tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC April 8, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
getting reassigned? >> i think it is that you're reading. >> more report as the former breitbart publisher good evening from new york. president trump woke up to praise as much of the television and many members of congress. at least one of whom is now comparing trump to the most beloved republican president in modern america. >> all i can say about this president, he has the instincts of ronald reagan in many ways. he is an emotion nol man but also a very smart fan. i think he feels he did the right thing by those children. >> i think the message of new
sheriff in town. >> i appreciate what the president did. it was important mess andage message to assad. >> i had a conversation with the president. i told him i was really proud of our nation and thanked him for taking the steps he had taken. i told him i was very proud of him also. >> critics are marking his intervention as a reversal. >> now she wants to start a shooting war in syria in
conflict with nuclear armed russia that would very well lead to world war iii. he was twoeting things like this, do not attack syria. trump oz saying the rest of the world needs to fend for itself. >> i'm not and i don't want to be the president of the world. i'm the president of the united states. from now on it's going to be america first. >> that was then. now a pro-trump super pack is fundraising a you have to the international military intervention. at least some of trump's base is furious about the strikes and suchi jumping off the trump train.
>> it's about judgment. i didn't want to go into iraq and i fought it. >> are you for invading iraq? here he is on libya. >> it is killing thousands of people. nobody knows how bad it is. we should go in. it would be very easy and very quick. we could do it surgically and save these lives. >> he said i was in fay very of libya? we would be so much better off in gadhafi were in charge right now. >> what is constant about donald trump is he is very easily w
wayed. now trump is being praised for being decisive and showing strength. what less son do you think he is going to learn from that? >> look, what happened was horrible. i think we could have done a lot of things before we actually went to strikes. we should have tried on assad and russia. if and when there was no other measures left then we could have considered doing this. i don't know what's going to happen. i don't know what the strategic next step is going to be.
what happens when it gets escalated where syria starting attacks that are operating with some of our rebel allies. it can get pretty quickly out of hand. trump owes an explanation about what is the plan here. >> i wonder if you have a feeling about where the legal authority -- hello, can you hear me, congressman? hello? it appears we have lost the congressman. let's try to get him back. joining me now is former senior communications director it reminded me of this phrase called the blob. it is his and the president's vu there is a permanent policy
establishment and that it was the job of the president to put the brakes on them. what do you think about that? >> i think that's a correct observation. i saw secretary kerry work his heart and soul out to try to get a peace agreement in syria. it was frustrating. what was the most awful humanitarian. something needed to be done to change the equation in the middle east. regardless of president trump's motives, now, the fact that it gives him warning that our allies see an empowered u.s., i saw how disappointed they were when we did not bomb. they are now feeling like we are back in the becagame. >> you just anunsuated to me the
most terrifying phrase. it was something needed to be done. it is precisely the impulse the bipartisan tends to share. it is what he was talking about. we are always doing. >> he was explaining that the president didn't bomb after he said he would. the administration including my boss, secretary kerry. he said we shouldn't attack people to maintain our credibility but in fact credibility does matter in the international sphere. >> i want you to respond to this. there was a sort of up surge of a kind of foreign policy back when john kerry was pushing this very hard. listen to jason's explanation
for his no vote on syria four years ago. >> this is the civil war. i just don't know that the injection of the united states military, the greatest military on the face of the planet is going to solve the problem or lead to something much bigger. i see long-term ramifications by injecting ourselves into a civil war. it could be terribly naive to think to send a tomahawk missile in. if the united states gets involved it will go on far long time. >> halast night he was tweeting u. u.s.a. >> i agree with the 2013 jason and the 2013 donald trump who said you needed to get congressional authorization before going to war. much like barack obama said. he said you needed to get
congressional authorization before instigated an act of war or initiating hostilitiehostili. both parties have been hypocrites. i look back and i think they were upset because he promised to get all of the troops to end the war in afghanistan. he promised so many things. >> and you talk about it and someone at the state department. there is a question of legality here. i saw john mccain trying to say that the 2001 covers the strikes against assad. there is a lot it might cover but that's how the obama administration interpreted it also. >> against assad? >> basically anything we were going to do we were using that to justify those actions. >> just to be clear that was
drafted and passed after we were struck in 9/11 for associated forces. >> i'm glad to use that phrase. assad is literally bombing al qaeda. do we have the congressman back? >> i'm here. >> oh, great. >> i want to ask you this question about authorization. what do you think about the idea in you served and you're a veteran yourself. it would cover air strikes against assad? >> certainly not against assad. i believe there is enough connection between al qaeda that justifies it. if you're going after assad regime we need to come back to
congress we need to know what the plan is. we need to know where this is going before it escalates to where any of us want to gochlt. >> the point congressman made there, isis is a plausible way of interpreting associated forces there. >> yeah. >> so what do you think about the sort of -- the kind of next step idea and particularly the sort of ways in which -- i'm curious the ways in which becoming president and being part of the sort of institutional -- >> part of it, i do think the process of how that works. we have heard about that and actually doesn't get you to the best decisions. he approached it from a very
small conservative idea, he always came out on the side, yes, it will make things worse. that is a problem. as you said, we do not have a plan b right now. there is no plan for regime change. the vacuum attracted the worst most awful terrorist groups in there. we don't have the moderate opposition anymore. there are not a lot of good choices. >> you don't seem to have a plan a. >> what we are looking at, when you look at military situations you need a goal and you need an exit strategy. it doesn't appear we have any of those lined up. everybody is engaging. we had a strike and if successful the american people will probably be aplaplauding t president for it. the american people aren't going
to like it. they don't like the fact that we still have troops in afghanistan and troops in iraq. it is unbelievable. it is something that the american public don't like. >> brian's point there, what do you think of that in terms of what your constituents what to see? they are probably home now, i would imagine, what your task is in guiding this policy going forward. >> my constituents were horri horrified by the attack. at the same time they are wary of war. they saw what happened that got us into the iraq war. right now we are bombing people that are fighting assad and bombing some of the people that were supporting, where is that th going to go? how does it all end?
again, why didn't we bomb? right now it is still launching attacks on rebel-held areas. it wasn't a military strategic reason. it was a symbolic reason. after exhausting all of those then going to military option. i think one of my fears will always take that first. i don't think that's responsible leadership. di ploemt si requires all levels of tools and not just the world as an answer. >> all right. thank you all. still so come, first he was reportedly you recollecturked. he wasn't -- why it really matters ahead. the president says the strike was in national security
prime minister warned we are on the verge of a military clash. this sent a warship carrying cruise missiles into the mediterranean. russia says it is that helps avoid midair collisions over syria. u.s. officials used it giving them time to a evacuate. russia said they were shutting it down. joining me now is andrew. during the last few years helped form the defense policies.
it is titled the fight against the islamic state just got harder. >> there are two ways the russians can respond here. one is okay. we see what you did. we'll both carry on. the other is okay. we will now counter escalate and withdraw our cooperation to make your life really hard as you try to keep striking isis targets. >> i think that's fair. i think if i had to bet i would bet it would be more towards the former. there could be a little bit of the latter as well. i think one of the things we don't feely appreciate. i know that this is briefed to president trump as well. it is that for the past two years we have been prosecuted and air campaign and syria and we have been flying in and around one of the more sophisticated air defense systems. as soon as u.s. jets take off in jordan or turkey they are
basically flying into some of these complicated syrian air defense systems. so if for example they decided to start turning these on and start tracking u.s. aircraft it could effect the flight paths. it couldfect some of the operations it will make a lot of our allies nervous. one of the reasons we set up the decon fliks channels after they beefed up the intervention is because we started seeing behavior in terms of trailing u.s. aircraft. we didn't want our planes at the very minimum to run into each other over syrian skies. i think it's in russia's interest as much as in ours. i think this announcement, we'll see if they follow through on shutting the decon fliks channel down. >> someone was pointing out the
fact there is this sort of open door escalation. there is also the idea of essentially this was understood and intended to be understood. it is several strikes over the last six years where they have gone in and struck assad and have not been embroiled in a larger sustained military activity inside the country. how possible is that? >> israel has been very clear and then publicly about what their red lines are in terms of the transfer of advanced weapon systems and hezbollah and lebanon. and they seem to have, you know, without getting into details they seem to have taken action to counter act the movement of those weapons systems. the united states could do that and i think one of the ways in which is this is -- we are not changing our policy.
i think it might be a mitt of a missed opportunity. it is to jump start a broader diplomatic effort then you can frame it and leave that am b ambigui ambiguity. we didn't have a lot on the table when it came to russians or syrians. there were many good reasons why they were rejected doing what president trump did. it could be useful. it is something you heard former obama administrations say. still to come, stories power struggle between steve bann
i'll get my coat. meaning you can catch up on all the moments you might have missed. you seriously can't tell the difference between a bird and a plane? like that time gwen and blake got a little too flirty. that's so inappropriate to talk about us hooking up. xfinity watchathon week ends april 9. the greatest collection of shows free with xfinity on demand. he tweeted stand with assad. there is foosteve bannon. america first lost out according to two sources. there has been a huge amount of reporting about a brutal civil war and it looks like the family members are winning and change
is on the way. wall street reporting donald trump is considering a major shake up of the senior white house team mr. trump is trying out different names of his friends one person said. he started asking friends to rate the performance. the president may also remove or reassign steve bannon, according to the source. sources says things are very bad for him in the white house. they are telling him to lay low and wait out the storm. no one could deny it. that's coming up next.
you go crawling to the bank. this is how i dress to get a mortgage. i just go to lendingtree. i calculate how much home i can afford. i get multiple offers to compare side by side. and the best part is... the banks come crawling to me. everything you need to get a better mortgage. clothing optional. lendingtree. when banks compete, you win. okay! ...awkward.
make of all of this. the leaks are so constant, so kond dikt contradictory. what do you make of it all? you cover it full time. >> i don't know if i can give you the answers. i can tell you my colleagues and i probably talked to a dozen different people close the president, all different levels and we probably got a dozen different story lines of who is in, who is out, what's going on. i think part of it is these alliances that have been going on since the very early days of the administration. i think part of it may be people wanting to hear a story line, people who don't like bannon, wanting to hear him out and reading into those. i think part of it might be that the president himself doesn't know what he wants to do. he doesn't know what he is going to do about it. >> every single white house has
factions and fights. >> right. >> what makes this different is that the person at the sent are of it is essentially an empty vessel. it seems like you could convince donald trump to do everything to destroy the obamacare exchanges depending on who is closest to him. >> right, which is why it matters so much. he has two very contradictory impulses. he has an alt-right side and then this plaintiff design for mainstream abooufpprovapproval. >> he wants vanity fair and new york times to think highly of him. >> right. which won't happen with bannon. they are contradictory desires. which one ultimately prevails?
assuming one prevails will have a big impact on the future of this presidency. >> and the nation and the world. >> and the idea -- you know, two years ago the idea of jared kushner, he is formally fay house more run tg fifth largest newspaper. having him instead of bannon would feel like a form of deliverance. >> it does seem to me as there are signs that are tangible and more than hearsay. like what happened this week was a real thing. people around bannon or bannon himself attempted to spin it in a transparent fashion. >> yeah. i think that things that i do feel confident about now is that the power dynamics have changed from where they were early on in this administration.
part of that is because in the early days in the white house it was like home alone. it was bannon, it was steven miller. you had those guys. now we have cabinet secretaries. now we are people like the head of the nec who has been influencing his power. we have powell who is taking on a security role. to some extent, yes. at one point in the early day is not what it used to be. there are a lot more people who have been taking from the influence. >> they are of the kushner world and not the world. it is a whole other situation. >> powell is in there. it gives you a little sense of
is sort of expanding. >> and again, in any other administration it would not be a source of comfort, but i would say that kind of game seeking hypocrisy is the best case scenario and the alternative was, you know, kind of fascist nihilism. >> and i would also say having my my wife working the and it helps to have had people worked in the white house before. it was frustrated to watch them come in because they have that experience. it turned out that it's a bizarre enterprise in which to work. they said we know how this works. there is none of of that in the white house. >> and that's lead to some of these early stomaumbles. there are people now in the
white house. powell is one that do have experience in past white houses, people who do have experience. this is trump's white house. it will never be the bush administration or clinton administration. it will be trump's white house. he will do it the way he wants to do it. if he feels comfortable and that's someone he connects with and trusts it won't matter. if he trusts it he will be in the room. that's the way we are seeing things shape out here. >> or if he wants his son-in-law he might do that too. thank you. still to come, early clinton addresses the military strikes, why they are add odds with other policies on syria. and pesky job numbers right after this break.
march jobs report. let's see how they responded. a drug headline, great again, 235,000 jobs. sean spicer spiking the football with not a bad way to start this administration. the protrump super pack is boasting of trump job creation which brings us to the second full jobs report of the trump presidency. it wasn't good. >> why should i not be krit ol of president trump? >> look, thanks very much for having me. >> how the white house is responding in thing two in 60 seconds.
expectations. it is well short of what we should have seen. >> i can say that i did expect this number to be much stronger today. i'm surprised it is low. >> analysts expected 180,000 new jobs. they got just 98,000. today's report down. you may recall during the obama administration with conspiracy theories. >> don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5% unemployment. the number's probably 28 or 29, as high as 35. i recently heard 42%. >> the white house didn't bother releasing but comments said he was pleased and that better days lie ahead. shieser retracted the
i hope this administration will move forward in a way that is consistent with our values and i hope they will recognize that we cannot in one breath speak a producting syrian babies and in the next close america's doors to them. [ applause ] >> speaking at an event in houston today clinton president trump's attempted travel ban. joining me now. let me start with you.
you have written a lot about this. what is your interpretation of humanitarian interpretation? it is so striking to me how much we talk about humanitarian war reasons going all the way back to the reentrance. we were going to save them and what do you make of it? >> every president, they prevove a buffet. you cannot evaluate whether they succeeded or falsified. it ishat do you care about as a human? it ropes in the largest audience in order to support the wars. they don't have a humanitarian impulse. they are intended to punish the
regime. one of the things and it is apart from a lot of people around. >> a lot of people around him are praising us. you recognize it was tugging on him in certain ways that he was quite intentionally pushing against. >> it is very difficult for any president of the united states to avoid getting involved in a war for those reasons because there are always people around presidents who feel. it is whether it is to punish something like assad to change their behavior to send a message, to show the resolve. >> it is self-justification. >> the one thing that is absolutely true. you cannot undo or prevent the
behavior of killing your own civilians with a strike like this. number one, it didn't even take out the air force. it didn't take out the chemical that we used in the strikes. all it did was to send a message. that's the only justification that's logical why we did it. >> what do you say for someone that sort of studies the ways about thinking about how your enemy is models what you're doi doing? what do you say this is the point and they are now going to make future calculations that won't change the trajectory of the war but this red line will be respected? >> the belief that you can correctly prevent your message to a foreign leader, they will change their behavior based upon that correct message is a false one. it's not the basis -- it shoul not be the basis for u.s.
stragy at all -- >> it is like we are going to send a message. it is a bad objective. >> it is not a military mission. military missions are to destroy things and kill people. the political objectives you can try to do is compel assad from stopping the civil war or deter him to undertake another chemical weapons attack. they set this very low bar with det deter rens. so he would likely not use chemical weapons again. but he will conduct additional atrocities. trump will have to decide not to or appear weak and incredible. >> the other thing is the message that is always sent is to us, it's to you and me. the response is always to begin to treat the president that takes these military strikes as
intervene every time there is a crisis in the world. let me be clear about why we should act and act now. when we face a situation like we do, with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. when we have a mandate to help, a request from the iraqi government and when we have the capabilities to help i think the united states of america cannot turn a blind eye. >> that is president obama authorizing targeted air strikes against isis threatening to of christian minority group. it marked the first battlefield role the u.s. had since we pulled out in 2011. it features over 5,000 troops in the country. the point here about that, in both cases targeted kind of
responsibility to protect humanitarian interventions. in both cases they didn't stop at that. i think watching what happened last night what does history tell us how likely they are? >> everywhere u.s. forces are deployed they are taking on additional missions. this is not just a slippery slope as people described. it is actually like all military interventio interventions. they come at risk. there are other complimentary objectives. so the initial humanitarian impulse later became for regime change and you can imagine now how initial cruise missile strikes will lead to regime change against assad. >> i want to bring an american civil rights attorney. i think anyone who has been watching syria basically feels almost paralyzed by the aura of it all.
but also that's skepticism people have of improving the lives of syrians but lots of syrians i talked to don't feel that way. how do you feel? >> that's not forget syria is on the border of iraq. i think syrians are familiar with what american intervention even for the sake of iraqis looks like. they also took in many refugees over the last several decades. i think while for some people there might have been a little bit of sats faction for everything that he has done it is sort of like the first home we saw a stop to the impunity i don't think anyone is naive about what intervention can look like. i also think -- and this is sort of like the limits. there are many other ways to
intervene. i don't think we look at it as how do we for syrians, a place where they can actualize their dreams or potentials. these conversations i have been having throughout the day is much more about moving chips around on a board. >> this is really important to me because i have been making this point over the last two days, if we have a humanitarian desire to help people we can fully fund programs, many which are overfunded. millions are in terrible strengths. what shouldn't be included? >> we are not correct in identifying principal factors are iran and russia. but is it really -- is the only thing we have in our imagination that we have to engage these two nuclear powers? president trump is, you know, the art of the deal guy. so why are we not talking about ways to -- it is not easy.
you have to give up things but there has to be some kind of discussion with people who are pulling the strings in syria. confronting them, it won't be very great for syrians is it? >> that is a great point. >> yeah. >> it is sort of attention. i'll point out the sort of limits. in a broad sense this is something that i have banked on a bit. there is a war threatening humanitarian right now. numerous groups, that is being pursued by our allies. >> half of my bloodline is from the congo. there was a humanitarian ka it's a if i.
regime change. you have seen this before. it did not end well in iraq. >> and when they going on it is hard to imagine but all wars en. they last longer baa they have now collected interest and their credibility is on the line. given that this administration is able to broker a deal which was the biggest foreign toll pol si issue of all. as we know from history civil wars are the fuel for terrorism and instability and a lot of problems. >> and that seems -- people watch this horrible -- to be fair president obama was negotiating a nuclear deal with
iran. but there was an opportunity there. so these choices haven't just been rejected by the current administration. they were rejected by previous administration as well. >> all right. joy reid and micah. thank you. i feel like the flach of military involvement, we see the world through a straw as soon as missiles start firing. it is great to take a step back. be sure to check out the book the home that was our country. before we go i want to mention an event happening tomorrow night, we talk about my book, race and policing in america. he has a fantastic book and hosted by green light bookstore. i am excited about it. come check it out. hopefully my voice won't be gone by then. we'll have details on my
facebook page. >> i have lozenges for you. >> thanks. in 1952 we have got great images of this. in 1952 iraq's teenaged king came to visit the united states. he was a teenager. he was only 17 years old. he apparently loved baseball. wile he was here he met jack ie robinson, president truman. he came to the us at the age of 17. he became officially an adult following here at which point from 1953 on the more or less
world a cue was launched against him. in that he was murdered along with much of his nationalists took over, they overthrew the iraqi monarchy. that didn't last either. five years after they killed the king and the military took over, the military was overthrown as well or at least the faction of them that had been in charge. by then it was 1963, february 1963. the group that took over iraq then and ruled it for 40 years there after, that was the ba'ath party. he took over iraq in 1979. the ba'ath party itself, they