the problem on the other side, as jim walsh points out, we have now narrowed the process down to where we talk, but get nowhere as well. it is very hard to dissect these. to some extent, the point the report makes is that the president makes it clear that he wants an agreement and is prepared to move. he lays out his roadmap for that, or his approach, much of which i think is already on the table, and uses that as a way to test the iranians to see if they are prepared to go. if they want to talk about a wider number of issues, we should be an agreement to try to do so. we should do so on the basis that it isn't going to be something that is going to consume years and get nowhere. we have to be very careful about that, and talk about it. >> we have 12 seconds. i think we have finished. that will give me enough time to thank our very distinguished panelists. the woodrow wilson center, and those who have put the report together. [applause] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- ♪ >> thank you for tuning in. welcome to a new -- brand new edition of the program th

i'm going back now to jim walsh, international security expert. there's a group that prefers diplomacy, and there's a group that would certainly want military strikes. is it possible to do both paths? >> well, i think we'll get -- i think we'll get some of both. we'll get -- you know, we've tried the diplomatic path for a while for the past two years. the two big challenges on diplomacy are, one, the russians are, you know the strongest ally syria has, a member of the security council and can veto any sanctions or anything related to that. the u.n. has tried negotiations, and others have tried. the problem with civil wars, civil wars are among the nastiest wars to fight. when two countries fight each other, it's easier to negotiate. when you fight brother against brother, family against family, shiite against sunni, very hard to negotiate in particular if you think you're winning. a year ago it looked like assad was losing, and now it looks like he's winning. winners don't like to negotiate if they think they will win, because they fear whoever wi

. >> and jim walsh is with me again. he's an international security analyst with mit. first of all, in israel, there's big concern about retaliation. >> sure. >> and you can site there on the face of the people that are trying to get gas masks. >> and in turkey too. >> you call that the nightmare scenario. >> i think it is unlikely. i this the last analyst you had in this piece, prior or the this point, syria is something -- then they start winning. so if you're winning, why do you want to drag in more powerful enemies. the u.s., israel, turkey in to fight, pause that means you're going to lose. at one level that's illogical. it was u all going down and this was your last thing. but, it has to be said that the syrian government i think made a gigantic strategic error in doing this. obama didn't want get in to this and now we are so if they made one mistake, other mistakes you can't write off that. >> we have a map going back to what the u.s. might do in syria and we want to look at oh potential targets in syria. one would be chemical weapons storage facilities. explain

. >> one of the most chilling moments i want to bring in jim walsh and leah will malic. one for the most chilling -- one for the most chilling moment system when secretary of state kerry putta a number on it. we have had estimates, but not numbers. he said the u.s. had 1,429 killed this this attack in the suburb of damascus. 426 of them were children. how does that strike you that that is the scale of this alleged attack? >> the scale is what is driving this. will it was a widespread attack opposed to the smaller attack that might have used other chemical wepons prior to this. you saw when the british released their intelligence they said they documented 14 prior cases of chemical weapons use. it's scale that is the big thing. if i may step back, this was quite a remarkable speech. >> it was extensive. >> and it was well crafted. this will be a very important speech, i think. the second thing it tells me, secretary of state john kerry is a mess average or this. if i dare say it, he looked presidential, he is the secretary of state, but he is making the case for war, not

. >>> some additional insight about president obama's statement on syria, we turn to jim walsh. >> good to see you. >> at this point, did the president lay out his case? certainly a moral one but did he lay out his case? >> i think we got a little more information about it. i don't think the full case yet. but he did it identify buried in that speech were what i saw as two opinibjectives. it's great to talk about targets and assets. first, he said he wants to deter the syrian government from using chemical weapons in the future. he also said secondly and this is a separate issue, he wants to degrade their chemical capability. so part of that, any action that may be taken, i think, includes hitting at assad, punishing him or trying to hit him where something with he values with the message of, if you do this again, you are going to suffer more. >> that's what the deterrent message is about. the second part trying to get at the chem units. the manufacturing facilities, maybe the agent, itself. >> that's. >> waiting on congressional's approval on taking action in syria, does this help syri

jim walsh, go ahead and weigh in, professor. >> i am stunned. i thought i correctly predicted we would get the decision. he's made the decision that an attack should be made. i did not see the second piece coming at all. politically he's gone all-in. either he's doing this out of as david suggests out of a position of weakness or out of a perceived position of strength. he figures, oh, yeah? i'm raising you on this, and i dare you to vote against this. you know, members of congress, they like to be consulted. they want to be able to have their say, but when it comes to voting on war, they get very nervous because what no one knows is how it will go. >> i mean, i suspect some of them actually don't want this vote. >> absolutely. >> even some of the democrats, but the democratic leadership, nancy pelosi and harry reid said we will provide cover for you. there's some members of our caucus who don't like this. you're going to get support. the american people rally around any president that decides to go forward with military action. after having hea

joining me now is congressman jim mcdermott, democrat from washington, and joan walsh, editor at large for salon.com. thank you both for coming on the show tonight. >> thanks, reverend al. >> good to be here. >> congressman, how can the gop justify putting politics before people like this? >> well, it's because they don't know what people feel, i guess. that's the only way i can explain it. because they're all talking about money and deficits and this kind of stuff. they're not looking at the people, like that little girl. if you look at people who are in the waiting room or in the emergency room and realize that they waited too long because they didn't have health insurance, you wish that they could have a health insurance system, and that's really what the president is offering to the country. we're not taking over the health care system in the government, we're offering people an opportunity to buy in to private health care plans at a cost that they can afford, and that's really taking away that anxiety is really what this is all about. but the republicans have no concern about the