Skip to main content

tv   Meet the Press  MSNBC  April 9, 2017 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT

5:00 pm
d 'll stop at... nothing to make sure you get it. one, two... and we mean nothing. ♪ ♪ chemical attack prompts outrage around the world and a u.s. military response.o >> tonight i ordered a targetedd military strike on the airfield in syria from where the chemical attack was launched. >> this morning we have the story covered from all of the angles. u.s. ambassador nikki hailey. >> the united states took a very measured step last night and we're prepared to do more. >> frequent republicane critic f president trump, senator lindsey graham. >> it was a wonderful signal to send that needs to be followed up. >> senator tim kaine.>>er
5:01 pm
>> doing this without consulting congress, without a vote, i think is a clear violation of the law. >> and senator bernie sanders that warns the missile attack could lead to another middle east quagmire. haley, kaine and sanders all here this morning. if steve bannon leaves, does the agenda leave with him. joining me for insight and analysis, david brooks, danielle pletka, rich lowrie of the national revieww and helene cooper, pentagon correspondent for "the new york times." welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history celebrating its 70th here, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. this breaking news there was attacks on two egyptian christian churches this morning. a bomb exploded in a church
5:02 pm
packed with palm sunday worshippers, killed more than two dozen people, wounding scores of others according to health ministry officials. hours later a suicide bomber killed 11 people in front of a church of alexandria.nt isis has claimed responsibility for both of those attacks. now to syria. president trump became the 7th consecutive president to ib launch a military action against a country in the middle east. of course, the first one in that seven consecutive streak was president carter's failed mission to rescue the hostages in iran. it involved 60 cruise missiles launched from naval destroyers in the mediterranean. it is what the trump administration called a proportionate response to lastd week's chemical attack that killed more than 80 people and caused horrific suffering seen in pictures circulated around the globe. the attack scrambled political alliances, drawing praise from many usual trump opponents, but criticism from some of his strongest supporters.
5:03 pm
the episode raised all sorts of questions about the trump administration, what is the president's ultimate goal in ha syria, was this mission accomplished or mission creep, and what message is the administration sending to the world, china, north korea? can he sell this to his nationalist base, which was deeply skeptical about taking any action in syria? this isn't cut and dry, typical red versus blue.e. ultimately the question is was this an impulsive move by a president or fundamental change in his thinking about foreign intervention? >> no child of god should ever suffer such horror. >> it is a startling reversal by a president who spent his campaign arguing that the u.s. should steer clear of the country's protracted civil war. >> now hillary wants to start a shooting warnt in syria, in conflict with a nuclear armed russia, which could very well
5:04 pm
lead to world war iii. >> if we did nothing, if we did absolutely nothing, we would be in great sshape. >> mr. trump's decision to back away from an america first isolationist philosophy has supporters confused and even angry. some blame it on the waning power of chief straightest steve bannon who days before the syria strike was ejected from the security council amid tensions with trump's son-in-law jared kushner. >> the weekly standard people, all the neoconservatives are happy. >> the syrian president's brutality is nothing new. in 2013, eight days after assad launched a chemical attack, killed more than 1400 civilians, including hundreds of children, trump tweeted, what will we get for bombing syria besides more debt and possible long-term conflict? obama needs congressional approval. now, with the power of the presidency, mr. trump appears to haveve abandoned that point of
5:05 pm
view, at least for now. but what is his ultimate goal? >> we are prepared to do more. but we hope that will not be w necessary. >> just last week, mr. trump's secretary of state backed away from the policy of regime change in syria. >> i think the status and the longer term status of president assad will be decided by the syrian people. >> now, a week later. acts he has taken, it would seemhe there would be role for him to govern the syrian people. >> an american official says russians on the ground were given notice that the missiles were coming.le flights from the base have already resumed. and secretary tillerson's trip to moscow this week is still on. at home, most of washington's foreign policy establishment is applauding the llstrikes. >> the strikes were impoant, i think they were the signal, it is as important ashe actual damage that washi done. >> while a coalition of liberals and conservatives, skeptical of intervention without approval from congress, oppose them.
5:06 pm
>> heart breaks seeing the images. what can we do? but doesn't mean we just sort of rip up the constitution and say, okay, it's fine to bomb anybody if they're committing atrocities. >> doing this without consulting congress, without a vote, i think is a clear violation of the law. >> it is fair to say no one has been more forceful in responding to syria's chemical attack than the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, nikki haley. she has been the face of the administration in this crisis and yesterday i asked her when the trump administration believes itki achieved its objective with the military strike or whether more needs to be done. >> well, i don't think that's dependent on the united states. i think that's dependent on the actors at play. this is a very complicated situation. we know there is no easy solution to the crisis that is in syria. but our focus is to make sure that, you know, we're focused oi strengthening the cease-fire, want to continue to have the backs of our allies, turkey, jordan, iraq, make sure they know we have their backs, want to push towards a political solution because at the endre o the day, that's really what is needed, to make sure political solution comes together and we
5:07 pm
hope that they'll continue those talks in geneva and we hope we'll continue to see some progress. >> a big part of that political solution would include the russians. they don't accept the conclusion that the united states and others did, that this was assad's regime, that ordered this chemical weapons attack. do you plan to present the evidence publicly and do you plan to do it in -- at the united nations? where is the evidence going to be presented? >> the interesting thing, when chemicals weapon murder happened to so many people, russia's reactionwas, oh, was not oh, how horrible or how could they do ts tnnocent children or how awful is that? their initial reaction was assad didn't do it, syrian government didn't doss it, why were they tt defensive that quick? the idea of the casualties came after the first priority for them was to cover for assad.
5:08 pm
so what we knew from intelligence, that the syrian regime had done this again, as they had done soth many times before, we had the evidence that they had done it, it is obviously classified, so certainly i'm not the one that will -- that would release that information, but enough that the president >> but there is no plans on presenting the evidence publicly? if you look, isn't it important if -- to isolate, in order to isolate russia, to publicly show how wrong they are about this? >> so i don't doubt that information won't come out. i think that you're also seeing investigations of russia now. that information is going to come out when they can declassify it. i fully expect that the proper directors will come out with that information, for right now, all we needed to know in that room was is it true, did it happen, what's the evidence, and go with that. what you saw was, you know, we watched the president and what i believe was his finest hour, since he's taken office. he was very thoughtful about it.
5:09 pm
he talked about risk, what general mattis and the military did was a rock star performance because they were so focused on making sure there were limited civilian s casualties if any at all. they were focused on making sure they hit the air base where the syrian government used the planes to carry the chemical weapons and focused on making sure they understood the united states is not going to allow chemical weapons used ever. >> if assad doesn't use chemical weapons, but he -- b the civil war continues and he's brutal, butin uses conventional weaponso be bubrutal, are we going to si on the sidelines? >> i think what you're going to see is we'll keep all of our thoughts and plans close to the chest. k this president is not going to go and release any sort of information, but i think what you are going to see is pressure on the political solution. that's what is going to happen. in no way do we look at peace happening l in that area with iranian influence, and in no way do we see peace in that area with russianan covering up for assad, in no way do we see peace in that area with assad as the
5:10 pm
head of the syrian government. and we have to make sure we're pushing that process. the political solution has to come together for the good of the people of syria. >> what about the fact that we are not allowing syrian refugees under -- unless under the most extreme circumstances into this country right esnow? >> you know, look, this is what i will tell you. i have watched this administration focus so much on the safety of united states citizens. and as a mom, as a wife, i'm very grateful for that. so what this president has done is said prove to me that you are vetting these people properly, and if you are vetting them properly, then we will resume where we are.yo but until then, you have to prove to me that these people are being vetted in a way that we're not putting american citizens at risk. and so what he did is i think that there were -- those countries that wein kne tha there werere problems that we couldn't vet, and that's you n't vet, you don't know who you're letting in, don't know if there is any sort of bad intentions there. and so what you're seeing is the president is being very cautious
5:11 pm
with that. he's making sure that it is people, safety first, and i think that the focus we need to have is how do we get to a safe syria? how do we make sure those -- that have fled that area, can go home, and make sure they get back there, but the president ig not going to sacrifice the safety of american citizens. >> who should bear that sacrifice? the syrians -- the syrians that you have so eloquently noted, these women and children, and in particular, that were trying to flee some of -- get out of harm's way and end up getting gassed by assad, who is -- who should have --et take that burd if the united states is not going to help out? >> i think you saw the united states take that burden this week. the united states fought for the people of syria, and told assad no more. >> final question, what is now the priority in syria? assad's removal or defeating isis before the emphasis was on defeating isis, then we'll deal with assad. has that changed? >> i think what you have to understand is we can have multiple priorities. so, you know, of course it is to
5:12 pm
defeat isis. that we have got to do that for peace and stability in the area. it is also to get out the iranian influence which we think is causing so much friction and worse issues in the area. and then make sure that we actually see a leadert will protect his people. and clearly assad is not that person. >> that was,ot of course, nikki haley, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations. my next guest has been a frequent republican critic of president trump on national security issues, but this military action against syria has its full support. senator lindsey graham joins me from clemson, south carolina. welcome back to theon show, sir. good morning. >> thank you. >> i want to get to that last questiongr i asked ambassador haley. which is does this change america's position here of prioritizing whatt to prioritiz in syria. isis over assad, both secretary tillerson andsy ambassador hale indicated isis is the priority. what say you, senator? >> i think isis should be germany and assad should be ey japan, like world war ii
5:13 pm
analogies here. accelerate the demise of isil, their direct threat. i never have been more encouraged by the trump administration thasn i am today. ambassador haley just said on your program, you'll never end the war with i assad in power. so that means regime change is now the policy of the trump administration. that's at least what i heard. so you need more american troops to accelerate the demise of isil, we're allowing too much on the kurds, more american forces, 5,000 or 6,000, track more regional fighters to destroy isil, need a safe haven quickly so people can regroup inside of syria. then train the opposition to go after assad. that's how he's taken out, by his own people, with our efforts and tell the russians if you continue to bomb the people we train, we'll shoot you down. >> okay. do you think president trump is ready to take that advice? you're calling for troops to be sent in. are you going to introduce a resolution in congress that gives them that authority?
5:14 pm
>> he already has that authority. every -- you got some good people on this program. i differ with them in this regard. i thinhak the president has authorization to use force. assad signed the chemical weapons treaty ban. there is an agreement with him not to use chemical weapons. what did we learn that war criminals don't police each other very well. p the putin regime is a bunch of war criminals, and we expected them to police assad, that didn't work out very well. so all these resolutions or limitations on using force, not authorizations used force. i don't intend to vote for anything that limits our ability to win the war against isil or replace assad. syria, a sovereign country, not mentioned at all i, the current war authorization, itit somehow you can send troop into that sovereign nation without having to have congress grant the president more authority there? i think you're in the minority view on that, don't you think, senator? >> no, we already got troops on the ground. i don't see anybody say cut off
5:15 pm
funding. if you don't like the thousand american troops that are helping to destroy isil, cut off funding. be consistent here. i want more american troops, 5,000 or 6,000 like we have in iraq o to help destroy isil. that means it will accelerate the demise of isil. i want to train opposition forces to take assad down. he's a threat to the united states because he's a proxy of iran. hees used chemical weapons, violated a treaty that he signed. i think it is up to us to enforce thatat treaty. we're on sound legal footing here, but our strategy is not yet developed. what comes next? i'm glad trump did this. he is no longer obama in the eyes of our enemies, but needs to do morer to close the deal. there is a new sheriff in town. >> do you think there is a moral difference between the usedo of chemical weapons and barrel bombs? >> no, there is a legal difference. not a moral difference. if you're a mother, your baby is dead. but we do have treaties that we signed all over the world, saying we're not going to let one nation use weapons of mass
5:16 pm
destruction, that's what the chemical weapons treaty is all about. but i will say this, if you kill babies with conventional bombs, it is still a moral outrage. here is what i think assad is telling trump by flying from this base. f you. i think he's making a serious mistake. because if you're an adversary of the united states, and you don't worry about what trump may do on any given day, then you're crazy. >> i have to say, you use the used the initials but i think that's first for "meet the press." we had a few people watching, raised a lot of eyebrows. >> good. >> i have to ask you about the president's change of heart on this. >> right. >> because jonah goldberg, national review, who is supportive of the strike, but this change of heart still concerns him. he writes, the strike on syria is thehe single best proof that trump has no overriding commitment to any ideological position. if trump can abandon his position on this, all because of some horrific pictures on tv, what position is safe?
5:17 pm
>> well, here's my view, he abandoned a position not working, which is leaving assad alone. obama said he has to go in name only. this president is setting it in motion, actual strategy to get rid ofof assad. to the american people, the war never ends with assad. s a he's a recruiting gold so i'm glad the president did this. >> you want him to punish russia more for his support of assad. what is something concrete you think he can do in next couple of months to punish were for its support of assad? >> sanction russia for not only interfering in our election, but add a paragraph to my bill that says of russiaed ed aided and ad assad. the russian soldiers own the base where the attack occurred. the russians intentionally in my view left chemical weapons in the hand of assad. their proxy. so if i were president trump, i would goo after russia through
5:18 pm
sanctions, not only for interfering in our, elections, but aiding and abetting the use of chemical weapons by war criminalng assad. >> a fired up lindsey graham thisdi morning from clemson, soh carolina. senator, thank you for coming on and sharing your views, even if they wereh not necessarily pg rated this morning. >> good morning. >> when we come back, two senate democrats with two very different views of what the united states should do in syria and how they should do it. they're next. flonase allergy relief delivers more complete relief. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause all your symptoms, including nasal congestion and itchy, watery eyes. flonase is an allergy nasal spray that works even beyond the nose. so you can enjoy every beautiful moment to the fullest. flonase. 6>1 changes everything. i've been fortunate enough to win on golf's biggest stages.
5:19 pm
but when joint pain and stiffness from psoriatic arthritis hit... even the smallest things became difficult. so i talked to my rheumatologist... and he prescribed enbrel... to help relieve joint pain and help stop further joint damage. enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal, events including infections, tuberculosis... lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common... or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. get back to the things that matter most. ask how enbrel can help relieve joint pain and help stop joint damage. enbrel, the number one rheumatologist-prescribed biologic.
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
welcome back, the missile strike has scrambled some political alliances. senator tim kaine, a democratic vice presidential nominee last year, been a full throated critic of the new president. but he does support the syria operation, but with reservations. senator kaine joins me now from virginia. welcome, sir. >> thanks, chuck. good to be with you. >> let me start with, why do you support this action? i know you have some legal
5:22 pm
questions about it. i want to get to that right after that. but why do you support this action? >> chuck, as you know, i'm a strong supporter that the u.s. should take action to protect humanitarian causes like the ban on use of chemical weapons. and so i voted for a limited strike in august of 2013 to do exactly the same thing. and a limited strike for that purpose, for the humanitarian purpose is something i would likely support if there is a plan. but where i differ from this administration and i took the same position with respect to president obama, we are a nation where you're not supposed to initiate military action, start war, without a plan that is presented to and approved by congress. that makes us different than virtually any nation in the world, the idea of the drafters of our constitution was that you had to put a check against an executive gone wild. we don't have a system where the president just gets to launch missiles against anybody they want to, and they haven't presented a plan to congress and asked for our approval, that's what they got to do.
5:23 pm
>> senator, in this case, it is very limited, number one, and number two, there were american interests on the ground, we have u.s. soldiers, special operation forces on the ground, very close to chemical weapons. if you're saying this action was illegal, then you must be thinking the libya action by president obama was illegal, the raid by president reagan was illegal. are you saying all those actions are illegal? >> chuck, i was a senate candidate in 2011 when president obama joined military action against libya for humanitarian purposes. and i said then, i agreed with the republicans in the house that rebuked president obama, and said he had exceeded his authority because the u.s. was not under imminent threat. that's the only circumstance where a commander in chief can use article 2 power without going to congress if there san imminent threat to the united states. and that you just heard lindsey dw graham say that wasn't the case. we had a briefing by the white house on friday.
5:24 pm
they presented us with no plan. we don't know if it is limited or whether there is more. when we asked about the legal authorization, they said they weren't prepared to discuss that. but they hoped to discuss it in the coming days. again, our system is we don't want a president, any president, just being able to start a war or launch missiles whenever they want. there has to be congressional approval. >> you heard senator graham, he outlined what he would like to see -- what actions are taken going forward. and described sending maybe 5,000 troops and i asked him, okay, do you need congressional authorization for that? he said no. let me ask you this question. if an authorization is on the floor of the senate, that describes what senator graham wants to do, sending in a limited number of troops to basically push the momentum back against assad again. would you support something like that? >> you know, lindsey and i agree the atrocities are horrible. here is where we part company. he stated very plainly, great,
5:25 pm
the trump administration is for regime change. i don't think the u.s. policy toward any nation should be we get to change out your leaders. if assad is doing things wrong, violating international treaties with an authorization, we can try to deter him from doing it, we can prosecute him for war crimes, but i don't think the policy of the u.s. should be we're going to change the regime of your leadership. that's for syrians to decide, we should be part of a political process. but i don't think regime change should be official u.s. policy. >> do you think assad will go under any circumstance that isn't military? >> i agree with ambassador haley that i don't think there is any political solution to the civil r in syria that doesn't mean th assad moves aside becse he's tearing up the country. but instead of regime change, what we should focus on is humanitarian relief. in february of 2014, the u.n. security council said we should be delivering humanitarian aid to syrians, if we started doing that then, many fewer would have
5:26 pm
left the country, that's what we should do, but neither regime change nor a full on unauthorized war against syria is what we should be doing. >> all right, senator tim kaine, i'll leave it there. senator, thanks very much. i'm going to turn to yet another point of view on this, joining me now is democratic senator bernie sanders who has a little bit of a dimmer view on the strike against syria. welcome back, sir. >> good to be with you. >> so explain why you are against the strike. >> well, chuck, for a start, let's all recognize that in a world full of disgusting dictators of bashar assad maybe ranks at the top. this is a guy, in order to hang on to power, has allowed 400,000 people in his own country to be killed and millions to be displaced. our goal long-term has got to work with countries around the world, we cannot do it unilaterally, we got to work with countries around the world for a political solution to get rid of this guy and to finally
5:27 pm
bring peace and stability to this country, which has been so decimated. i do not believe the president simply has the authority to launch missiles. i think he needs to come to the united states congress, has to explain to us what his long-term goals are. chuck, let me just say this, maybe the most important vote i have ever cast in my life as a member of congress was against the war in iraq. when we get sucked into a war, we do not know the unintended consequences. it is easy to get into a war than it is to get out of a war as we have learned now over the last 15 years in the middle east. >> is there a point where humanitarian cause sort of trumps -- trumps that, you know? you see the gassing of people? is there a point where america's moral authority is being challenged here, and you have to send a military message because
5:28 pm
no one else is going to do that, and nothing else will deter assad? do you ever believe there is a moment like that? >> what we are seeing in syria is the disintegration and destruction of an entire country. it ihorrible beyond horrible. yes, i mean, wha can we say about somebody who gases men, women and children of his own country. it is disgusting beyond words. but what we have got to do is be smart and figure out what is the rational solution. is putting 50 missiles into syria going to solve that problem. at the end of the day in my view, we have to learn about what the war -- the failure of our efforts in iraq and afghanistan, not repeat them, understand that it will be diplomacy. demanding that russia, demanding that iran sit down at the table with the rest of the world, and get -- help us solve this problem. >> they have been calling for
5:29 pm
that for three years now. there has been this, you know, the talks in geneva, secretary -- then secretary of state john kerry kept going back to the table. the russians and the iranians don't look like they're interested in a diplomatic political solution here. >> chuck, you're right. chuck, you're right. look, this is an extremely complicated and difficult issue. but i can also tell you that we have been at war in iraq and afghanistan for 14 years. thousands of american soldiers have died. the whole middle east has been thrown into an uproar. massive instability. you know, all i'm saying here is that we have got to be clear about what our goals are, not do it unilaterally, and understand also may i say that when we have a collapsing middle class of 28 n ople without any health insurance, and infrastructure that needs trillion dollars of repair that maybe we don't want to throw trillions of dollars more into
5:30 pm
unending perpetual warfare in the middle east. >> in december of 2015, you called for more diplomacy, working with the russians and you said, you know, i'm more than aware of the political differences we have with russia today, but our job is to bring together a coalition which understands the primary function now is to destroy isis, to push aside for the moment other differences of opinion. back then, you were a proponent of, hey, we have to prioritize the isis situation first in syria. has your mind changed on that, watching what assad has been doing? >> assad has been doing what he's been doing for years. chuck, 400,000 people in syria have been killed. men, women and children. over 5 million people have been displaced. this is a horror show. yes, we have got to destroy isis. yes, we eventually have to get rid of assad, but we cannot in my view do it unilaterally. that will not work. >> what do you do to the russians if they're not going to
5:31 pm
be at all interested in a political solution? what -- how do you encourage them to the table? >> i think you may want to make them an offer you can't refuse, tightening the screws on them, dealing with sanctions. telling them that we need their help, they have to come to the table, and not maintain this horrific dictator. none of this stuff is easy. any position that anybody takes can be criticized. but at the end of the day, i think getting the united states involved in perpetual warfare, sending troops into syria will just continue the process of money going down a rat hole. i think ultimately the solution has got to be political. >>nd, by the way, one other thing that -- >> last comment. >> -- trump says one thing, and he ends up doing another thing. let's get some consistency from this president. let's get the congress involved in this debate. >> all right, senator bernie sanders. the independent progressive from
5:32 pm
vermont. thank you for being on the show, sir. appreciate it. >> thank you. there you have it. a lot of perspectives on syria these days. so the political fallout from what happened in syria this week, that will be next with the panel. and later, nothing new about a white house power struggle, but the one we're hearing about in the west wing involving steve bannon and the president's son-in-law jared kushner could have profound impacts on domestic and foreign policy. stay with us. es the time to season her turkey to perfection, and make stuffing from scratch. so that you can spend time on what really matters. marie callender's. it's time to savor. so we know how to cover almost alanything.ything, even a coupe soup. [woman] so beautiful. [man] beautiful just like you. [woman] oh, why thank you. [burke] and we covered it, november sixth, two-thousand-nine.
5:33 pm
talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪e are farmeruma-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ i'm going to the bank, to discuss a mortgage. ugh, see, you need a loan, you put on a suit, 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.
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
welcome back. panel is here. a lot to digest, rich lowrie, helene cooper, danielle plet ka and david brooks. let's start with the basics here. what did we learn about donald trump this week in syria? >> we're debating him like this is winston churchill in the world of war. making some big strategic decision. i'm afraid he did one thing and it will have no consequences if
5:36 pm
there was no strategic thinking behind it and no big strategic shift. i do think one promising thing is we're never going to be in the business of regime change anytime soon. we should be in the business of defending some basic norms of civilization. 100 years ago, the u.s. entered world war i, thousands were gassed to death. we can be against gassing and so in that sense this action was a useful action and we should just be in the business of trying to make sure when people fight, they behave with some basic level of human decency. so we had a little thing in this, but i'm not sure a big shift in any way. >> is it the doctrine of flexibility? >> flexibility, we were all over president obama when he told president putin he would be flexible. i don't think we know. i think david is right. we don't know whether this was a tactical strike or this is a strategic shift. and we have the secretary of state suggesting to us, no, no, no. nothing to see here. a one off. >> still isis. >> and still about isis. and we have nikki haley
5:37 pm
suggesting to us that, no, in fact, things seemed to have changed. we'll see what develops in the next weeks. >> rich, i want you to respond to this. fairly similar thought that jonah goldberg wrote that i used with lindsey graham there. he writes this, a positive interpretation of the latest developments is that trump is someone willing to adjust it a deeper, fresher understanding of events to pivot in accordance with circumstances to learn and to evolve. but another take is that trump isn't just uninformed, but unformed and that's not reassuring at all. where are you on that? >> clearly, things he said for years on twitter and even in the campaign at his rallies were not well considered to put it mildly about syria. i think it is good that he feels the pressure of the offic as he admitted over the last week. and has adjusted. i'm a skeptic of pinprick strikes. it may be that this one succeeds in the narrow goal of deterring
5:38 pm
future tell calchemical attacks. but what is happening is that assad will continue with more routine war crimes as if nothing had happened. and therefore implicitly defy us. >> helene, where were the pentagon officials on this? is this the -- is this the plan they really wanted him to pick or were they kind of hoping he would do something a little more robust? >> i think what you see is an assertion now of the pentagon, when it comes to american national security policy and we just saw that take place last week. >> this was -- >> mattis driven. but beyond that, i found your interhave with niview with nikke extraordinary. she's very, very strong in saying assad must go. but if you look at what she said on march 30th, and rex tillerson, secretary of state, echoed her on the same day, they both came out and said that it was no -- getting rid of asousa was not the focus of the administration and rex tillerson
5:39 pm
went further and saying it is up to the syrian people. a lot of people believe that sent a message, the trump administration was not going to go after assad anymore and he could do whatever he wanted. a week later, you have them spinning a completely different line and this levelf mixed messaging in national security i think is dangerous. i think it gets back to sort of the -- i think a basic point of american foreign policy is to figure out what you believe and what you stand for and speak with one voice. we're having people saying everything right now. nobody knows whether we are in favor of regime chnk ange or no. >> they would come on to give the administration point of view, now they use this show like it is the roosevelt room and arguing to try to influence the president. >> we're still overstating this. barack obama said assad must go. barack obama said he had a red line. and assad didn't go and the red line was not a red line. the truth is that administrations do evolve, make decisions, and, you know, it is early days for the trump
5:40 pm
administration. i'm willing at this point to give them the benefit of the doubt that there is an actual evolution in thinking going on as they assess all of their policies. we're not even 100 days in. >> a bad week for obama's legacy. one, trump showed doing this sort of strike is not that difficult, so it makes obama's dithering look ridiculous. and, two, it exposed the supposed deal to get chemical weapons out of syria as a total sham. >> let's move to the congressional debate. i think, look, individual members of congress want this debate about do does this belong in the authorization or do you need a new authorization if you do more in syria? this seems like the rank and file may trump leadership here. leadership doesn't want to vote. >> i don't think anybody wants to vote on this. look, the problem for congress is, okay, they didn't d another aumf under president obama. we're all here in washington. >> don't speak washington. >> exactly.
5:41 pm
they didn't do it under obama. the reality is that if they choose to do this, and they get into a fight about whether syria should or should not be included, the next time hezbollah does something, the next time an american dies at the hands of the iranians or syrians, congress didn't let them do it. there is no percentage for them. >> a point you made off camera, if congress doesn't exert its authority here, then they're ceding it. >> this is something the founders never counted on, one branch of government that didn't want to protect its prerogatives because too much accountability would be involved. we should get congressional authorization for that. >> the difference has been hostility, we're not using the pony express anymore. the world moves a little too fast. >> fair enough. i'll pause here. we'll continue this conversation in a minute. coming up, would you buy a product endorsed by this man? a lot of people were asked that very question. we'll reveal their answers when
5:42 pm
we return. [ indistinct conversations ]
5:43 pm
♪ what makes a house a home? some say it's the people you share it with... or the creatures. okay! some say it's the marks on the wall... or the beautiful messes. and some say it's where you're truly loved. who's my baby? angie: we know every home is more than just a house, so trust angie's list to help find top-rated pros for quality work, because your home is where our heart is.
5:44 pm
welcome back. when he won the white house, some feared donald trump would use the white house to endse products. wesked how would play with consumers? 18% of americans would be more likely to use a product if it was endorsed by president trump. 49% less likely. and a full 29% nearly a third of
5:45 pm
americans would actively boycott a product endorsed by the president. right now, that says a pre presidential endorsement is more likely to cause a slump than a bump. even among republicans, the results were surprising. more likely to use 31%. that's really only an 8 point difference. and by the way, 11% of republicans say they would boycott. for democrats, a meager 10% would be more likely to use a product endorsed by donald trump. 71% less likely. 45% of those folks would actively boycott that product. believe it or not, independents break down more like democrats than you might think on this question. 8% more likely to use. 55% less likely. nearly a quarter of independents would boycott a product if trump endorsed it. while president trump's hotels and golf clubs are flourishing, the folks in line at the cash register, trump's brand may be taking a hit. as americans show their willingness to view consumer
5:46 pm
choices as political decisions. in fact, don't be surprised to see more and more brands simply run away from politic altogether. forget pro or con on trump. they may not want to touch any of it. when we come back, the power struggle in the white house. however you look at electronic t it, it could have a profound impact on where the presidency goes from here. it's off to work we go! woman: on the gulf coast, new exxonmobil projects are expected to create over 45,000 jobs. and each job created by the energy industry supports two others in the community. altogether, the industry supports over 9 million jobs nationwide. these are jobs that natural gas is helping make happen, all while reducing america's emissions. energy lives here. hi, i'm frank. all while reducing america's emissions. i take movantik for oic, opioid-induced constipation. had a bad back injury,
5:47 pm
my doctor prescribed opioids which helped with the chronic pain, but backed me up big-time. tried prunes, laxatives, still constipated... had to talk to my doctor. she said, "how long you been holding this in?" (laughs) that was my movantik moment. my doctor told me that movantik is specifically designed for oic and can help you go more often. don't take movantik if you have a bowel blockage or a history of them. movantik may cause serious side effects, including symptoms of opioid withdrawal, severe stomach pain and/or diarrhea, and tears in the stomach or intestine. tell your doctor about any side effects and about medicines you take. movantik may interact with them causing side effects. why hold it in? have your movantik moment. talk to your doctor about opioid-induced constipation. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help.
5:48 pm
back now with the panel. a lot of palace intrigue this week. here are the headlines, all there, they were all semibannon
5:49 pm
related. steve bannon, the chief strategist there. what do you make of it and do you connect bannon being kicked off the security council, two days later something he argued against, a syria strike, happens. it is clear if it is bannon versus the president's son-in-law, bannon is losing. >> only one person who can't be fired in that equation. if the democrats take over, and this is one bizarre thing about this administration, you have jared kuser and ivanka trump, who wodn'te within 100 miles of any oer republican administration. if they take over, i think you'll see probably a less chaotic white house, but on policy, i would worry anything that might be embarrassing at a dinner party with anna wintour will be jetsoned. >> i think son-in-laws do get fired sometimes. it is like a philosophical difference almost, a fancy restaurant called cipriani.
5:50 pm
>> but never been there? >> i've never been there. a bunch of truck stops in texas called buckings and they're different parts of america. and which are different parts o america, and which is the administration ogoing the orient around? that is a different philosophical question, and it is very difficult to have an administration dining as well as buc-ee's at the same time. >> and you can't have troika. >> no, it is the palace intrigue and the sublime support and the byzantine empire, and you have bannon and the favorite daughter and the son-in-law, and for sure, bannon is expendable many that equation, but he has a lot of sway with the president or he would not be there. >> and is bannon one that you want outside of the tent? >> and not the mention the ft
5:51 pm
that bannon is credited for helping trump to get elected. i don't believit is jared curbner, and, so i think that it is certain that when you are looking at the palace intrigue, i thought it was fascinating that general dunford, the chief of staff chose kushner to take with him on the trip to iraq. it is very much, and you can see that rest of the administration is reading the tea leaves as well. the pentagon believes that kushner is where the future is. >> and this is amazing thing, because if you are looking at washington, there is no trumpist wing, and the core trumpists are only a faction within the white house itself. what i fear is what is best about the trumpism is a focus on the working class voters and the widening out of the economic policies beyond the marginal tax cuts is going to be jettisoned. >> and imagine the al tern tter in something called civic hall. and hillary clinton has largely stayed out of the white house and stayed in new york, while
5:52 pm
her daughter chelsea has been running the family foundation, and earning five and six figure fees while giving speeches to corporations with interests in washington. >> totally credible. and everybody would have said the same thing about jared kushner going to iraq. people would be critical, but the problem with hillary is d n daughter and foundation, and looked corrupt and you know what -- >> why did we fight the revolution, because now we have a monarchy with the family intrigue. the one thing about the bannon thing that is interesting to me is that you don't have to be kind to succeed, but you have the be nice, you have to be superficially pleasant to work with the people that you are working with, and he is failing that. >> and what happens if there is a a flip on syria, and that would be a large flip with a barry gold fooin? >> well, it would be the same return to donald trump, and the
5:53 pm
one who said to libel rals, you will like having me as president and don't worry about, and the donald trump before he moved further to right to embrace more of the republican orthodoxy is where we need to see it as moving. >> but we have the midterms next year, and if donald trump abandons the people who elected him and bannon does in many ways represent that wing of the republican party, then he is in trouble, and the republican party will be in trouble in 2018. >> all right. a good place to pause. we will be back in 45 seconds with the "end game" and what hillary clinton said about president trump and the people who voted for him. coming up, "meet the press" end game and post game brought to you by boeing, always working to build something better.
5:54 pm
♪ if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores.
5:55 pm
liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. "meet the press end game" brought to you by boeing. back now with "end game." >> hillary clinton came out and did an interview with nick kristof where hours before
5:56 pm
president trump addressed the nation saying we're bombing an airfield, she recommended we bomb the airfield. she said something else in the interview that is in his column this morning talking about the election. she characterized the mindset of trump voters this way. i don't agree, i don't approve of him, but he looks like someone that has been president before. hl lean -- helene, she believed that misogyny played a larger role than many of us thought. >> i think many women feel that way. i don't think i would necessarily dismiss that. i've talked to plenty of trump voters who say they didn't just like hillary, including women. no, i just, i didn't like her. there is something to be said for that. i think that -- i'm not going to plug my book, because you are give meg the perfect opportunity to do that. >> say the title there. >> "mad d
5:57 pm
"madame president." >> but i am. >> about what happened in the liberian election when they elected a woman, but we can't pretend it doesn't exist. >> but she sd women in power t negavely characterized over time more so than men. that is the larger argument. what do you say? >> first of all, hillary clinton doesn't want to take responsibility for anything, and she lost it because she is hillary clinton and not because she is a woman. and yes, women in power are more negatively portrayed and can i go after lindsey graham and use a bad word? we know what it is. if you want to be a woman who is influential, then stand up to it, and then ug nor it and it will stand up over time. a
5:58 pm
scream building misogyny doesn't change things. >> i disagree. it clearly played a role. donald trump is a cliché of old fashioned masculinity. and a lot of people long for that kind of masculinity which is they ever coming back, but they long for it. to say that his hyper macho stereotype is not part of why he got elected, i mean it wasn't his knowledge. >> you saw this in the primaries. if he was standing in the middle of the debate stage, he was just a bigger figure than anyone else up there. he had a certain bearing and that helped, but hillary clinton is not good at politics. she is not a good campaigner. probably the one active politician in the country that could have lost to trump and she did. >> do you think another woman could have beaten trump? >> a likable woman, yes. >> to phrase likable, and the using the words like likable, and donald trump is likable? >> well, there are women politicians who are likable, and hillary in a barack obama said it, you are likable enough hillary, and that is not true. it is not true many this election. >> maybe it is associatable is enough, and people think that she gets me, and maybe they don't get me. >> and relatable is better than
5:59 pm
likability. all right. well, this is -- [ laughter ] this one is fraught with a lot of peril, but we will -- the good news is that guess what, a lot of people will be having their own debates about this issue later on this morning. that is all we have today, and we will be back next week, because even on easter sunday, it is "meet the press." so we will see you next sunday. you can see more end game in "post game" on the "meet the press" facebook page.
6:00 pm
he was offering us $1,000 apiece for delivering a boat to the south africa. >> he had a lot of many knee that he was taking back with him. >> he had stashed it all behind there. >> everything was too good to be true. stop thboat. i say, stop that boat. >> i looked into the eyes, and they were wild. >> if you move, i will kill you. >> this is the beginning of the journey into hell. >> i want $20 million. >> we have been set up. >> this


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on