0 cnn's complete coverage of the president's speech continues now on "ac 360" later. making the case for a military strike on syria promising it would neither be too big nor too small but crucially signalling his willingness to accept russian proposal for a diplomatic way out. >> over the last few days we've seen some encouraging signs. in part because of the credible threat of u.s. military action as well as constructive talks that i had with president putin, the russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing assad to give up his chemical weapons. the assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said they'd join the chemical weapons convention which prohibits their use. it's too early to tell whether this offer will succeed. and any agreement must verify that the assad regime keeps its commitments. but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because russia is one of assad's strongest allies. i have therefore asked the leaders of congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. i'm sending secretary of state john kerry to meet his russian counterpart on thursday, and i will continue my own discussions with president putin. i've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, france and the united kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with russia and china to put forward a resolution at the u.n. security council requiring assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control. >> that's obviously a big shift from the all-out push for military action we thought as recently a day and a half ago we'd be hearing about tonight. before secretary of state kerry made his remarks about syria handing over its chemical arsenal, before russia said good idea and put forth its plan, before syria seemed to say okay. and everybody was scrambling to figure out the parameters of a deal. how do we implement it, verify it, trust russia. it's all on the table. chief international correspondent christiane amanpour -- andrew sullivan, editor-at-large fareed zakaria and anne marie slaughter. andrew, what did you think of the speech? >> i thought it was terrific. i was moved by it, persuaded by it. i think it put the chronology in the right order. if we'd been told this spring watching assad doing these little chemical weapons and the gassiness there, this fall because of american action the russians would be enforcing both the fact that syria has declared it has chemical weapons and that syria is actually prepared to join the chemical weapons convention, and that the russia is prepared to take the responsibility along with other members of the security council to enforce it, we would think it was a miracle. >> do you believe russia? do you believe -- >> yes. and here's one reason i believe russia. they have reason to be scared of those chemical weapons, too. because the one thing those rebels hate in that country is russia at this point. next on the line after if they were to gain power and some extremist elements would gain control of it, after the alawites and christians the russians would be the target of these weapons. putin gets to both take the credit and also control these weapons. and ultimately destroy them. i don't mind if it takes months or even years. at this point is assad going to use those weapons again? with russia and iran now looking at him, expecting him to abide by this? i don't think so. >> christiane? >> i believe it's because finally diplomacy was enacted with the credible threat of force behind it. and having talked to many many people today, they believe that president obama during the g-20 made it very clear to president putin that this time he was serious and there were going to be military consequences as limited and targeted as he describes. but nonetheless, the threat of force worked. think how it may have been had this threat of force been used along with diplomacy many many months and years ago in this civil war. i also think that knowing the way that it's being programmed all over the world the speech it was being viewed in syria, they immediately put up a big banner. their headline in syria was that obama postpones the vote while he seeks a diplomatic solution. they never said that he's keeping his military posture, that they're ready to strike if he gives the order. i think that that's interesting as well. i think that what andrew said, it's going to be very very interesting to see whether this is something that can be verified. i know you're going talk to david kay whether inspectors can go in in the middle of a civil war, and whether the russians are really going to police this in a neutral way or are they going to be the continued apologist for bashar al assad. >> do you think the president needed to go ahead and make the speech tonight? this was clearly a speech scheduled before, when military action seemed to be imminent. >> i think he wanted to make it. clearly he needed to shore up his position, that is the position that this was serious, this was a threat to international security, this was a threat to american security. i think at the end of the day, though, it has made his case much more difficult. and even though he made a very eloquent and intelligent speech as he often does, i think it would be difficult for me to believe that three or four weeks from now if we are haggling with the russians over the wording of a u.n. resolution and the russians say we don't want this phrase because it might imply the threat of force and the united states says no, no, no, we must have that phrase because that is precisely what gives teeth to this resolution and those talks collapse, the president can go to the world and the american people and say, let's go and use force. >> you're saying he cannot? >> i think it would be tough. because what, the russians didn't agree to your particular wording? there is now the possibility of a diplomatic path. as andrew says, it maybe it will take weeks and months, and i think it will be quite difficult. because imagine -- remember the iraq inspections. those guys were going in there, it was incredibly -- >> we'll talk to david kay. >> they didn't have -- the country was not at civil war. >> right. >> so all i'm saying is two or three weeks from now can you say, remember that case i was making for war? let's come back to that. >> you don't believe that, andrew? >> no. i think if that were to happen and this initiative were to stall or falter if there was exactly the scenario you put forward, the president can say, i tried everything. we tried diplomacy. we didn't rush to war. that's the context. he doesn't want to go to war. if you can achieve your goal without going to war, great. i think you were right, christiane, and i was wrong. >> you were opposed to military action until about a week ago? >> i still am basically. except obama has persuaded me this is such a horrifying thing -- >> that was a moving part of his speech actually the description of the children, the writhing, the scenes that we've seen in graphic detail. i think that was really important. as one who's actually covered the genocide in bosnia, in rwanda, who's been to iraq during the whole chemical weapons fiasco some the '90s, whose watched the u.s. deploy limited strikes, again we could talk to david kay about the success of those. it is really important to remember that this is a major moral issue, not to mention a major issue of american leadership and credibility around the world. and i think he made that pretty clear. >> i want to stick on the politics. i want to talk to dana bash in a second. there was something he said talking to people on the left, talking to people on the right. let's just play that part of the speech. >> to my friends on the right, i ask you to reconcile your commitment to america's military might with the failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. to my friends on the left, i ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor. for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. indeed, i'd ask every member of congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the united states of america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way? >> a lot of the twitter response from conservatives they follow on twitter was this is a speech that is not going to change anybody's mind. i want to bring in our chief congressional correspondent dana bash on capitol hill. what are you hearing from representatives on capitol hill? >> so far sources in both parties are saying basically what you just said. that they don't think that ultimately this is going to change or at least initially this will change people's minds. one i was just told is that in the lunch that happened today with democratic senators and the president, some democratic senators were trying to get the president to actually play some of that video which he just described which we have seen on cnn and of course the government has put it out sort of officially now to try to make that point. and he of course said this is a primetime address. not for kids. but the moral point that he tried to hit home with definitely the one i think people were most happy about who support the idea of being more robust with syria. >> anderson, i think that while it may be true initially that people are not -- don't change their minds. because the moral case is one i think americans understand. they feel assad is a terrible person. what is happening is gruesome and barbaric. he's killed people in an equally gruesome manner with conventional weapons. what i think was very persuasive to me as somebody who's been cautious about getting engaged in a very complicated civil war was the president's very disciplined way in which he said, this is not going to be iraq, not going to be afghanistan, not even going to be libya. in other words, this is going to be a very limited, curtailed strike that is meant to deter assad from ever using these weapons again. because it would be a sign that he would invoke the wrath of the united states and strikes from the united states. so he was very clear about saying, we're not going to get involved in this war. we're not going to escalate. this is not open-ended. that would be i think quite unsatisfying -- >> does anybody ever go into a war saying this is going to be a quagmire? >> you keep saying that. but there is precedent for these limited strikes. and as the president said -- and it's true because we've seen it before, we've seen it in iraq -- that even a limited targeted strike by the mightiest military in the world will have disproportionate effects and consequences on a tin pot dictated in syria. >> that is why he's so concerned. >> correct. i would like to ask dana something. i interviewed congressman van holland today about this whole idea of a vote. i asked do you think there will be a vote. now we see the president has actually postponed a vote. he said he was putting forth a resolution that would have a 30-day grace period to allow the president's diplomacy to work and then after that to presumably get the power or backing from congress. i mean, at this point is there any hope that the president would win a vote? >> win a vote on something like that is much more of a possibility than what he initially asked congress for which is just a plain old authorization for force. that simply wasn't going to happen. and that is, let's be honest here, that is the big reason why the president came to congress here today and i'm told even the republican lunch he attended with republic senators, he asked them to, quote, press the pause button. he doesn't want to have an embarrassment not just politically it would be bad for him but what you all are talking about. the whole idea of diplomacy would be undermined he think if there wasn't a credible threat of force. yes, that's the potential in the house, christiane. also something similar in the senate. i was just talking to senator bob menendez who said they're working on this. they are waiting to see what happens with john kerry and lavrov to see if this moves. >> i really wonder if the folks on capitol hill can figure out that it is actually the threat of force which has brought the possibility of a diplomatic solution and whether as frederik harper former obama administration official told me today if in their wisdom congress removes from the president this ability to keep the threat up this diplomatic initiative will be gone with the wind in his words. >> why would it be gone with the wind? >> it's already in place. >> they don't have to do anything. just postponing the vote. >> that's what i want to know. whether that is making any impression up there. >> it absolutely is. and i think that even people who are against this, christiane, this idea of military force, are admitting that the only reason why the russians are in discussions is because of the threat of force. >> and you don't believe gentlemen, that if this threat of force was removed from the table that assad and the russians would simply fritter away and this would be gone with the wind? are you kidding me? >> there's no point in having congress vote now. they're postponing the vote. so what's the point of having the vote now? >> i'm not saying now. would they have a vote? >> the threat of a military strike is already done its work. >> what do you mean? >> it created this opening. the russians would not have blinked if he hadn't threatened the force. >> it has to stay on the table, andrew. >> they've already made such huge concessions. i would make one other point about congress here. and obama's leadership and his style. he has come out and said, this is what i think. what he normally does is say, what do you think? what do you think? he's allowed russia, france, britain, even places like germany to contribute to this debate, and he's allowed the congress finally to exert their right to debate this deliberation and wisdom. that's a constitutional democracy. >> we'll talk about this more when we come back. we have the results of an instant poll coming up on the speech. all the angles and implications of what president obama said tonight. next i want to drill down deeper into the practicalities of some are calling the practical -- the impossibility of implementing a deal with the assad regime and dismantling the chemical arsenal in a timely manner. and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts, and stole her hard-earned money. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft. and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. lifelock offers the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified before it was too late. lifelock's credit notification service is on the job 24/7. as soon as they detect a threat to your identity within their network, they will alert you, protecting you before the damage is done. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. my years as a prosecutor taught me that we all need to protect ourselves from crime. in today's world, that includes identity theft. it's a serious problem. we all have to protect ourselves. [ male announcer ] while identity theft can't be completely stopped, no one works harder to protect you than lifelock. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and get 60 days of identity theft protection risk free. that's right. 60 days risk free. use promo code notme. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value free. don't wait until you become the next victim. ♪ ♪