Almost everyone in power claims to believe it. The push to war in syria, by the way has united politicians have both sides. Lindsey graham and howard dean typically agree on very little. Not much at all. But today they are both calling for war in syria. Graham is ghanelding massive attacks on the syrian military, dean is going even further than that on twitter, he called the president , quote a wimp for merely sending thousands of troops and launching tons of bombs at syria. Thats not enough for howard dean who you may remember once ran for president as the peace candidate. Tonight he wants total war in syria. Television pundits, of course, strongly agree. This morning the Foreign Policy team over on Msnbc Exexplained that its far more important for american troops to fight in syria than it is to secure our own border here in america u watch. There is no question that now all these years later is Donald Trumps challenge. He has to take action. He has spoken to macron. What he ought too
security interest that would be changed by regime change. can you think of downsides, death, cost, et cetera. how would this country become safer by overthrowing assad. i m not sure regime change is still our goal there it was the goal of barack obama and hasn t really been our stated goal during this trump administration. but, defeating isis in iraq and in syria is still our goal. and i think that is in the national interest. tucker: but wasn t defeating isis one of the goals of the assad government? of course, isis was a radical sunni group. assad is allied with the shiites. he was fighting isis as well. why wouldn t we if we believe isis is the main enemy, functionally find ourselves on the side of assad? well, you re correct in this sense. and you are correct in many ways. it s complicated in syria. there is no question about
improve the odds they can win quickly. when making decisions in day-to-day life, i tack a legal pad and put the pros on one side and the cons on the other side. the cons involved with getting involved take up more than a page, it s astounding. you re right, and one thing no one is talking about, anyone the washington post editorial that jennifer alluded to, what is the end game here? the idea of overthrowing assad that s not the end. that s no more the end than saddam being overthrown in 2003 was the end in iraq. you have to have a strategy for what you do next, and since we know we don t want to do another big invasion with u.s.-led you have to have some kind of strategy. my best suggestion is something like bosnia, where you try to negotiate potentially a power share organize soft partition of the country and have some kind of international force to help implement and observe the deal once it was struck between the parties. but whether you like my idea or not, that s just a sug
about this? it comes after the white house told lawmakers if believes syria used chemical weapons on its own people but they re not sure. that s what they said last week. president obama said that be a game-changer, which has not changed. jennifer griffin at the pentagon. what is the context here? is this a big deal or offhanded remark or what? well, shepard, no. i think he actually indicated where the white house and the pentagon where their thoughts are right now. the white house and pentagon are essentially looking at three options. they re looking to set up a no-fly zone, or limited air strikes or arming the rebels or in combination. defense secretary hagel said, standing next to the british defense secretary, gave an indication which way the white house and pentagon are leaning. you are rethinking the administration is rethinking its opposition to arming the rebels. yes. today, as assad s forces moved into homes. the washington post editorial
Detailed text transcripts for TV channel - MSNBC - 20130904:21:13:00 comparemela.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from comparemela.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.