scholarship and new attention. >> rose: were there problems in doing this because of political conflict between iran and the united states? >> well, we do have sanctions here in the united states. >> rose: right. and so part of the process of us being able to show the works, whether they came from iran or not, they're of arabs origin. what this meant was he had to get certification from the treasury that we were not in beach of the sanctions. as it's written it's quite unclear as to whether art can be exported or not. >> rose: let's look at the first image. describe that. she visited an important shrine, she saw the ceilings of the shrine were cover. and this inspired a whole series of works she continues to do to this day. if you were standing in front of it you would see your own relection in it, and then she also painted color. you get both a painting but also a reflection of yourself. and this geometric drak and distraction on the whole is one of the things you see in the development but also developing through a number of artist's works. >> rose: the next image? >> marcos creggorrian, who was a really important semi

do it, it's a certainty. are you going to be comfortable if assad, as a result of the united states not doing anything, then gases his people yet again and the world says, "why doesn't the united states act?" history is full of opportunity of moments where someone didn't stand up and act when it made a difference. whether you go back to world war ii or a ship that was turned away from the coast of florida and everyone on it lost their lives to german gas - those are the things that make a difference. that is what is at stake. it's a guarantee if the united states doesn't act with other countries, we know what assad will do. that's a guarantee. i can't tell you what's guaranteed that some country will do if we do act. i know what will happen if we don't. i'm pretty darn clear that a lot of things people think will happen won't if the united states doesn't act, and that we will enforce the international standard with respect to the use of chemical weapons. if the multilateral institutions is set up to do it, the security council is blocked and won't do it, it doesn't mean we should turn our backs and say there's no

united states is because he has not done that. [laughter] many times aented lot of putin's monetization plans have a lot to do with the vested interest referred to. to what degree is the vested interest and job protection informed putin's approach to the united states? >> it informs his approach to foreign policy in general and economic policy, the question about, is there a difference between the push for the kind of modernization that would involve integration with the west, as opposed to the different kind of modernization putin represents. whatever method is represented, putin ultimately represented as well. it was part of the whole idea, to throw out new ideas that could explore and see how they worked and were received. putin keeps his options open. he never locks himself into a path that cuts off his opportunities when they may arrive. right now, however, after the global financial crisis in 2008, which was a decisive event, he was quite proud of the fact he had done a number of things to prepare russia for bad economic times, like paying off the debt, having a very sound policy, andng a budget surplus, syrup -- so forth. he w

it as well as the united states can do it if they wanted to do it? >> it's not a secret that the united states has more operational capabilities than israel. >> rose: right. >> but i see that you know the iranians now see of these dialogues with the united states they feel their weakness, probably they can get some mileage. >> rose: from sanctions? >> yes. and the other someone that they feel that somehow the readyness to deal with them has to do with the fact that they are kind of -- they're sophisticated and very clever. that's what they have done along the last several years. >> rose: so what do you make of what rouhani is saying when he has an interview with ann curry of nbc and he says we don't do not want nuclear capability, we would never do that. what what's your response when you see here him say that? >> i'm -- i prefer to be skeptical. >> rose: well, that's the responsibility of leadership to be kept cal. >> i'm skeptical but i will be happy to be -- >> rose: but do you think it's a possibility that perhaps -- >> you can never say that some

rights violations that take place around the world and why aren't we doing something about it and they always look to the united states. why isn't the united states doing something about this the most powerful nation on earth why are you allowing these terrible things to happen and then if the international community turns around. when. we're saying it's time to take some responsibility and says well hold on a second. we're not sure. that erodes our ability to maintain the kind of norms that that we're looking at now i know that was a lengthy answer and you had a second part to question the conversation i had with president putin was. on the margins of the. of the plenary session and. you know i thought it was a candid and constructive conversation which characterizes my relationship with him i know that as i've said before as always we'll try to look for body language and all that but the truth of the matter is is that my interactions with him tend to be very straightforward. we discussed syria. and that was primarily the topic of conversation mr snowden did not come up. beyond me saying that reemphasizing that. wher

do it. it is a certainty. are you going to be comfortable if assad as a result of the united states not doing anything gases hiseople yet again and the world says, why didn't the united states act? history is full of opportunity and moments where someone it and stand up and act when it made a difference. whether you go back to world war ii or look at a ship that was turned away from the coast of florida and everybody on it lost their lives, those are the things that make a difference. that is what is at stake here. i would say to you, these -- it is a guarantee if the united states doesn't act with other countries, we know what assad will do. that is a guarantee. i can't tell you what is guaranteed that some country will do if we do act. i know what happens if we don't. i am pretty darn clear that a lot of things that people think will happen to happen if the united states act -- it will have enforced this international standard with respect to the use of chemical weapons. if the multilateral institutions set up to do it is being blocked, that doesn't mean we should turn our backs and say there is nothing we ca

. >> what 9/11 means to me is a lot of our freedom in any united states is gone. and you doed states now like you did before. >> it definitely had an impact on the culture in the united states. i don't know -- i don't really like how 9/11 is impacting like privacy and just how the american government has taken -- taken these steps to like prevent terrorism. ♪ >> welcome back to our live continuing coverage of september 11th, then and now. the names continue to be read at the site where the twin towers collapsed some 12 years ago. they have been doing so since 8:46 this morning. they will continue reading the names for another hour and a half. we want to pause, though, we want to take time-out from our coverage right now to bring you up to date on some of the other stories making news at that hour. as the president pauses to actually mark the anniversary of 9/11, he is also taking a step back from his plans to launch an attack on [ technical difficulties ] >> the president every year on 9/11 goes to a local food bank and pitches in and helps out for a while. but as there is a

really we can as the united states in its confrontation with iran claim if i go to you in washington if we do go down this diplomacy route for syria iran has to be involved now can the united states that down at the same negotiating table with other countries in the region with russia also and sit down and try to negotiate an end to the civil war because i know the around side would be willing to do that but does the united states have the political maturity to do that i mean that's one way to end this conflict if washington does want to see the suffering of the syrian people and we should and we must peter because this is the first time or at least after a long time that i believe that there is not a clenched fist on the other side president rouhani has very clearly made his intentions clear i believe that the world is a global willage and it does not do any harm to the credibility of the united states you know this question is brought up all the time that if we don't hit syria somehow our credibility will be affected and i believe we need to understand that our credibility is also affected

what can the united states do to make that more likely to happen? >> i think ironically, the congress needs to authorize the use of military force, because this only happened today because, as the president said, there is a credible military threat on the table. this is classic diplomacy. you back up a diplomatic entree with a military threat to force a bad actor to move. >> how's the administration and its surrogates who are making the case -- do you think they have made a convincing case that there could be a blow hit against the syrian regime on chemical weapons by using a military strike? i mean, i think you're right that they have persuaded the world that they are ready to shoot cruise missiles at syria even if the congress says no, and maybe that is what's pushed this diplomatic breakthrough forward. do you think they have really made the case that hitting syria with cruise missiles would have any effect on chemical weapons use in the future? >> i think they have began -- they have begun to make this case over the weekend. as the intelligence

something in the meantime of course the president of the united states knows he has the power to do this and i assume the president would move very canner -- very, very rapidly but feels we're stronger in getting the united states as a whole to gel around this policy, to fund it better, and to know what the strategy and is while the united states needs to do this. >> what if congress refuses to authorize action? what happens then? >> i don't believe that's going to happen. the stakes of upholding the international standard of behavior that has been in place since 1925, after world war i, that only adolph hitler and saddam hussein breached that in time of war since then and now assad joins them. i think to contemplate that the congress of the united states would turn its back on israel, on jordan, on turkey, on our allies in the region, turn its back on the innocent syrian people who have been slaughtered by this gas, and those who yet may be subject to an attack, if we don't stand up to this, i can't contemplate that the congress would turn its back on all of that responsibility and

but what exactly can the united states do if not the bombs, if not the missiles?e actual proposals is not all that long, but it is growing, and it turns out it's growing in a nonpartisan, non left/right kind of way. there's chris smith of new jersey, a republican congressman. he says he will vote against the use of force. his idea is instead he's introducing a bill to have the u.s. take the lead on organizing a syrian war crimes tribunal. would a syrian war crimes tribunal make the syrian regime cut out what they're doing? don't know, but that's his idea. the former u.n. weapons inspector, hans blix says the world should put pressure on all the countries shipping weapons to either side in the syrian civil war. he says the arm supplying countries have leverage with syria and we have some leverage with them and should use that leverage to start essentially a multilateral arms embargo. the folks at ezra klein's "wonk" blog" combed through the policies that might affect the situation in syria and suggested a series of steps for the u.s. specifically including us just

thank you, god bless you and god bless the united states of america. >>> almost exactly 15 minutes, the president of the united states doing his best to try to convince a very skeptical american public that what is happening in syria right now is, in fact, in the national security interest of the united states. we have complete analysis of what is going on. jake tapper is with us. jake is the correspondent of cnn and anchor of the lead. jake, did the president make the case to a lot of americans who don't see this as a major national security threat to the united states that the u.s. has to maintain that credible threat of military force in syria? >> well, i mean, one of the things that was so interesting about what he did this evening is he specifically addressed doubts, specific doubts, six or seven questions about why should we get involved? i've never heard a president talking about the need to show force, going through all the different arguments ticking down. so i don't know if he successfully made his case to the american people. according to polls the american people are convinced assad did this and it was wrong bu

really we can as the united states in its confrontation with iran claim if i go to you in washington if we do go down this diplomacy route for syria iran has to be involved now can the united states that down at the same negotiating table with other countries in the region with russia also and sit down and try to negotiate an end to the civil war because i know the around side would be willing to do that but does the united states have the political maturity to do that i mean that's one way to end this conflict if washington does want to see the suffering of the syrian people and we should and we must peter because this is the first time or at least after a long time that i believe that there is not a clenched fist on the other side president rouhani has very clearly made his intentions clear i believe that the world is a global willage and it does not do any harm to the credibility of the united states you know this question is brought up all the time that if we don't hit syria some credibility will be affected and i believe we need to understand that our credibility is also affected when te

the question is what should the united states do and where does that lead? >> reporter: president barack obama will be making his case to congress and the american people this week. >> i am glad he is going to make the speech. i think it is necessary and, i am proud of his courage. >> reporter: a lot of minds appear to be made up. >> i think force should be the last option after you exhaust all remedies. is this anything else to do? >> reporter: president barack obama may fail to sway the possible the issue. so far he refused to say whether or not he would act without congressional approval. >> president barack obama scheduled half a dozen network interviews tomorrow and a speech to the nation on tuesday. you can see it at 6:00 right here on kpix5. >>> it was psychotic weather. one at the coast and one inland. 100 degrees at the national park, 106 and yet relief is as close as the golden gate bridge as you look towards the golden gate you can not see it. there is too much fog and clouds. we will have the forecast for you after a break. ,,,, mom... yes honey?

. >> the united states military doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. >> and by the way, mr. president, how can you guarantee your tomahawk missile won't kill civilians and children? and don't give me that satellite laser thing. a thousand pound missile will bring down buildings and cause collateral damage well beyond your precise strike zone. but enter big bad vlad doing the putin pivot. a lifeline to assad and to the president of the united states. who knows that the american public and the international community is against him. mr. president, putin sees you as an easy mark, and he plays you like a fiddle. the president of the united states has been played, cornered. how? putin is the one supplying arms to assad and he wouldn't even hand over someone you consider a traitor after five weeks of negotiations. putin is the one offering the anti-missile defense system to keep us from hurtingsaw said. he called the secretary of state an outright liar. but today he's all al

. >> the united states military doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. >> and by the way, mr. president, how can you guarantee your tomahawk missile won't kill civilians and children? and don't give me that satellite laser thing. a thousand pound missile will bring down buildings and cause collateral damage well beyond your precise strike zone. but enter big bad vlad doing the putin pivot. a lifeline to assad and to the president of the united states. who knows that the american public and the international community is against him. mr. president, putin sees you as an easy mark, and he plays you like a fiddle. the president of the united states has been played, cornered. how? putin is the one supplying arms to assad and he wouldn't even hand over someone you consider a traitor after five weeks of negotiations. putin is the one offering the anti-missile defense system to keep us from hurtingsaw said. he called the secretary of state an outright liar. but today he's all al

united states intervenes in any foreign country? >> so should it? >> i think there's two sides to this argument, one is -- it is in the united states security interests to make sure the weapons of mass destruction do proliferate and that they are not used around the world. that is a long-term security interest. it's not something that gets achieved over a day or a year, and that's why the united states has worked pretty hard to put in place arms control regimes in order to make sure that certain types of weapons are not used. it actually makes war in some sense more humane. so i see that this is a long-term interest of the united states. now, you know, putting a long-term interest in front of a wa war-wary public is challenging. >> the argument over who is to blame in syria continues at this hour. in world war ii, and world war i chemical weapons were used, and that's when the world said never again. and here we are again at the brink of trying to determine whether they will ever be used again. is there room in the world as the world cop? >> i don't know anyone would accept the united states as the world's policeman, and i think that was an issue that president obama seems to be quite aware of, an

but what do they say about a possible military strike by the united states? do they support it? >> reporter: i have talked to dozens of egyptians in this past week. i have not met one that supports a strike against syria, despite their compassion for people who are gassed in the chemical weapons attack. they talk about iraq, that the u.s. intelligence is fall si. and that iraq has descended back into sectarian strife and is exporting jihadi terrorists to syria and some may fear to egypt. the other thing, hari, is that this is exacerbated here by the strongest anti-americanism i have ever felt. the pro-military ouster of morsi camp feels strongly that if the obama administration coddles president morsi as he became more and more autocatic, morsi supporters, muslim brotherhood supporters went to a rally and angrily said to me, why won't your president call what happened a coup? it's coming from both sides. and that's made itself felt on us. we've been thrown out of restaurants. we've had our local producer called a traitor to egypt for working with us. so there is not much of a fe

rights violations that take place around the world and why aren't we doing something about it and they always look to the united states. why isn't the united states doing something about this? the most powerful nation on earth. why are you allowing these terrible things to happen? and then if the international community turns around when we're saying it's time to take some responsibility and says, well, hold on a second, we are not sure, that erodes our ability to maintain the kind of norms that we are looking at. i know that was a lengthy answer and you had a second part of your question. the conversation i had with president putin was on the margins of the plan recession and it was a candid and constructive conversation which characterizes my relationship with him. as i've said before, i know everybody is trying to look for body language and all that, but the truth of the matter is my interactions with him tend to be very straightforward. we discussed syria. and that was primarily the topic of the discussion. mr. snowden did not come up, beyond me re-emphasizing where we have common interest, i think it's important

. >> in a way, exacting pressure on obama, indicating that if the united states doesn't do what the united states undertook to do israel might have to do itself. this that pressure needs to be there has to be an american pressure on iran and there has to be an israeli pressure on america. >>> back in the u.s., rescue efforts continue in colorado after days of rain caused massive flooding. at least six people are presumed dead and more than 700 are unaccounted for. another 2,000 have been evacuated from their homes. more rain today crowneded rescue helicopters. possible showers are in the forecast for tomorrow. >>> in birmingham, alabama, services to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1963 church bombing that killed four teenaged girls. hundreds of people, both black and white, gather ted 16th street baptist church to mark the convenient. there was also a wreath-laying service. among those in attendance were eric holder, the nation's first african-american attorney general, and condoleezza rice. at the time of the bombing, she was 8 years old and a playmate of one of the victims. revul

people have argued with some validity that this is in part a consequence of the united states doing very little. i begin from the premise that the world is not a perfect lace. when the united states doesn't some forces that are dark are evil in many cases will fill the vacuum. take yourer hand, i point. we've got to be really careful about saying what are the likely consequences in syria if we do certain things? what kind of outcomes might we set in motion? american use of military force be responded to? those are exactly the right questions to ask. going to get answers you can be 100% confident of. there is always a degree of unpredictability. you cannot throw up your hand and say it is too hard. you have to take your least had choice that is available to you. >> we both agree that this debate about syria, what to do or not to do, u.s. diplomacy or engagement or like they are -- thereof, did not start with obama drawing this line, but i certainly do not see drawing a line and daring someone to cross it as diplomacy. in my neighborhood, we call that playing a game of chicken. once you lo

. >> the united states military doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. >> and by the way, mr. president, how can you guarantee your tomahawk missile won't kill civilians and children? and don't give me that satellite laser thing. a thousand pound missile will bring down buildings and cause collateral damage well beyond your precise strike zone. but enter big bad vlad doing the putin pivot. a lifeline to assad and to the president of the united states. who knows that the american public and the international community is against him. mr. president, putin sees you as an easy mark, and he plays you like a fiddle. the president of the united states has been played, cornered. how? putin is the one supplying arms to assad and he wouldn't even hand over someone you consider a traitor after five weeks of negotiations. putin is the one offering the anti-missile defense system to keep us from hurtingsaw said. he called the secretary of state an outright liar. but today he's all al

secretary kerry revealed on cnn on the preceding show that the united states now has independent confirmation of sarin signatures. do you believe that this case is now both clear and important enough for the united states to act? >> i think the fact is that we are very heavily committed to act. presidential leadership is at stake. american credibility is at stake. i think the worst outcome would be now to act indecisively. the vote in congress, for example, if it turns out to be split evenly or if there's a very heavy vote against it will further complicate issues. i hope the united states acts now in keeping with its commitment. it has made a commitment. i hope congress supports the president. i hope we then close the chapter on two years, as you have correctly described them, are very inept performance by the united states internationally. we now have to think in a larger perspective. we have to ask ourselves is the region sliding into an explosion. and what can we do, together with others, to avert that. >> richard, is it possible for us to make this move, to do the strike, because at this point not to do it woul

does this mean the interpret community might consign or russia or the united states or both of us to actually do the job. because we're prepared in the united states to do the job. we've got mobile equipment that can move out and can destroy as much as 25 tons a day of chemical weapons on site. so the technical aspects of this have not been well explained. but nevertheless our defense department does have the capability. the question, however, is who will actually be assigned to do that. will the united states have that opportunity. >> the question is the president said no boots on the ground. well, if we were to go in under a blue helmet, u.n. umbrella, whatever, that would be americans in an international force. we have the best expertise. do you think there would be political support for that? >> i would think so. i think the entire set of questions has arisen suddenly in part because the president threatened an attack given the fact that the norm against use of chemical weapons has been violated. this has led vladimir putin as well as assad to understand this is a time in which the governmen

of the united nations is not going odo that because russia and china will not grant the united states the right to do that. therefore, the united states is going in without united nations backing. >> thank you very much, professor galvan thank you very much for joining us this morning. >>> former egyptian president mohammed morsi will stand trial. morsi is accused of inciting violence, are 14 other members of the muslim brotherhood are to be tried beside him. morsi has been kept out of the public eye since being pushed out by the military on july 3rd. >>> firefighters are fighting the fire outside of yosemite and say they are making progress. a fleet of aircraft is dropping water and retardant chemicals to stop the fire from spreading. so far it's burned out of 350 square miles in the two weeks it's been burning. are. >>> we are looking at some dessert rating conditions on the tropical northeast. let me show you a map right now and show you what we can expect to see over the next couple of hours. notice all the rain coming over the great lakes building in over parts of new england as well. that is go

the president of the united states has said that assad must go, and this is the policy of the united states. but we do not believe that this military action the president has decided to take should be more than an effort to try to deter and prevent the use of chemical weapons and to degrade his capacity to use those weapons. so the military operation is not calculated to become involved in the effort to topple him, but the political operation and the support for the opposition is. and the president of the united states, as you know, has declared that we will provide additional support to the opposition. we do not believe there is any scenario under which assad can continue with any kind of authority whatsoever to govern in syria. and so, yes, the policy is politically through the geneva process, through our commitment to the ultimate negotiated settlement that will have to take place, there is no future for assad in that governance. but this military operation is specifically geared to prevent a future chemical attack and to deter and to degrade the assad capacity to be able to do that. now let me be

united states, we have always had a basic bargain. we expect you and your family to work hard, but when you do, we reward that hard work opportunity. , in more than just words. i know that from my own life. in the convention, i spoke about my grandmother. my grandmother came over in the united states as a six year-old orphan from mexico. she dropped out in elementary school, and because of that, she ended up working as a maid and and itter her whole life, and my brother grew up with my iandmother and my mother, and weember on april 3, 1992, got tito real packets in the mail, and these were from stanford university. publicgone through the schools of san antonio, and we said, you know what? we are going to try to apply to the best schools in the united states, and on that date, we got that acceptance letter, and a couple of weeks later, we actually got the bill. it cost $20,000 per person to be able to attend stanford university. and my mother was making less than $20,000 that year, and my grandmother was getting a few hundred dollars in a social security check, and here were those two women, birth of whom -- both of whom had worked ver

course, the president of the united states knows he has the power to do this. d i assume the president would move very, very rapidly, but he feels we are stronger in gets the united states as a whole to gel around policy to understand it better and to know what the strategy is and what the united states needs. i don't believe that's going to happen. i think the stakes of upholding the international standard of behavior in place since 1925 after world war i, only adolf hitler and saddam hussein have reached out in a time of war. ipg to come template the united states would turn its back on israel, jordan, turkey, turn its back on the innocent syrian people that have been slaughtered by this gas and those who what whey be subject to an attack, if we don't stand up to this, i can't contemplate that the president would turn its back and the fact we would have granted impunity to a ruthless dictator who continues to gas his people. those are the stakes. i don't believe the congress will do that. >> mr. secretary, you make it sound as if this is the plan. you made a p