Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Let's turn out a couple of political pros for their reaction there inside Mary Kate -- jones' former speechwriter for president George H.
And Paul or -- -- -- the former speechwriter for President Bill Clinton and thank you both for being with us you're both in Washington DC -- right on -- Mary Kate you know first the president.
You know was going to act albeit reluctantly he you know step to the -- to about two.
Undertaken approve a military tactical strike in any steps back and -- and I gonna do -- and let congress decide.
And now of course there is this Russian offer.
So on the one hand initially the president is accused of indecision vacillation in -- closeness and now.
He's accused of foreign policy by accident at accidental diplomatic resolution.
-- If it's sincere so what do you make of this.
Well from a speech writer's point -- -- Greg this is a serious physical job I mean.
Look at the changes -- in the last 24 hours since the White House announced there was going to be an Oval Office address you know.
Because the vote in congress has been delayed the UN is now involved.
All the things -- Peter just said it is going on.
I assume these -- White House speechwriters are -- draft number 42.
I I doubt any -- -- got any sleep last night I just think having an ad hoc process going on.
Where you're supposed to be rhetorically.
Makes it really really hard -- -- speech I -- Paul.
-- the Bill Clinton.
Took a completely different tax.
I can think of three different military incursions.
Any seem to be very steadfast and decisive when he undertook them Afghanistan.
Somalia and of course in the Balkans.
This president again.
Is being accused of utter.
Not indifference but in decision.
And vacillation and you see some of that.
Well you -- -- great week we always remember the the end result of any military action we often forget.
The beginning of it and you know I would actually powder when president Clinton's leadership on the coast of -- Which was very similar to the way the Obama administration is suggesting we approach area here which is.
-- -- campaign very targeted for very specific reason but he went to NATO and you know he had considerable support.
This president did not.
Well it I think the political jujitsu here is that.
On one hand we are talking about this is a moral threat and a threat to national security.
And on the other hand we're talking about a limited strike.
To counter that -- question because.
Are you doing this to punish the people responsible for killing 14100 people including 400 children chemical weapons.
Or is it to prevent it from happening again I think that we are working toward a solution right now I think -- president tonight it's incumbent on him from the Oval Office to talk about.
What are the stakes involved including the history what is the mission to find very it's very safely what are the goals.
What is the exit strategy and what are the consequences for an action if we don't do something here know what it.
And Mary Kate what -- is a great many Americans is that they do realize there are excessive.
Crimes and atrocities that occur elsewhere in yet the United States does little or nothing.
IT -- happens to be one of them.
I mean this stuff happens.
Albeit not with chemical weapons.
Up all of the time ending in greater numbers of of deaths and murders.
-- how do you square that -- -- the death of 14100 people in Syria.
Well one of one of the problems that they have speechwriters -- tonight that I think is common in any of these speeches especially these military wants.
This is not a closed door you know democratic fund raiser where you've got all your people and -- rim and you know exactly what they want to hear.
But tonight the president will be addressing multiple audiences.
All with different agendas like you're talking about.
Some people are you know just your average American -- you've got military people listening he's got our allies listening.
He's got the enemy listening and and one thing that you would say to the American people for example saying this would be an unbelievably small strike.
Is not something you would want the Syrian regime to -- And so so that's what you're you're going to -- how do you stay consistent and yet address all these audiences at the same time you don't really difficult as I.
Out exe and I had at that great of a good.
That to me this is what makes talk -- -- post America world so naive it's impossible to imagine China ever standing up on a moral issue facing the world.
And take a principled case and the people -- action.
This you know that the prohibition against chemical weapons have served and protected our troops since World War I.
In in it in future actions if dictators believe that they can use these.
Without any of consequences.
You know our troops to be at -- so you know there is say there is a case to be made.
That America does -- -- it would -- the moral effort against us and that's what we're doing very Kate.
Even general DNC.
In testifying recently before congress admitted.
That -- be -- aside.
Has likely we'll continue to likely move his assets around.
It makes it very difficult for the US military.
To would you achieve the the kind of strike it could've.
Had it done so earlier -- -- or excuse me we got an email here let me just read one of our email chats.
Senator chat rooms Greg asked them if we are just stalling does Obama think that if he just draws this out.
He'll be -- book what about that.
Well you know Ali you know it's what I know -- -- and -- and that is working for President Bush 41 and there was a very different.
Scenario that I think is applicable here which is right after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
With -- order of business was the president got the NSC lined up behind him and the joint chiefs.
He then went to our allies he then took them to the UN got -- UN Security Council resolution.
Then he addressed a joint session of congress and got the American people behind him.
Telling them all the diplomatic progress he had me.
Then when the diplomacy failed and he had to send in troops.
Then he asked for a vote from congress and -- at 5247.
Immediately before the airstrikes began and there was no guessing or you know nobody disorders of -- -- that -- right urinary knowing what's gonna.
It's apples and oranges -- talking about the eviction of Iraqi troops from Kuwait which required.
American and coalition troops on the ground to do it that's different than a well tactical strike to take out some assets.
For chemical weapons -- Trip to the point is that there was not an ad hoc process that was muddying up argument and the rhetoric.
It is a very mentally let me ask his decision let me put up on the screen a series both.
-- and Chris let's put up 12 and three of succession because they speak volumes about the attitude leads the American public.
Has to all of this when asked in this just came out yesterday evening Fox News poll.
The president's handling in a serial look at that.
I mean 60%.
Of -- scant 29%.
Approve go to the next one.
Using US military force into.
But look 52% oppose the next 161%.
Half helping entire government -- 67%.
Look at that believe that Syrian government used double what -- yes everybody agrees they didn't they just don't.
Seem to be in favor of the United States getting involved so Paul.
As the president in some ways either failed to make.
And he's been talking about this now for the better part of three weeks.
Or is he he sort of bungled.
It well -- I think we know that Middle East has been the Bane of every president's poll numbers for at least half a century now and you know the last thing the American people want is more involvement in the Middle East you know it is not just Afghanistan want -- actually belongs entry.
Because United States is always have in the store brawl that win.
Dictators push a line pass -- the world believes.
Is acceptable is is threatens the security and that freedom of other people the United States unfortunately -- always -- put in the position of leading their spots and in this case it's moral question of whether the indiscriminate killing women and children with the weapons that are designed to kill women and children -- -- that is definitely all the time -- -- they are well armed attacks that congress though.
Federal want urges to exit.
The purpose of chemical weapons is to drop a bomb and have -- kill as many people and that that range is possible.
It it's -- it's the United Nations has determined more than half a century ago that chemical weapons are different what we saw during World War I -- in the trenches was different bullets did well -- what Olivia -- decide what happens -- -- the United Nations that nations of the world for the United Nations.
-- can have cast their voice united and that this is eight.
This is something different is what we have the capital -- of chemical weapons.
You know convention if it's always been different that definition has been in place for more than half a century because United States is not a position of upholding that committed to the world.
Once -- the states is in position that we've been in the past which is.
We are the leading voice in the world standards and -- all fortunately presidents get put in the middle of that that's where we are now well we're gonna see the president squarely in the middle and on television tonight and in front of millions of Americans Paul or -- -- and Mary Kate Cary.
-- -- -- thank you so much for being with us today appreciate it thanks for -- for having us.
Filter by section