very busy day here on this saturday. hello to you i'm at headquarters. u.s. security council sending a certain message to russia and rejecting a resolution condemning the united states, uk and france over the missile strike. the strike was in response to a suspected chemical attack one week ago. the three countries saying there is proof that assad carried out those attacks on his own people. inspectors are en route to syria to survey the damage now. president trump along with teresa may and macron have said it was a success. and the red line has been drawn. >> i spoke to the president this morning, and he said if the syrian regime uses this

poisonous gas again, the united states is locked and loaded. when our president draws a red line, our president enforces the red line. >> u.s. ambassador to the united nations addressing an emergency u.n. security council meeting this morning after russia called the strikes an act of aggression. vice president mike persons at summit of the americas. that's in lima, peru also defended u.s. responses. >> we carefully examined the possibility of a response by syria, or by its allies, russia, and iran in this calculation, and the president made the decision to target chemical weapons facilities, having counted all the cost and the potential of those decisions. >> all right. let's bring in jeff bennet, white house correspondent for us joining us now, pentagon

correspondent and kelley co. >> as you were speaking we learned from the white house that president trump spoke today with french president. we got the readout of the call and said both leaders affirmed the strikes were successful and necessary to deter assad from any further use of chemical keppens. that -- weapons. >> the u.s. strikes were designed to deter the regime from launching further chemical attacks without chanciollapsing shaky government. it's been a tricky balance. today, as you pointed out we heard vice president mike pence say it was a strong deter wered. no more attacks planned unless assad again uses gas on his own

people. and then nikki haley, who you also mentioned, the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. saying the united states is in her words, locked and loaded ready to launch another military strike if needed. talking all that together, you got a picture of the pressure campaign, the administration is trying to build. but let's take a closer look at vice president mike pence's comments earlier. >> we believe we significantly degraded 1their program and ability to produce chemical weapons. but this was also about reestablishing what we call a deterrent framework. working with our alleys as president trump reached out to the united kingdom and france. >> so we saw vice president pence there, but only hearing from president trump on twitter today. the vice president talks of a sustained effort while the president is declaring mission

accomplished following the strikes. that's inviting immediate comparisons to former president george w. bush's early misplaced optimism of the u.s. invasion of iraq in 2003. >> 9 president says a perfect executed strike. thank you to france and united kingdom for the wisdom and power of their fine military. could not have had a better result. mission accomplished. and then he says so proud of our great military which will soon be after the spending of billions of fully approved dollars the finest our country has ever had. there won't be anything or anyone even close. president's tweet appears to be referring to the success of the specific strike overnight. it's getting backed up by the pentagon. bottom line is in explaining to americans why he ordered the strikes we heard oh fishfficial make the argument that there are certain acts that are so heinous that it's incumbent upon the

u.s. to act. >> jeff, what you're underlining is you're not typically used to hearing from this white house, at least these sort of tri lateral moves. this sort of move politically or in press statements and readouts you've just shared with us coming from the uk and france and leaders. this is perhaps a little different. i'll go to hans on this. because on the flip side, operationally, military, that's often -- a different story, where we are coordinating with our allies much more closely than one might -- that which we might hear coming from the white house. how was that coordination with the uk? with, again, france and how that worked out. who led this operation against syria? >> well the u.s. had the most assets in the air, but it was coordinated. pentagon is saying it had a clear tactical success. they fired off together with the french and british 105 kroocrui

missiles. they also claimed they have strategic maneuverability. that is if assad decides to use chemical weapons again, there would be another response. in the words of nikki haley, locked and loaded. we still don't have clarity whether chlorine would trigger another response. it seems as if the signaling is sarin plus chlorine qualifies for a response. they do say evidence of the attack and chain of command for the weapon that was dropped by forces loyal to assad. >> hans, any reaction to what happened coming out of the u.n. security council? not necessarily that the pentagon would react directly, but since that just had within the last several hours, any readout there? >> they've not responded to what happened at the ung security

council. i will last night, secretary mattis making a point of standing there were the french and british count er parts that attach the embassies, they were standing on the stage behind me before the leaders had spoken. it's clear being flanked by the individuals they want to send a unified signal. >> underlying hans did not sleep in the last 24 hours. also, somebody who has not got a lot of sleep over to kelly. i was talking about moscow, and the fact that it wanted at least through the u.n., right, kelly? they wanted to condemn the united states, the uk and france. any were unable to get that done. they only got three votes for the condemnation. they got eight votes saying no in this meeting. what's the reaction been there in russia? >> well, look, richard, there's no more talk of firing off

retaliatory strikes on the u.s., or france or the uk. there's no more talk of war here, but plenty of verbal things flying from the russians coming fast and furious throughout the day. russian officials calling these strikes unlawful, unacceptable, president putin putting out a statement saying the u.s. is aggravating the humanitarian situation inside syria and of course calling for that u.n. resolution which was voted down. some pretty fierce words coming from russia's ambassador to the u.n. >> russia condemns in the strongest possible terms the attack against syria where russian military personnel are assisting the legitimate government in its counter terrorism efforts. through its actions, united states makes an already catastrophic situation worse and brings suffering to civilians. in fact the u.s. panders to the

terrorists who have been tormenting the syrian people for seven years. >> the russians not getting much backing along those lines, still sticking, though, to the story line that there was no gas attack in syria. that this was a fabrication, a provocation on the part of the west in order to justify getting further involved in syria. also claiming that the majority of the missiles fired late last night were struck down by syrians using old like 30--year-old soviet weaponry, of course you heard from hans that the pentagon says that's not the case. missiles actually struck the targets. russians really sticking to this story that the gas attack was fabricated, that the u.s. was doing something that was unlawful. but really, richard, it's what they're not saying that's probably most important. and privately, probably relieved

at the scope of these strikes, the fact that they did not come anywhere near any russian aircraft bases or personnel. as you've heard throughout the day, no russian assets at all affected by this. and the russians now allowed to continue on with their main mission, which of course is propping up the assad regime. >> pentagon working so hard and doing such a good job of that, avoiding such a conflict. we've been talking about that over the last 24 hours about the very lines that they have to avoid such conflicts. back to you at the white house here, jeff. and that is as the president's team now, he's got john bolton, and that's the hawks, some will say in the white house at the moment. mattis, over at the pentagon. how -- and at the moment no secretary of state. how did this all come to pass? and what does it mean for this

coming week in terms of them potentially putting together a syrian strategy? >> that's a great question. taken -- keeping in mind that the president initially, we're told, sought a more aggressive, more robust response than the one we saw last night, and he had to sort of be reined in in part because of the concerns among top officials at the white house and the pentagon that there are so many unintended consequences and as has been said, in syria, there are no good options. sort of targeted very specific one strike we saw last night is not what the president initially sought out to do, we're told. so i think that could be used as one indication of future efforts to come. >> all right. thank you so much, jeff. hans, kelly, thank you all for sticking around to give us the very latest on what's happening. appreciate your time. i want to bring in the next

guest, ambassador robert ford, a former u.s. ambassador to syria. thanks for being here. you're also senior fellow at the middle east institute. i appreciate your time. with the sort of experience and view you've got, on what we've seen in the last 24 hours, where are we at and what is next? >> where we're at is the aftermath of a powerful but limited american french british strike. it could well be that the dust will settle in the coming days, i don't think the russians want to escalate against the united states or iran. your correspondents just talked about that. syrian government doesn't really have the capacity to escalate against the united states very easily. so, the next phase is watch carefully to see if assad uses chemical weapons again. my guess is he'll wait and rebuild his capacity, and we'll

have more problems down the road probably. >> when you were discussing that ambassador i just thought of the video released coming from the president's twitter account on what say sad was doing today. it shows a video of him, one might say very calmly walking to work today with his suitcase. did this entire attack faze the assad regime at all? >> they would never admit it if it did. i think they're relieved that for example, the coalition forces did not strike the syrian air force which they had done a year ago in april, 2017. assad still has planes and helicopters with which to bomb his targets and his civil war campaign. so, my guess is they thought it might be a lot worse than it was and they're relieved about that. >> did the united kingdom and france being involved in this effort, did that make a difference practice kickty at all from the view on the ground

there in syria? no. i think they equate the americans, british, french as sort of 20th century cloolonial powers, the syrian government is a very paranoid group of people and look at the united states and view france and britain as almost american lackeys. by contrast, having the three countries stand together in the united stations security council was a very good signal to the russians that it's no the just russia and the united states. >> is it the u.n. and the resolution that was formed basically founded this attack, or made reason for this attack, in the last 24 hours, is it still effective? and if so, what should be the next step coming from the u.n. given the action that we've seen just within the last four or five hours? >> well, in a perfect world, the

united stations security kcouncl would all agree that expert investigators would go and determine who was responsible for what we saw on our video screens last saturday night, april 7th. but the russians have always rejected allowing the experts to make a judgment. and so, in the absence of a russian agreement, i don't think there's much the united nations can do, frankly. >> and finally, the ref ugeeref. over 5 million. i was looking at what that mean, everybody in many picking up and moving to another state. that is still happening to these millions of people. >> you know, the strikes, last night, don't really affect the broader syrian civil war. they don't bring a peace deal to

end the civil war. they don't bring it it any clos closer. they don't make it likely that many more refugees will go home. syrian civil war grinds on. unfortunately. >> all right. ambassador, pleasure to have you. appreciate it. locked and loaded. u.s. ambassador nikki haley issues a warning to assad if chemical weapons are used again. next the impact. - i love my grandma. - anncr: as you grow older, your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

>> vo: they're getting by starting with miracle-gro potting mix and plant food. together, guaranteed to produce three times the harvest. more to enjoy... to share. three times the harvest. one powerful guarantee. miracle-gro.

thanks for staying with us, president trump taking a victory lap this morning calling the strike on syria a success, tweeting it out. these famous words. mission accomplished. u.s. and its allied bombed syrian targets after these images surfaced. this drew widespread condemnation from the u.s., france and uk and denials from russia that the gas attack you see in the pictures actually did take place. but the war of narratives raging in the aftermath. a team of chemical experts is on the ground to look into what exactly happened. joining me now is ambassador ryan crocker, former ambassador to syria. ambassador, thank you for joining us today on this very important topic. since we are leading into what happened just today, that is the opcw, the group that is

basically the equivalent. iae. they look at chemical weapons capabilities. how important are they to being on the ground and why didn't the three countries wait until that report came out before attacking? >> we have no way of knowing when a report may come out, or even if. so i think the administration did do the right thing to move this swiftly as they did. and, again, we had statements from the british and french saying they were absolutely convinced these were chemical weapons. so move out smartly and see what the inspectors find. >> we also are getting this in from the ap. syrian army declaring they have been able to take control of areas close to that which were attacked overnight. and the rebels now losing control of these areas. potentially. do these attacks help or hurt

that which the united states supports on the ground? those are the rebel efforts. >> it's a great question. i think we're sending messages that we don't necessarily intend to send. because part of the message here to the syrians, syrian regime and its backers is hey, you can kill all of your civilian population that you want. knock yourself out. have at it. just don't use chemical weapons. that i think, was really brought home by ambassador haley's statement that we're locked and loaded. if you use chemical weapons again, we're goes to hing to hi again. but the unstated message, use anything you want and you can kill a lot more people and you're not going to hear from us. >> you brought up nikki haley, a diplomat and you're a former diplomat.

you look at the team now, theater of syria, you've got nikki haley, u.s. ambassador to the u.n., john bolton obviously the nation security adviser, mike pompeo, again, for the secretary of state, we don't have a named secretary of state or confirmed, i should say. how does this collection look to the world? how well equipped are they in dealing with this sort of complex problem? >> it is a complex problem. and i would just point again at the missile strikes last night. we make it look easy, because our military is so very good. it's not easy. if one of those had gone astray, we could have done a lot of damage to innocent people. so, it is no small thing. all of that said, i think when the rest of the world looks at

us, they see an administration, quite frankly in disarray, as you say, no secretary of state, the national security adviser has been on the job for less than a week. and we have a distracted president, let's face it. he's probably more focused right now on the mueller probe and the search of his lawyers' offices than he is on this. >> so hard power not a problem here. soft power, a problem here. ambassador ryan crocker. thank you for your time and perspective. >> thanks for having me. >> all righty. mixed reaction from kong over the strike on syria. while many lawmakers support it, some are not happy it was done without their approval.

♪ ♪ from only the thickest, juiciest heinz tomatoes. no one grows ketchup like heinz™.

depend silhouette briefs. feature a comfortable sleek fit. as a dancer, i've learned you can't have any doubts. because looking good on stage is one thing. but real confidence comes from feeling good out there. get a coupon at depend.com i we worked with pg&eof to save energy because wenie. wanted to help the school. they would put these signs on the door to let the teacher know you didn't cut off the light. the teachers, they would call us the energy patrol. so they would be like, here they come, turn off your lights! those three young ladies were teaching the whole school about energy efficiency. we actually saved $50,000. and that's just one school, two semesters, three girls.

together, we're building a better california. the decision to strike syria was one president trump made without authorization from congress. let's bring in republican congressman from the sixth district in texas. representative, thanks for being with us.

do you believe that the president should have gotten authorization from congress and if so, had he asked, would you have approved that. >> well the president has authorization generically as commander in chief under article 2 of the constitution as mann commander in chief. we gave a explicit authorization in the middle east back after 9/11 after the middle east campaigns under the first president bushs and also under president obama. he didn't need specific authorization for this, but had he asked for it i would have voted to give it to him. i thought he did the right thing. >> do you find when he see what led to the attack, do you believe the alleged chemical attack that had happened, do you think russia had anything to do with that? some who are watching this and

are critical, is that -- happened the day after the treasury department issued those sanctions against russian weapons firm for supplying weapons to syria, any linkages there sir you might take away from that? >> first of all, it's not alleged attack. it happened. people die the. people were dem he chemically d. we have eyewitnesses, photographs. attack happened. syrian government is responsible for it. there are eyewitnesses of russian-made -- least one russian-made helicopter. it's not an alleged attack. it happened. you can argue perhaps that the russians didn't approve it, didn't know about it. i can't comment on that. but there's no question that it happened. there's no question that people were killed. there's no question -- chemical weapons were used.

>> the majority of the folks would agree with you. focus of the question is did russia have anything to do with the timing? >> i don't have a comment on that, because i would hope the russians, instead of trying to deny that it happened, i wish they would join us in condemning the attack. but whether they knew about it beforehand, i don't have any information to make a judgment on that. >> in terms of the syrian strategy, and you heard the commentary help, representative, about the way it has come about for this administration. do you believe that the syrian strategy coming from the white house needs to be more cogent? more long-term, more specific? >> i did listen to the interview with the former ambassador to syria. it is a complicated situation. you know, we have forces in the region.

turkey is involved attacking the curds, and in part of syria. you've got isis. of course the russians and iranians. so it's very complicated, but the long and short of it is the syrian government is a dic-- i believe it needs to be replaced. right policy to the opposition forces trying to overthrow them. russia complicates that iran complicates that. united states is on the right side, and the united states was right with great britain and france to attack these targets last night. >> so the president does need to have a more cogent long-term strategy or does not? that's just a yes or no. >> it's difficult to know what a cogent long-term strategy in

that country is. >> yes, sir. >> okay. >> i do think if it he were to consult with congress on that particular topic perhaps we could come up with as you put it a more cogent strategy. >> after a week of tough talk, some what people are calling backpedali backpedaling. president trump takes action fulfilling his promise to hold syria accountable. ♪ managing blood sugar isn't a marathon. it's a series of smart choices. like using glucerna to replace one meal or snack a day. only glucerna has carbsteady... unique blends of slow-release carbs to help manage blood sugar. every meal. every craving. it's the choices you make when managing blood sugar

that are the real victories. glucerna. everyday progress.

janice, mom told me you bought a house. okay. [ buttons clicking ] [ camera shutter clicks ] so, now that you have a house, you can use homequote explorer. quiet. i'm blasting my quads. janice, look. i'm in a meeting. -janice, look. -[ chuckles ] -look, look. -i'm looking. it's easy. you just answer some simple questions online, and you get coverage options to choose from. you're ruining my workout. cycling is my passion.

well the president's tact and response responding has been und under -- there's a "new york times" piece that raises the question what is the mission in syria, seeming to suggest the president may be cutting the cart before the horse. and we have one very prominent republican law maker calling for more. senate armed services john mccain praised it about you a comheprehensive strategy is sti needed. >> let's bring in ambassador christopher hill, former ambassador to iraq and south

korea in an nbc news diplomacy expert. charlie, some ask why did the president work with other folks? this is not who he is. what was why he did do that this time around? >> well i think president trump leapt at the opportunity to have someone alongside him as he carried out this strike unlike the similar strike a year ago in which the united states stood alone. it was still not a nato operation much less one that had any kind of international sanction. administration had put forward no argument or rationale a year ago or now for how this possibly could have been lawful, as a matter of international law but at least having a couple democratic allies alongside the united states makes it look better. >> the two that you brought along this time around, teresa may, we got the readout from the white house, as well as emanuel

ma k macron. >> all things are going well, at least when we talk about diplomacy. based on those readouts, the question might be is this all part of something that might be new for this white house? in terms of the way they'll move forward in dealing with syria and other theaters? >> well, certainly i think the president did not want to go ahead alone. after all there's no security council resolution. at the same time i think it's very important to reestablish deterrence and be clear about being opposed to banned weapons. i think he did that and it was the right move. i was for one, very policleased got allies to go along with him. especially as we didn't have any u.n. on this. but the real issue is while we have established or tried to establish deterrence for chemical weapons and tried to be

punitive to someone who violates, we don't have a strategy in syria. there's no question we have sent isis reeling but that's something where the obama administration can also take a b bow, they started this war of annihilation against isis, but on syria neither the obama administration or trump administration has indicated what in the world we want to do in that country. >> part of this conversation, you may have heard earlier in the show, one of the guests saying wish that the move by the united states and the other two countries, the uk and france, happened in a vaek coupcuum. it's not, charlie. something you're watching very in department in the beltway. these are the other themes around russia, russia collusion, we have the issues of his lawyer, the president's lawyer also happening at the moment. but does the fact that this was a tri lateral move mute those criticisms there may have been a

political element for this president based on the trouble he faces domestically? >> well, you don't have to go far in this town to hear the phrase wag the dog. but this happened before the raid on the office and hotel room amping it up to 11 on the saga. so this was a crisis that was not manufactured. >> comey. >> after the fact but before the fact. >> we could go on and on in terms of listing the stories. ambassador hill, with that complexity added into this president's move, does it at all reduce the efficacy and messaging that the international community might haear from this military operation? >> well, to be sure the president's going through a really tough patch.

this is no secret around the world, so obviously, a loet t o people look at this from this optic, but i thing it's pretty clear the president has been forth you kn forthwith on maintaining our strong view that you can't use chemical weapons. what is kind of unusual is you recall back in 2013 when president obama decided no the to use force, he exceeded to a russian plan to get owl the chemical weapons out of syriand at russian claim to have done that. i'd be right back at the russians over that issue rather than criticizing them generally about the backing of assad. i'd go back and say you said you were taking care of chemical weapons in this country and you clearly haven't. i'd give the russians a tough time about what turned out to be a failed strategy on their part. i'm looking for nuances, this administration doesn't have the people in place to do that.

>> alluding again to that 2013 u.n. resolution that had many parts of the discussion that we've had just in the last several minutes. stick around, we'll talk more about president trump's coalition of the willing potentially and the message, their show of unity sends to syria and the idea of what might be, will be, could be, a trump doctrine. you might take something for your heart... or joints. but do you take something for your brain.

with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. ♪ most people come to la with big dreams. ♪ we came with big appetites. with expedia, you could book a flight, hotel, car, and activity all in one place. ♪

(gasp) (singsong) budget meeting! sweet. if you compare last quarter to this quarter... various: mmm. it's no wonder everything seems a little better with the creamy taste of philly, made with fresh milk and real cream.

thanks for staying with us, president trump's approach to conflict in syria is markedly different from his predecessor. after years of civil war and casualties, president obama took what some would call a light foot approach. carnage still continued. rebel fighters failed to stem the blood shed. question has been asked what might be a trump foreign policy doctrine and can it bring more peace to the region than president obama's approach. back with us charlie savage, washington correspondent as well as chris far hill. and also nbc news diplomacy

expert. do make that comparison if you can for us. as you've covered the white house and washington, d.c., are we starting to get a sense now, of what a trump doctrine might be versus what the obama doctrine would be. >> i think that president trump is enraptured by the idea of the quick overwhelming show of force after which you get out rhetorically at least. i don't know that he's actually governing that way. instead of pulling out of afghanistan, he acquiesced to the request to have a new surge of troops there. said he was going to get out of syria and then we're bombing syria. whether anything he says adds up to a coherent doctrine may be elusive. beyond that i'm a little troubled by a broader political call. you quote the senator mccain saying we need a strategy. we're the strategy. people hit obama for that too.

premise of that is there is a strategy out there that will allow the united states to solve this problem if only people sat down and thought about it a little harder. we may be forced to confront ugly truths which is the truths limits of the american power to deal with the situation like syria. we don't want to collapse the assad regime which is going to prolong the war, and we don't want to have a direct confrontation with rush sharks and what exactly do people think that the strategy can be? >> well, you are hearing to what, charlie, ambassador crocker has said in that it is not only up to the united states, and certainly a difficult problem. representative joe barton says that if he works with congress, we can come up with a better idea, and ambassador chris hill, you don't believe that you should put those two words together trump and doctrine? >> no. i think that the president is trying to establish a deterrence on the banned weapons issue.

if bashar al assad were killing kids with pitch forks, we'd probably not have been there, and so this has to do with the banned weapon, and that is the right approach, but let me take a whack at the question of strategy. first of all, i don't -- and what happened in 2011, 2012, when we had a lot of people saying that assad must go without any notion of how we were going to make that happen, and people thought that somehow he'd just go on his own like some of the other leaders in the arab spring. so i think that first of all, it is irresponsible to say that a government must go, and then you have a absolutely no means to make that happen. and instead, he called in some close allies including iran and it turned out russia. so i think that we are going to be in a lot worse position for that loose talk during the obama administration, but that doesn't mean that we can't can as a country lay out what we would like to see syria's future to be. should it be one country?

i think that we have a right to say, that this is what we would like to see in syria, and this is precisely the sort of thing that we did in bosnia. we shopped it with other countries, including rush sharks and ultimately, there was an agreement on what bosnia should be once the fighting ends. right now, we have a situation where clearly assad is greatly in the lead are. and i don't believe that you can walk that back, but the u.s. needs to be on record to say that we'd like seyria to be in one country and the decentralized country and the various communities can enjoy autonomous issue, and some stab or notion of what the politics are before people talk about dropping more bomb, because i don't think that syria needs more bombs, but they do need political thought as to what is going to happen there. >> so we are is seen the bombs in tlas 24 hohe last 24 hour s,s ant thett cal to what you would like to see, ambassador. charlie, if we with are looking

at the diplomacy to be transactional, and does that work -- if that is the approach that this administration dealt with north korea, and if north korea does turn out to gett some progress as some say that we are getting. might it work with bashar al assad? >> i think that bashar al assad's goal is to stay in power, and to stay alive and take back over all of the syrian territory. he thinks that he can do it. he has russia behind him and iran behind him, and it is not obvious that he can't do it. so what is the transak sthaun thwarts that outcome from the united states. i don't see one that lays out an easy solution that washington may find palatable, but it may be reality. >> and part of as we are looking at the multi faceted problem with the multi faceted response here, ambassador, you saw the speeches from theresa may, and comments from emanuel macron, and as they are riding out, and

acting on the redlines at the moment, and defining the new administration's right, so are they now solidifying the leadership role not only in the european theatre, but globally? >> well, it is high time that the europeans came forward on the mas is a can kers in syria and even if it is the weapons used rather than the insidious situation there. so i welcome it. i think that europe has to use more leadershipings because diplomatical diplomatically, i am not sure that there is going to be leadership on the world's trouble spoths coming from the united states. and with that, i hope there is some euro-atlantic work on the issues. one of the things in bosnia, the crisis which is a hideous crisis

in bosnia was extremely corrosive to the atlantic relationship, and so maybe we can see a little bit less kroergs corrosion on that, and see more cohesiveness. >> and some would say the marshall plan, and the transatlanta aric tie -- transatlantic tie-in, and remember iing that, and if it i inputted into the discussion of the foreign policy in the beltway? >> i broaden it out more, because you are evoking the post world war ii era transnational cooperation and the forging of the united nation, and the sacrifice of the united states of treasure to rebuild europe and the notion that the country of the world was going to come together in a way to prevent conflicts that i had lived through in the first two world wars. and the thing they mentioned erl arier that people sort of mention it in passing and d

dismiss it as if it is irrelevant or eschew, but the fact that the united states is repeatedly willing to attack another country without u.n. security, sanction or sel self-defense claim is remarkable. that entire fabric is fraying. >> great brain food to finish this hour. charlie savage, thank you, as well as ambassador christopher hill. have a good saturday and no doubt we will talk to you tomorrow. the president is prepared to sustain attacks on syria, but the secretary of defense tells a different story. was it is a one-time shot or a sustained response? we will speak to the former navy admiral of how the president should handle syria in the wake of the air strikes. been jimmy's longest.

jimmy (shouting): james! he's survived record rain and a supplier that went belly up. so while he's proud to have helped put a roof over the heads of hundreds of families, he's most proud of the one he's kept over his own. brand vo: get the most out of your money, whether you're using quickbooks smart invoicing to get paid

twice as fast or automatically tracking your mileage. smarter business tools for the world's hardest workers. quickbooks. backing you. where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com. ♪ come to my window ♪ ohh ♪ crawl inside ♪ wait by the light of the moon ♪ applebee's to go. order online and get $10 off $30. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood.

r all right. we continue the follow the story coming out of syria. that is going to do it for me. i'm richard lui with and we go over to my colleague and his hour 22, i believe, david? >> yes, thank you, richard. i'm david gura at the msnbc headquarters in new york. the world is reacting to the strike on syria in response if to a a kchemical attack. and the president is taking to twitter and the president using a fraught and familiar phrase. and we begin with the strikes in se syria, and the united states and