taxes and one on infrastructure, strikes me at muscular policy. the triang gooization example with clinton is interesting. clinton triangulated until he faced an impeachment debate and he needed to be a democrat again. by the way, a little effort. wasn t it? nervousness. right. he had to cultivate support back with his base, days of undulation ended. this is quite true. how what do you tell congressional friends? on the republican side of the aisle? how should they i mean handle this. happens with supporters. willing to support a d.r.e.a.m. act if they can get something out of it. you see a lot of trump supporters saying, well, we re okay with a d.r.e.a.m. act if we get funding for use of leverage. and remember housing about $1.6 billion already for fencing. so did femme democrats are willing to go along. i hear from democrats that if it s border security money and some of the money could go for
finance acid control designates who contributed to the sale of explosives to syria. talk about iran and that relationship there. after president trump delivered u.s. air strikes obviously delivering a very strong bold message to the assad were jame, what does he do to send a similar message to iran? and china by the way considering that china-based network was also designated by them for supporting iran s military by supplying millions of dollars worth of missile applicable items. that s exactly right. in iranian defense official who was designated for supplying not just explosives but also was supporting their very research center in syria responsible for chemical weapons attacks on serious people. so what the trump administration needs to do is continue to do what they are doing which is a much more muscular policy where they recognize the assad regime is a close iran ally, it s not an ally in the war against isis, they need to rollback the aggression in lebanon and yemen
post 9/11 you showed where new republicans would be. it was a more muscular policy the dick cheney policy marco rubio clearly put his feet in that camp. ted cruz goes back and forth on some of these issues. lindsey graham is in that camp. george pataki on this program yesterday, former governor of new york, we think of him as moderate to more liberal republican. george pataki saying look at the isis threat look at the isis gains, maybe the president of the united states the next commander in chief if the next one won t do it think about ground troops. i don t want to see us put in a million soldiers spend ten years, a trillion dollars trying to create a democracy where one hasn t existed. but send in troops destroy their training centers, destroy their recruitment centers, destroy the area where they are looking to plan to attack us here and then get out. and leave a little note behind you come back so will we. again, a fascinating, interesting and important substantive divide amon
evidence. we do have varying degrees of confidence. let me clarify, we re trying to find out if there is, in fact, a credible verifiable c right. joining now is nbc s amon, and michael o hanlon at the brookings institution. welcome to you both. mike, we ve seen democrats and republicans press the mpresiden to take action. european and middle eastern countries, too. how long can the administration wait for a definitive judgment to quote jay carney, before the pressure to do something becomes overwhelming? you know, martin, it s a great question because i think the administration may have to quote/unquote do something, but it doesn t necessarily mean we re going to intervene the way advocates of a much more muscular policy would prefer. i could imagine the president saying it looks as if a small number of people were, indeed, hurt by chemical weapons, that s