tv The Rachel Maddow Show MSNBC September 11, 2014 1:00am-2:01am PDT
an hour ago, the president presented his plan for as he put it, degrading and destroying the islamic state. >> our objective is clear -- we will degrade and ultimately destroy isil through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy. first, we will conduct a systematic campaign of air strike against these terrorists. working with the iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions so we're hitting isil targets as iraqi forces go on offense. moreover, i made it clear we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country wherever they are. that means i will not hesitate to take action against isil in syria as well as iraq. this is a core principle of my presidency. if you threaten america, you will find no safe haven.
second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. i will assess how we can best support iraqi security forces. we will send additional service members to iraq. as i said before, these american forces will not have a combat mission. >> the president tried to make a particular point to distinguish the choice he's making tonight from president george w. bush's decision to go to war with iraq or weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, a war that president obama opposed. >> anytime we take military action, there are risks involved.
especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. but i want the american people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it will not involve american combat troops fighting on foreign soil. this counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out isil wherever they exist using our air power. and our support for partners forces on the ground. the strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the frontlines is one that we have successfully pursued in yemen and somalia for years. >> joining me now from iraq, richard engle, nbc news chief correspondent, and from washington, rachel maddow, host of "the rachel maddow show." the last point, that he's stressing the difference between what he's doing and what his predecessor did in initiating the iraq war, do you think he succeeded in making a meaningful distinction there?
>> the president is making a clear rhetorical distinction between a large-scale years long, multivariant counterterrorism action on the one hand and war on the other. he's saying this isn't going to be a war. in part, i have to take issue with him in saying this is not going to be combat. once we've got pilots in the air dropping bombs over forces that have anti-aircraft artillery on the ground, those pilots are on combat missions already. the 1,100 americans who are there, soon to be 1500 americans, you may not want to call them combat troops but they're going to be in hostile territories engaged in hostile actions with enemies that won't to kill them. that's very close to combat. if you stop trying to parse those words and talk about the overall mission, can this be seen as something congress doesn't need to declare as a war, and that the american people shouldn't view as a war-sized commitment, it's very
hard to say until we start doing it. but that distinction for me seems very thin. >> richard engle, the president is using the machinery of war, the personnel of war, but like everyone else in washington he doesn't want to use the word war and the distinction that everyone in washington seems to lean on here that makes this not a war, is what has now become that cliched phrase, boots on the ground. as long as no american boots touch the soil where you are now, then we will not call it a war. how does that distinction play in the region? >> thereby no boots on the ground where i am now and they're not kicking down doors and we're not going on imbeds with them. they're staying away from journalists, they're with local fighters, trying to guide air
strikes, gather intelligence, the kind of things you thought the green berets would have done many years ago and are now being done by navy s.e.a.l.s.s and delta forces and special operation forces. can you conduct a secret war like this? a war by remote control to dislodge isis, this terrorist group this militant urks murderous group from large parts of iraq and large parts of syria in we will see. it is an open question. that seems very similar to the kind of things that the united states is already doing in somalia and yemen. the rest of the strategy seemed incredibly fuzzy, how there was going to be this international coalition that lends its moral
support of sunni countries that you would have to rebuild the iraqi army which lost the tremendous amount of credibility so far. and that you would work with all of these local partners on the ground. there are some local partner where is i am. i'm in northern iraq and kurdistan. we've been out with the kurdish fighters who work very closely and very well with the americans. but in syria, there aren't any local partners. there are fictitious partners he's talking about. in iraq below where i am right now, there's the iraqi army which has disintegrated and is not an effective partner right now. so aside from the very specific idea of sending in special operators, carrying out some drones, the rest of the strategy seems quite unclear. >> rachel, it seems to me an extraordinary moment in presidential history, because it seems we now have a presidential position on these kinds of things, which is to say, barack obama ran as the 21st century
anti-war presidential candidate. and he won. we previously had anti-war candidates in the vietnam war, but they didn't win. we saw one become president. and then when his moment comes now on a war decision, he makes what appears to be the decision that is now -- what you might call the presidential position, just as we now have in effect a presidential position on international trade, for example. no matter what they say as candidates, they all end up taking the same position in the white house. it seems now they all end up at some point taking the militaristic option in the middle east when it is offered. >> i think there is a case to be made for that. on the other hand, having just sat here moments ago while andrea mitchell interviewed john mccain, had we ended up with president john mccain, i'm quite sure we would have had a lot more wars over the last six years than we have had under
president barack obama, only if you go by his judgment in terms of who he thought we ought to bomb and say we were, you know n one cause with in all the conflicts around the world that he's commented on since then. i do think this president is disinclined towards war and is inclined very dramatically towards multilateral action and towards the united states not doing stuff alone. and trying to ratify international institutions that other politicians may tear down. i think there are some differences about the way he does stuff. i still think it's worth querying whether or not u.s. military force is the way that isis is going to be defeated ultimately. the most important thing that he announced today may be h renewed effort to try to get, you know, countries like qatar and kuwait and saudi arabia, other countries that have been a little sketchy about how much they support radical islamic groups around the world, that will be american diplomacy and arm twisting at work.
that may be the thing that works here, but coming from this president, it's hard to hear. >> let's listen to what the president said tonight about the two war correspondents who were executed by isil. >> isil is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. and it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way. many n a region that's known so much bloodshed, they're unique in their brutality. they kill children, they enslave, rape and force women into marriage. they threaten the religious minority with genocide. and in acts of barberism, they took the lives of two american journalists.
>> i'm so glad you're here to talk about this as a war correspondent. i don't think there's an analyst i've heard discussing this in washington who believes we would be making these war moves tonight were it not for the beheading of jim foley and steven sokolov. how do you and the war correspondents over there feel about these executions of war correspondents who, like you, have voluntarily put themselves in the line of fire in effect in this kind of danger, that their executions have sparked this military action by the united states? >> well, no one would want to be in that situation for personal reasons, and no one would want to think that their death is going to necessarily change american foreign policy. i think that's also a dangerous precedent.
isis has been around for about a year. it has been a growing threat that many journalists have warned about. we ourselves have done many reports about al qaeda-like fighters streaming across the turkish border and going into syria. it would be a dangerous precedent just because a group of murderers decided to take someone hostage and execute them and upload it to youtube carrying a knife, that that vicious murder would be enough to change u.s. policy. it shouldn't b be enough to force us to engage on this kind of issue. isis is a dangerous group. every military analyst believes that this vicious group needs to be death with and there needs to be a component. this is not a far away remote
place that can be more or less forgot about. we are in the heart in the middle east, all of those arab countries that rachel was just talking about has different visions of how this place is supposed to turn out. iran has its own vision for how the middle east and how iraq in syria should be shaped in the future. the u.s. military, or many militaries in the region could squash it quickly. the problem is isis is fuelled and sits right on this sectarian fault line between sunnis and shia, and if you get involved in that conflict and you get involved with isis, and you really want to deal with it, you are putting yourself as a mediator in this 1,400-year-old sunni/shia fight. the u.s. did that for ten years and didn't do it very successfully.
>> the president seems to admit that there is not now certainly any actionable intelligence indicating the islamic state threatens the united states directly, but he did slip in as many references to it after saying we didn't have it. including the last line where he says our own security depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation. he actually said oh, we don't actually have any intelligence indicating they're near doing anything like that. >> right, he drew that distinction. we don't know about them operationally planning attacks on the united states, but the threatened us and they do pose a threat to both our allies and to lots of the sort of things that richard was talking about right there. i mean, i will say, this is a little bit uncomfortable to bring up, but on the point of the two american journalists who
were killed by this group within the last three weeks, which saw such a dramatic change in public opinion, the president referred to them by name tonight. i think it has to acknowledge, his family believe, his family claims publicly that what happened to him in syria is that he was brought across the border by the so-called good rebels, the so-called moderate rebels, the ones who his family says are the kinds of people who lots of people are clamming for the u.s. to be arming and supporting. his family believes those are the people who then essentially sold steven solokov to isis. and there isn't any meaningful distinction between the good rebels and bad rebels in syria. if the u.s. tries to make those kinds of indistinction, we'll be indirectly or in some cases directly contributing to more killings like this one.
in we are going to build foreign policy on point of view cases like that, and we are going to cite those poor young men by name and talking about why we're doing what we're doing, we ought to listen to their families in terms of what actually happened to them and what they think ought to happen as the basis as a result of those tragedies. and i think to ignore that and have them name check while we're still talking about in the same night, the same speech talking about giving lots of support to the supposed good rebels in syria, it's sort of beyond ironic. it's a little bit stomach-churning. >> the so-called good rebels in syria have done at least six beheadings of their own of their enemies. rachel mad dts dow, richard engel, thank you both so much for joining us. coming up, getting congress onboard. democratic senator ben carden will join me. and also tonight later, we have breaking news about the nfl commissioner tonight. the associated press is reporting that the nfl was given that video of what ray rice did
to his wife inside that elevator months ago. right. real milk. but it won't cause me discomfort. exactly, no discomfort, because it's milk without the lactose. and it tastes? it's real milk! come on, would i lie about this? [ female announcer ] lactaid®. 100% real milk. no discomfort. and for more 100% real dairy treats you'll 100% enjoy look for lactaid® ice cream and lactaid® cottage cheese. ♪ yeah, girl ♪ you know, i've been thinking about us ♪ ♪ and, uh, i just can't fight it anymore ♪ ♪ it's bundle time ♪ bundle ♪ mm, feel those savings, baby and that's how a home and auto bundle is made. better he learns it here than on the streets.
the miracle of bundling -- now, that's progressive. that corporate trial by fire when every slacker gets his due. and yet, there's someone around the office who hasn't had a performance review in a while. someone whose poor performance is slowing down the entire organization. i'm looking at you phone company dsl. go to comcastbusiness.com/ checkyourspeed. if we can't offer faster speeds or save you money
we'll give you $150. comcast business built for business. >> we can't erase over trace of evil from the world and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. that was the case before 9/11 and that remains true today. and that's why we must remain vigilant as threats merge. i know many americans are concerned about these threats. tonight, i want you to know that the united states of america is meeting them with strength and resolve. >> will congress vote to support president obama's war plan against the islamic state? senator ken carden will join me next.
>> i have the authority to address the threat from isil, but i believe we're strongest as a nation when congress and the president work together. i support an effort to show the world that the americans are united in confronting this danger. across the border in syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the syrian opposition. tonight, i call on congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. >> joining me now, democratic senator ben carden of the foreign relations committee. would you vote for the plan president obama outlined tonight if it's something offered to vote on in the senate? >> we'll see how it's worded and presented to us. i think what the president is suggesting that he wants congress and the administration working together, we share the
same objective. isil is the same organization. we want to marginalize and eliminate isil. i think congress is going to be cautious on the use of our military. there should be an international response, but we don't want to be drawn into a lengthy conflict and we don't want to be doing the military work that should be done by the countries in which these terrorist groups are located. so there's going to be a great deal of discussion, but i do think that we believe international action is appropriate. and the objectives the president laid out are objectives that we shared and we want to work with the president in a unified position because america is stronger as the president has said when we work together. >> so you voted against the war in iraq, but this, which is in effect an extension of the war in iraq, you would be willing to vote for? >> again, i will not support a resolution that could be used to draw us into a long conflict or could be used to do things we shouldn't be doing.
it's more than military. the president has talked about other things besides the military actions. we've got to cut off the support base for isil and terrorist groups. that means we've got to call off the funding. that's the so-called modern arab states. we have to cut off the political support for these extremist groups. that means governments that represent all the people. we see signs of that will in iraq today. we don't in syria. so yes, i think congress needs to be engaged so that we can marginalize and eliminate isil, but it needs to be done in a way that does not make america subject to a long campaign or a campaign where we're doing a military operations internally in a country that we shouldn't be doing. >> do you believe the president already has all the authority he needs to do everything that he discussed tonight.
>> i don't know what he's going to do doing from the military point of view. that's where the authority comes in. also there are resource issues that require congressional approval. congress is going to be engaged in this, we should be engaged in this debate. the president has certain authority under article 2. he also has the authorities on the use of military. there's the war powers act, the president has sent notifications to congress on. congress needs to be engage the. but we'll see what he's talking about in the use of our military from the point of view of a practical aspect. i can tell you, we're going to be cautious on the use of our military. we want to see the international community. we certainly want to see the iraqis step up and take on the responsibility to defend their own country. >> what would defend harry rooe and others getting together tomorrow morning first thing and starting work on a resolution for the united states senate to vote on and get that debate
started by noontime tomorrow. what would prevent that? >> first, i have never known congress to take up a resolution such as that that has not been requested by the united states. >> didn't you hear him request your cooperation tonight and your support? >> i did not hear him ask for war powers resolution from the congress of the united states. if he requests one, i'm sure we're going to see specific language that he asks for. so i think we're a little bit ahead of the game. he asked for congress to work with him. and as i pointed out, it's more than just the authorization and the use of force. there's also issues concerning what activities do we participate with the opposition in syria. he talk that. there are areas congress should be engaged. passing a resolution, we'll see -- >> how many of your colleagues want so duck a vote on this? >> oh, i don't know. i think we recognized responsibility here. i can tell you, i've talked to my colleagues on both side of
the aisle and i think they would welcome congress being engaged in this. now, we want to be engaged. this is an important matter. marginalizing and eliminating isil, barbaric krift group. >> should we use the word war for what the president announced tonight? and if not, why not? using the weapons of war, using the personnel of war, what about this makes this not war? >> if it's more than 60 days that the war act in which congress needs to be engaged. that's an issue i think we'll have some debate on. but the military operations that the president is talking about, we believe 24r's surgical air strikes and not a pattern that would be a prolonged engagement.
if it's a prolonged engagement, then i think the terminology would trirg the war powers act. >> thank you. the question, no one in washington is asking, what if for once, what if for once we just did nothing. that's coming up. and later, the report that the nfl did indeed have the video of ray rice and what he did inside that elevator with his fiance, and they had that video months ago. contradiction completely of what the nfl commissioner has said. [ female voice ] yes? a. lactaid® is 100% real milk? right. real milk. but it won't cause me discomfort. exactly, because it's milk without the lactose. and it tastes? it's real milk! come on, would i lie about this? [ female announcer ] lactaid. 100% real milk. no discomfort.
>> in the fight against isil, we cannot rely on a regime that terrorizes innocent people. instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like isil, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve syria's crisis once and for all. >> joining me now. the director of the new internationalism project of the policy studies. the president said tonight, isis is a terrorist organization pure and simple. is it that simple? >> not quite that simple. it's a broad and complex and
multilayered issue, whether it's isil or some of the other extremist groups in iraq and syria. the speech tonight, very important terrific commentary from the guests up to this point is all about the kinetic part of it, though. what really is the devil in the details is addressing, not so much -- i mean, the kinetic part is going to be relatively easy with the u.s. leading a broad coalition. not really address, though, up to this point for my time in the near middle east is the ism, the al qaedaism, the bin ladenism. and unless that's addressed we're going to be at this a very long time. >> and how do you address that? >> well, in the presence, four different prongs he spoke about tonight. the third in leading that broad coalition, finance, intelligence sharing. one of the measures spo eck to something that deals with the counter narrative. so for example, the stakeholders in the area that have the most to lose here, the saudis, the
jordanians, the turks, how is the u.s. going to work with them to influence their populations that this is the rye thing to do? one brief example among many, if, for example, air strikes are called for in syria, how will the saudi government explain to its population that this is not to support the al-assad regime, same thing in iraq which was the big positive step today, swearing in a new prime minister. is it worth explaining to the sunni population, this is not about the sectarian fault between shia and sunni. >> we have watched now for decades as the united states, the president of the united states, whoever he is, over the last few decades, whenever offered one of these military interventionist adventures, it's pretty much always the choice the president makes. and then we live for years afterwards and sometimes very
quickly afterwards, with the unintended consequences of those interventions. the things that nobody saw coming. we helped arm osama bin laden when we think he's one of the good guys. and he's the one who changes life in america as no other person ever has. and what we've never seen, what we've never seen is the american president taking the risk of living with the consequences of doing nothing. what would be the biggest risk in the possibility of doing nothing in the face of what we've seen here? >> i think we have to be very careful in our definitions. when we say doing nothing, most people assume, as i think you do in your question, that you're referring to nothing militarily. >> yes, that's what i mean. >> i think that's a big problem. because the assumption always is the choice -- and we heard this over and over again around 9/11. you either go to war or you let them get away with it.
that's the two poles. and given that choice, people will always choose go to war, because the option of doing nothing, letting them get away with it is not okay. the reality is there is plenty to do. what president obama said some time ago was absolutely right. the key is not to do anything stupid. the key is not to do nothing. it's to do nothing stupid. and right now, military strikes are stupid. because while they may have a moment of satisfaction where people in the u.s. see hooray, we've got the bad guys. what people in iraq see, for example, it's a little different in syria, but certainly in iraq, particularly sunnis, but not only sunnis, is that suddenly the u.s. is a player acting at the air force of the kurds and the shia against the sunnis. so the ideas that we can somehow do that and simultaneously persuade sunni leaders, the
tribal leaders, the leaders of the militia, the former generals who are sunnis, leading isis, providing the military support to isis. the notion that they are going to pull back from isis because the u.s. says oh, we want a new inclusive form of government here in iraq, here in your country, that they're going to say oh, okay, that's a good idea. while the u.s. is there bombing on behalf of the other two main ethnic and religious groups simply doesn't fly. it doesn't work that way. so what we need to do is make the kind of diplomatic moves -- when we say there is no military solution, we have to make good on that. and that means stop the air strikes, stop sending more boots on the ground. we already have about 1,300, almost 1,300 pairs of boots on the ground. we just heard almost another 500 coming in. plus we don't know how many pairs of -- well, maybe it's sneakers and not boots, of special forces and cia on the ground in iraq and perhaps in syria as well.
if but that's not going to answer the question. the question is going to be, what kind of diplomacy, regional, international, as well as local. engaging with all the various forces in the countries, in iraq, in syria. new negotiations sponsored by the united nations, the ones that were canceled months ago. they need to be restarted. that would be a huge goal for a nonmilitary u.s. action that some, perhaps senator mccain, perhaps others, would define as doing nothing because it doesn't involve shooting or bombing, but would actually have the potential to bring about a real end of the civil war in syria and perhaps a new political situation in iraq. >> i for one believe the president is a thoughtful and careful person when it comes to this arena. and he hates, i think, to use oversimplification and exaggeration, rhetorically in this arena. but we saw him days ago saying
he wanted to degrade the islamic state. that wasn't politically good enough in washington and he was pushed politically to getting to the word destroy, which he used tonight. the mission is to destroy the islamic state. how many people have to be killed to destroy the islamic state? and how long will it take to kill those people? >> well, from my perspective in doing operations and government work against a group like this, i'll say first, if we take it in good faith that there's a broad consensus that it's a dangerous lethal group, this type of group really only responds to one thing. one stimulus, and that's violence. it's the other parts, the other aspects that we've been talking about, 360-degree approach, diplomacy, the finance, getting the saudis, for example to stop their young men from going into places like iraq and syria. that's for the longer, even the midterm to longer-term approach
for this problem that we have now. >> how many civilians will be among them? >> i would have to agree as what was said, characterized with afghanistan. we're not going to bomb our way and bomb them into oblivion to stop this problem. chronically and tragically in these troubled spots we're talking about, usually people have two choices, autocratic rule or extremists. those are the kinds of things the hard work has to come. >> coming up, a call for support from the allies in the region. how is that going to work. and later, there is new information about when the nfl
got the video inside that elevator where ray rice was shown throwing the punch at his now wife. according to the associated press, they got that video months ago. that is a direct contradiction of the words the nfl commissioner last night. what are you doing? the dishes are clean. i just gotta scrape the rest of the food off them. ew. how is that clean?! uhhh.... dish issues? quiet them with cascade platinum. it powers through your toughest messes
better than the competition the first time. clean! (squeak, squeak, squeak) stop it. cascade. now that's clean. 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 has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she may have been notified in time to help stop the damage. 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 helping protect you before damage can be done to your identity.
lifelock has the most comprehensive identify theft protection available, helping guard 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 help 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 help keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands... a $29 value, free! don't wait until you become the next victim! call the number on your screen for 60 days of lifelock identity theft protection
mobilize sunni communities to drive these terrorists from their lands. >> our two-tome pulitzer prize winner also joining us the director of the institute for gulf affairs, ali ahmed. we heard the president say they're going to round up these allies from the middle east. how do you think this is going to work for him? >> i think that's a good strategy, knowing that these allies, the sunni allies in the region, they have been the ones who have been encouraging the insurgency and even funding isis, especially from the government. it's not private donors. nothing private takes place in the gulf countries. these are not democracies everything is done -- >> so ali, we're not talking about getting people who are sitting on the sidelines to join an alliance with the president. we are saying the president is
going to have to get those people to switch sides. they are supporting the islamic state. they're going to have to drop their support for the islamic state and then help the president of the united states? >> absolutely. i think that comes with giving them now -- flowers. these government monarchies depend on the united states and the west for survival. so i think it would be easy. let's not forget jordan as well. and lets remember, they're all coming from u.s. ally, saudi arabia, egypt and jordan. this is a key element here. because for 13 years that has never been done. and we still have al qaeda and isis growing because the policy did not include bringing pressure on the sources of
terrorism and isis and al qaeda in saudi arabia, qatar, kuwait, jordan. these countries provided everything, manpower, money, to the degree that isis is teaching saudi government school books. the matching between isis, really you can say that isis is saudi arabia is an edited version in terms of its policies. geology and the way it views other people. and even in the beheading business, it is copying the saudi methods. so it's really a key element. >> really that last word, there's secretary kerry on september 11 tomorrow in saudi
arabia. the breeding grounds of the people who brought down the world trade center, hit the pentagon, asking the audi regime to really help us out and stop helping out the islamic state. what is to prevent the saudi regime smiling at the sex tear of state, we'll help you every way we possibly can, and then keep doing what they're doing. >> very little. they said they would help the moderates in syria, but they play a double game and back the jihadists. are these governments going to join us to stop the extremism. the ideological battle that we're talking about in the last segment, we failed in afghanistan because back stan never cracked down on the taliban. but it's a good moment.
it's good that the president is asking the arab countries to step forward and do something. and this is the moment. it has to happen now. >> we're out of time on this. i need you both back to talk about this. few both for joining me tonight. coming up, a new report tonight that the nfl did indeed have and see the video of inside that elevator where ray rice threw that punch that changed his life. that's coming up.
the associated press is reporting tonight that what the nfl commissioner said last night is not true. >> so did anyone in the nfl see this second videotape before monday? >> no. >> no one in the nfl? >> no one in the nfl to my knowledge, and i asked that same question and the answer to that is no. >> the associated press is reporting tonight a law enforcement official says he sent a video of ray rice punching his then fiance to an nfl executive three months ago.
. .. .. from an nfl office number on april 9, confirming the video arrived. a female voice expresses thanks and says, you're right, it's terrible. after the associated press was published, roger goodell canceled a planned appearance tonight honoring the owner of the carolina panthers. the law enforcement official speaking to the ap on the condition of anonymity said they were unauthorized to release the video but shared it unsolicited because they wanted the nfl to have it before deciding on rice's punishment. one of the nfl's spokesman, brian mccarthy issued this statement tonight. we have no knowledge of this. we are not aware of anyone who possessed or saw the video before it was made public on
monday. we will look into it. believe that at your own risk. nbc's bob costas said this tonight on "nbc nightly news" with brian williams. >> if the evidence proves that he saw this before this week, and i hate to say this, i think he's done. >> terry o'neill from the national organization for women said this -- the only workable solution is for roger goodell to resign and for his successor to appoint an independent investigator to gather data ar domestic violence, dating violence and stalking and to recommend real and lasting reforms. here is how that went over with one of the men on one of those networks dedicated to the worship of football players. >> i think this woman is off her rocker. i think she's lost her mind.
that's right. i said it. this is the most ridiculous nonsense i've ever heard in my life. roger goodell deserves to lose his job? why are you acting like he's ray rice? roger goodell did not hit janay palmer rice. he hasn't hit any women. >> joining me now is terri o'neill. what's your reaction to espn voices like that who are fanatically defending the commissioner of the nfl. >> you know, lawrence, look, actually, it is a very good question to say gosh, roger goodell didn't hit anybody, why should he lose his job? the answer is that roger goodell's job as the ceo of the national football league is to respond in an appropriate way to this kind of incident. and roger has -- mr. goodell has failed to do his job. so he should be gone.
but i also want to say, when i first saw the video of that, i was very taken aback by the intensity, and i get that people feel very intense and very passionate. i think that we need to have a reasoned discussion about all this. there are good questions being asked. i think my organization has taken the right route. roger goodell cannot credibly lead change in the national football league, and the nfl has a violence against women problem. it's not a ray rice problem. it's a violence against women problem. you need a new leader in there who will take on this problem and create real solutions. and i do think there needs to be a fully independent, fully empowered investigator to move us forward. >> they also needed a fully empowered investigator in the new jersey criminal process. james mclean, the district
attorney in this case gave ray rice the easy way out. we had a former new jersey prosecutor on this program last night who said she absolutely would have tried that case and not given him the easy way out after seeing that video. is the national organization of women going to ask for the resignation of james mclean, that district attorney? >> honestly, we haven't been looking at that part of the case because we don't think the nfl has a ray rice problem. it has a broader violence against women problem. in fact, you know, when the first video surfaced and rice was given only a two-game suspension, we issued an objection. we issued a statement. we said this was -- we put out in social media that it was completely inappropriate. when the second video came out, that's when we really started paying attention and cop colluded that it's really -- there's a real problem within the nfl. that's where we've been going. you know, if we saw something in
the d a's office, we would go there, too. right now we're on the nfl. >> all right, let's get you to take a look at the d a's office, too. terry o'neill, thank you very much for joining us tonight. this as america marks the 13th anniversary of 9/11. the nfl's new hired gun, former fbi director robert mueller. oscar pistorius and the murder of his girlfriend, reeva steenkamp. good morning. i'm betty nguyen. reaction is pouring in following president obama's speech last night, unveiling his strategy for dealing with isis. the president vowed to degrade and destroy the terror group. his strategy included deploying 475 more military advisers to iraq and authorizing air strikes in syria for the first time.