances. it drew criticism from some of his strongest supporters and has raised all sorts of questions. was this mission accomplished or mission creep? what is the message the u.s. is sending to the world? and can mr. trump sell this to his nationalist base that was deeply skeeptical about taking any action. this is not cut and dry. ultimately the question is was this an impulsive move by a president moved by human suffering. >> no child of god should ever suffer such horror. >> it is a startling reversal by a president who spent his campaign saying that the u.s. should stay out of war.

>> now hillary wants to start a shooting war with a nuclear arms ru -- armed russia. >> he has supporters confused and angry. some blame steve bannon who days before the syrian attack was booted. >> rubio's happy, hillary's happy -- >> the syrian president's brutality is nothing new. in 2013, eight days after a chemical attack that killed 1400 civilians, trump tweeted what will we get for bombing syria besides more debt and a bobble long-term conflict. obama needs congressional

approval. now with the power of the presidency, he seems to have abandoned that point of view, at least for now. what is his ultimate goal. >> we're prepared to do more but we hope that will not be necessary. >> just last week, the secretary of state backed away from the policy of regime change in syria. >> i thi the stnk the status an longer term status of president assad will be decided by the syrian people. >> with the acts that he has taken, it seems there is no role for him to governor the syrian people. >> russians on the ground were given notice the missiles were coming. flights from the base have resumed, and secretary tillerson's trip to moscow is still on. most of washington's foreign policy establishment is applauding the strikes. >> the strikes were important. i think they were a signal that is as important as the damage that was dope. >> while a coalition of liberals

and conservatives skeptical of interventi intervention. >> it is fair to say that no one has been more forceful of the response than nikki hailey. i asked if the trump administration believes they achieved what they needed to or if more needs to be done. >> this is a very complicated situation. we know there is no easy solution, but our focus is to make sure that we're strengthening the es ceacease f. we want to push towards a political solution. at the end of the day, than is

what is needed to make sure a political solution comes together and we hope they will continue the talks in geneva and we will continue to see progress. >> a big part of that solution would include the russians. they don't accept the conclusion that united states and others did that this was the assad regime. do you plan to present the information publicly? where will it be presented? >> the interesting thing is when this chemical weapons murder happened to so many people, russia's reaction was not "oh how horrible" or "how could they do this to innocent children." their initial reaction was assad didn't do it, the syrian government didn't do it. why were they that defensive that quick. the idea of the casualties came

after. want first party for them was covering for assad. what we know is that the syrian regime had done this again as they had so many times before. we had evidence they had done it. it's classified, so i'm not the one that would release the information, but it was enough that the president knew. >> but there are no plans to present it. if it is important to isolate russia, to publicly show how wrong they are about this? >> i don't doubt that information won't come out. i think you're also seeing the investigations of russia now. that comes out when they can declassify it. i expect the proper directors will come out with that information. right now all we needed to know in that room is "is it true, did it happen, what's the evidence, and go with that." we watched the president in what i believe was his finest hour since he has taken office.

he was thoughtful about it. he talked about risk, what general mattis and the military did was a rock star performance because they were so focused on ma making sure there was limited civilian casualties. where they used the planes to carry the chemical weapons, and that they were making sure the united states doesn't allow the use of chemical weapons ever. >> if assad continues and he is brutal but using conventional weapons to be brutal do we sit on the sidelines? >> we'll keep all of our thoughts and plans close to the chest. he will not be releasing any information. in no way do we look at peace happening in that area with iranian influence, and no way do we see peace in that rare with

ru -- area with russia covering for assad, or with assad as the head of the government. we have to make sure that we're trusting the process. >> what about the fact that we're not allowing syrian refugees unless under the most extreme circumstances into the country right now? >> i watched this administration focus so much on the safety of united states citizens. as a mom and wife, i'm very grateful for that. what this president has done is said prove to me you're vetting them properly, and if you are, we will resume where we are. you to prove to me they're being vetted in a way that we're not putting american citizens at risk. there was countries we knew were problems that we could not vet, and that's key. if you can't vet, you don't know who you're letting in, you don't

know if there are bad intentions there, and the president is being very cautious with that. making sure it is people -- safety first. i think the focus we need have is how do we goat a safe syria. how do we make sure those that fled the area go home and get back there. the president will not sacrifice the safety of american citizens. >> who should bare the sacrifice? the syrians, women and children in familiar were trying to flee and get gassed by assad, who should take that burden if the united states is not helping out. >> the united states took that fwhurd week, they fought for syria and told assad no more. >> what is now the priority in syria, assad's removal or defeating isis. before the emphasis was

defeating isis. >> we can have multiple priorities. we think is also the influence that is causing so many more problems in the area, and then we have to make sure we see a leader that will protect his people, and clearly assad is not that person. that was of course nick kki hailey. my next guest has been a frequent republican critic of president trump on many issues. senator lindsey graham. i want to get to that last question i asked ambassador hailey. does it change america's position of prioritizing -- what to prioritize in syria? isis over assad. secretary tillerson and ambassador hailey say it is

still isis. >> accelerate the demise of isil. they're great threat to the homeland and assad as not. but i have never been more encouraged by the trump administration than i have today. ambassador hailey said you will never end the war with assad in power. so you need more american kro s troops. 4,000 to 6,000. destroying isil. you need a safe haven quickly so people can regroup in syria. then you train the opposition to go after assad. and you tell the russians if you continue to bomb the people we train, we'll shoot you down. >> do you think president trump is ready to take that advice? you're calling for troops to be sent in. are you going to introduce a

resolution in congress to give him that authority. >> he already has that authority. you have good people on this program but i differ in this regard, i think he has authorization to use force. assad signed the chemical weapons treaty ban. there is an agreement with him not to use chemical weapons. war criminals don't police each other very well. the putin regime is a bunch of war criminals. these are all limitations on using force, not authorizations for use of force. >> so you think that syria, a sovereign country not mentioned at all in the current organizatio authorization, that you can send troops in without congress grangran granting the president more authority there.

>> we already have troops on the ground nobody is saying cut off funding. if you don't like those 1000 american troops out there then cut off funding. i like troops there to help destroy isil. we will accelerate the demise of isil. i want to train opposition forces because she ahe is a pro iron. we are on sound legal footing here, but our strategy is not yet developed. what comes next, i'm glad that trump did this. she no longer obama in the eyes of our enmys, but he needs to do more to close the deal. >> there is not a difference, if you're a mother and your baby is

dead, there is treaty that is what the chemical weapons treaty is all about. i will say this if you kill babies with conventional bombs it is still a moral outrage. this is what trump is saying, he is saying fu, and it is a serious mistake. if you don't worry about what trump might do on any given day you have issues. >> we had a few peopling watching and it raised some eyebrow eyebrows. i have to ask about the change of heart saying the strike on syria is the single best proof that trump has no overriding commitment to any side logical position. if he can abandon his position

on this because of horrific pictures on tv, what is safe? >> refere >> obama said he has to go in in name only. this president is setting a strategy to get rid of assad. to the american people, the war never ends with assad. he is a recruiting gold mine. he will not be accepted by the region or his people, i'm glad the president did this. >> you want him to punish russia more for his support of assad. what is something concrete you think he can do in the next couple months to punish. >> say that russia aided and abetted assad in using chemical weapons. the russians soldiers were on sight, they intentionally left

the chemical weapons in their hands, so i would go after them through sanctions for interfering in our election and for aiding and abetting the use of chemical weapons. >> senator, thank you for coming on and sharing your viewing even if they were not necessarily pg rated this morning. >>

so you're having a party? how nice.

i'll be right there. and the butchery begins. what am i gonna wear? this party is super fancy. let's go. i'm ready. are you my uber? [ horn honks ] hold on. don't wait for watchathon week to return. [ doorbell rings ] who's that? show me netflix. sign up for netflix on x1 today and keep watching all year long. welcome back, the missile strike has scrambled some alliances. he supports the syria operation but with complications. let me start, why do you support

this action. i know you have legal questions about it, but why do you support this action? >> chuck, as you know i'm a strong supporter that the u.s. should take action to protect humanitarian causes like the ban on chemical weapons. so i voted for a limited strike to do exactly the same thing. a limited strike for that purpose, for the humanitarian purpose is something that i would likely support if there was a plan. but where a -- i differ, you're not supposed to start war without a plan that is brought to you by congress. that makes us different from any nation in the world. the drafters of the constitution said you have to put a check against an executive gone wild. they have not presented a plan to congress and asked for

approval. that's what they have to do. >> senator in this case it is very limited, and number two there was american interests on the ground, very close to chemical weapons. if you're saying this aex was illegal, then you must be thinking that the libya action was illegal -- >> chuck, i was a senate candidate in 2011 when president obama joined military action against libya. humanitarian purposes. i agreed with the republicans in the house that rebuked president obama and said he exceeded his authority because the u.s. was not under eminent threat. that is the only situation they can use article two power. you heard lindsey graham just say that was not the case.

we had a briefing on friday and they presented us with no plan. we don't know if it is limited or if there is more. when we asked about the legal authorization, they said they were not prepared to discussion that but they will in the coming days. we don't want a president, any president, to just be able to start a war or launch missiles when they want. there has to be congressional approval. >> you heard senator graham outline what he would like to see, what actions are taken going forward. and i said do you need congressional authorization for that and he says no. if an authorization is on the floor of the senate, sending in a limited number of troops to push the momentum back, would you support something like that? >> you know, we agree these atrocities are horrible, but

sheer where we're different. he said the trump administration is aiming for regime change. if assad is doing things wrong, violating international treaties with an authorization we can try to deter him for doing it, prosecute him for war crimes, but i don't think we should say we're going to try to change your leader. i don't think it should be official u.s. policy. >> do you think he will go under any circumstance that is not militar military? >> i agree i don't think there is a political solution, but what we should know us with on is humanitarian relief. in 2014, the security council said we should be delivering

aide to syrians, and if we had fewer would have left the country. >> all right, senate or tim kai, turning to another view on this, joining me now is bernie sanders who has a dimmer review on the strike, welcome back, sir. >> good to be with you. >> explain why you were against the strike. >> first thought, let's all recognize that in a world of disgusting dictators, bashir al assad is at the top. he has allowed people in his country to be killed and millions to be displaced. our goal long term is to work with countries around the world.

getting rid of this guy and finally bringing peace and stability to this country that is so decimated. i do not believe the president simply has the authority to laun launch missiles. i think he has to come to congress and explain what his long-term goals are. perhaps the most important vote i have ever cast in my life was against the war in iraq. when we get sucked in, we don't know the unintended consequences. it's easier to get into into a war than get out as we have learned. >> is there a point where humanitarian cause trump that's? you know, where you see the gassing of people? is there a point where america's moral authority is being challenged and you have to send

a military message because no one else is going to do that and nothing else will deter assad? >> what we are seeing in syria is the desintagration. gassing people in your country is disgusting beyond all words. what is the rational solution? is putting 30 missiles into syria going to solve that problem? at the end of the day in my view we have to learn about what the war, the failure of our efforts in iraq and afghanistan, not defeat them, and understand it will be deplomacy.

secretary of state john kerry kept going back to the table. the russians and the iranians don't look interested. >> chuck, you're right this is extremely complicated and difficult. we have been in war in iraq and afghanistan for 14 years. thousands of american soldiers have died. the whole middle east has been thrown into a uproar. massive instability. all that imsayi'm saying is we to be clear about goals, understand them unilaterally, and understand that when we have a collapsing middle class, and a

infrastructure that needs trillions in repairs, maybe we don't want to throw trillions more into the middle i. east. >> in december of 2015, you called for more diplomacy. our primary pucks is to destroy iesz. you were a proponent of prioritizing isis first in syria. >> assad has been doing what he has been doing for years. chuck, 400,000 people in syria have been killed. men, women, and children. this is a horror show. we have to get rid of asad, but we cannot do it unilaterally.

>> what do do you to the russians if they're not at all interested? >> i think you may want to make them an offer you can't revus. they have to come to the table and not maintain this horrific dictator. any position that anyone takes can be criticized. i think getting the united states, involved in bar fair, it will just continue the process of money going down a rat hole. i think the solution has to be political. and by the way, one other thing that i am concerned about, trump says one thing and he ends up doing another thing. let's get kin si fr-- consisten

from this president. >> thank you for being on the show, shirr. >> thank you. >> there you have it, a lot of perspectives on syria these days. the political fallout from what happened in syria this weem. the power strung that we're hearing about in the white house could where's the rest of it? uh, the soy sauce? it's gone. treat your clothes better with new tide pods plus downy. it's got to be tide

xfini'll get my coat.ek is back. meaning you can catch up on all the moments you might have missed. you seriously can't tell the difference between a bird and a plane?

like that time gwen and blake got a little too flirty. that's so inappropriate to talk about us hooking up. xfinity watchathon week ends april 9. the greatest collection of shows free with xfinity on demand. . welcome back, our panel is here. we have david brooks, columnist for the "new york times." let's start with the basics here, what did we learn about donald trump this week. i'm afraid it is no consequences, no strategic thinking behind it. i think the promising thing is that we're not in the regime change any time soon. 100 years ago in world war i, we

can at least all be against gassing. we want to make sure that when people fight they behave with level of human decency. >> is it a doctrine of flexibility? >> we were all over president balm. i don't think we know. we don't know it was a tactical strike or a strategic move. and we have nikki hailey saying things have changed. >> rich, i want you to respond to this. it is a similar thought that

jonah goldberg rights. a positive interpretation of the situations is that trump is able to change opinion. >> clearly things he said for years on twitter and campaign at the rallies were not well considered. i think he has adjusted. the strikes are usually too weak and symbolic to make a dirchlgs. th -- difference. what it happening from this airfield is that assad will continue with the more routine war crimes as if nothing happened. >> where were the pentagon officials on this?

is this the plan they really wanted him to pick? were they hoping he would do something more robust? >> i think you're seeing an assertion right now when it comes to american national securi security. it was mattis driven. i found your interview with nikki hailey great, she has been very strong saying assad must go, but you look at rex tillerson, who echoed her he came out and said getting rid of assad was not the focus of the trump had m trump administration. a lot of people believe it sent a message. now, a week later, you have them spinning a different line. and this level of mixed

messaging in national security is dangerous. i think it gets back to a basic point of american foreign policy to figure out what you believe, what you stand for, and speak with one voice. but people are saying everything right now and nobody knows if we're in regime change or not. >> they are arguing to try to influence the president. >> i mean come on we're still overstating this. barack obama said assad must go. barack obama said he had a red line. assad didn't go and the red line was not a red line. administrations make decisions, it's early days, i'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that there was an actual change in thinking. >> it was a back week.

trump showed the strike is not that difficult. it makes obama look a little ridiculous and it exposes a deal to get chemicals out of syria has a total sham. >> let's move to the congressional debate, individual members of congress want this debate about does this belong in the authorization or not? this seems like rank and file may trump leadership here. >> i don't think anyone want as vote on this. the problem for congress is they didn't do another aumf under obama. we're all here in washington -- don't speak washington. they didn't do it under obama. they choose to do this. the next time an american dies at the hands of the iranians or

the syrians. >> i want to go to a point you made off camera. >> the president has done without congressional authorization. if you a policy of going after assad and the regime -- >> we're not using the pony express any more, the world just moves too fast. we will pause here and continue the conversation in a minute. would you buy a product endorsed by this man? by this man? e in-laws have moved in with us. and, our adult children are here. so, we save by using tide. which means we use less. three generations of clothes cleaned in one wash. those are moms. anybody seen my pants? nothing cleans better. put those on dad! it's got to be tide.

no, i'm scheduling time to go oto the bank to get a mortgage. ugh, you're using a vacation day to go to the bank? i know, right? just go to lendingtree.com. get up to five loan offers to compare side by side for free. wow, that's great. wait, how did you get in my kitchen? oh, i followed a raccoon in through your doggie door. [chittering] [gasps] get a better mortgage on your schedule. not the bank's. lendingtree. when banks compete, you win. just think of him as a big cat. [chittering] with rabies.

stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and.

welcome back to data download time.

some people worried that trump would pick winners and losers by endorsing products. 18% of americans would use a product endorsed by donald trump. 49% said less like, and a full 30% would boycott the service. so now, it seems like an endorsement would cause a slump, not a bump. it is really only an 8 point difference for republicans. is for democrats, 10% more would use the product, 71% less likely, and 45% would boycott that product. independents break down more like democrats than you might think on this question. 8% more likely to use, 55% less

likely. pretty strikely. nearly a quarter would boycott. while his hotels and golf clubs are flourishing, his brand may be taking a hit. in fact, don't be surprised to see more and more brands orun away from politics all together. when we come back, a power struggle? the white house. the white house. however you look at it, thee ine moved in with us. and, our adult children are here. so, we save by using tide. which means we use less. three generations of clothes cleaned in one wash. those are moms. anybody seen my pants? nothing cleans better. put those on dad! it's got to be tide.

i'm lumy bargain detergent shifcouldn't keep up.ter. so, i switched to tide pods. they're super concentrated, so i get a better clean. number one trusted. number one awarded. it's got to be tide back now with the panel.

a lot of palace intrigue this week. several of them are related to steve bannon. do you connect him being kicked off of the national security council, two days later, he argued against a syria strike, happens, if it is bannon against the son-in-law, bannon is losing. >> yeah, there is only one person that can't be fired in that occasion. if the democrats take over, you have jared kushner and ivanka trump who would not be within 100 miles of any other white house. anything that might be embarrassing in a dipper party with anna winter will be softened. >> i think son-in-laws do get fired sometimes by the way.

there is a fancy restaurant in new york -- it is the jared kushner wing. i have been there, and then there is a bunch of truck stops called buckies, and they're very different and that is the steve bannon side. >> going bang to the president's son-in-law -- you know, i think you can't, and the problem with the administration is the palace intrigue. the old bizatein empire. you have the grand bazaar, the family, the son-in-law, and bannon is the one who is expendable in that occasion. >> not to mention the fact that bannon is credited with helping

trump get elected. i certainly don't think it was jared kushner. i think when you look at this kind of intrigue, i thought it was interesting they chose to take kushner with him. it was very much -- and you see the rest of the pentagon -- >> there is no trumpist wing in congress, and the core trumpists are just a faction in the white house itself. it was a wieszenning out, that is going to be jettisoned. >> imagine the alternative here, written in civic haul, hillary clinton quietly sent her son-in-law, investment banger

marc mezvinsky was sent to iraq on monday. >> totally credible. totally credible. what happened and to be fair, everyone would have said exactly the same thing they said about jared kushner going to iraq. he had her daughter in a foundation and it looked corrupt. >> we could just have a monarchy with family. you don't have to be nice, but you have to kind. >> what about -- you could say he flipped on syria, that would be a pretty large flip. >> we would be seeing a return to the trump that we used to think we had. the same trump who said to many

people "you know you guys, liberals, you're going to like having me as president, don't worry about it." before he moved further to the right to embrace more of the republican orthodoxy. >> but we have the midterms next year and if donald trump abandons the people who e lek d elected him, he will be in trouble and the republican party will be in trouble in 2018. >> we'll be back in 25 seconds with end game. what hillary clinton said about president trump and the people who voted for him. coming

rye a with. analyzed by many of us. what do you say? >> i think many women probably feel that way. and i don't think i would necessarily dismiss that. i've talked to plenty of trump voters who say they just didn't like hillary, including women who said, no, there's just something -- i just didn't like her. there's something to be said for that. i'm not going to mug my book because you're giving me the perfect opportunity. [ laughter ] >> "i'm not going to plug my book. " >> say the title. >> but i am. >> about what happened in the

liberian election when the liberians elected a female president but we can't pretend misogyny doesn't exist. >> oh, come on. >> she took it a step further. she said women in power just get negatively characterized over time more so than men. that was the larger argument. what do you say? >> first of all, hillary clinton doesn't want to take responsibility for anything, she lost the election because she's hillary clinton not because she's a woman and, yes, of course, women in power are more negatively portrayed, hard charging man, a woman is a -- can i go after lindsey graham and use a bad word? we know what it is. look, if you want to be a woman who's influential than stand up to it, ignore it and it will change over time. screaming about misogyny doesn't change things. >> i disagree. gender politics clearly played a role in this election. not so much -- not necessarily misogyny but certainly -- donald trump is a cliche of old-fashioned masculinity and a lot of people long for that kind of masculinity which is never coming back but they long for it. to say that his hyper macho stereotype is not part of why he

got elected, i mean, it wasn't his knowledge. >> you're nodding. >> you saw this in the primaries. it didn't matter how sophomore rick donald trump was standing, if he was in the middle of the debate stage he was a bigger figure than anyone else up there so he had a certain executive bearing and that helped but ultimately hillary clinton is not just not good at politics. she's not a good campaigner and she's probably the one active politician in the country who could have lost to donald trump and she did. >> and you don't think -- you think another woman could have beaten donald trump? >> a likable woman could have, yes. >> and i guess her -- >> let's get to the phrase "likable." >> that gets to -- >> using words like "likable," donald trump is likable? >> no, but -- there are women politicians who are likable. hillary is just -- barack obama said you're likable enough hillary and that was not true. that was not true in this election. >> maybe associatable is enough. people think she gets me or they did and didn't think that. >> i think relatable is

different than likability. all right, well, this is -- this one is fraught with a lot of peril but you know we will -- the good news is guess what? there are a lot of people that are going to be having their own debates about this issue later this morning. that's all we have for today. we'll be back next week because even onunday it's "meet the press" so we'll see you next sunday.

the air base is back open for business. meanwhile the verbal attacks heat up with the secretary of state in moscow at odds. plus, terrorist attack on palm sunday. twin blasts shake the christian community in egypt. green looks good on everyone. sergio garcia wins in the masters. takes home very first major win. good morning. everyone. april 10. well, this morning