syriannot have a stable as long as bush are al-assad -- bashar al-assad is in power. the idea that we will defeat isis and then figure out what to do with assad is not going to work. administrationmp should be talking about is massive, crippling sanctions on the russian company that is the principal arm supporter for syria. any other company or country in the world that does business with that company. that is where it should begin. then, the discussion should go to -- one, that the russians honor their commitment to remove all chemical weapons from syria. they have not done that yet. secondly, that they implement the cease-fire they negotiated with iran and turkey inside syria. that has not been honored. third, the agreement that humanitarian aid can be distributed throughout syria. that has not actually been honored. finally, that they go to the negotiating table and try to find a political resolution with nd alland all -- assad a other parties at the table. in order to find in ultimate, negotiated settlement, we must negotiate with the syrian government. the only w

should assad stay? should assad go? you talk to nikki haley, you talk to rex tillerson, you get two different answers. do you understand what trump's policy is towards assad right now? >> i think it's clear after sunday and toud day what tiller said is clear to me, there's no place for assad in syria. the syrian people won't accept him as their leader. he slaughtered about 500,000. he's a puppet of the iranians. it's impossible for assad to stay in syria. how he goes, i suggest we declare a safe haven so the syrian people can live without being barrel bombed. when we take isil down, which should be the number one priority to destroy the caliphate, that we begin to train syrian opposition members, well vetted, so they can take assad on and create a change of military power on the ground. that's how he gets pushed out. russia won't fight to the death for assad. >> do you think barrel bombs should be the red line now? >> yes. i think -- i would ground the syrian force -- >> that's a huge escalation, right? you acknowledge

he said that this chemical attack that assad did is terrible. he said i think what happened in syria is one of the truly egregious crimes, it shouldn't have happened, it shouldn't be allowed to happen. it's a disgrace to humanity. he's there, and i guess he's running things, so something should happen. so the president, who as hans just indicated, had been against removing assad from power, certainly has seemed to make a shift now and he clearly stated in the rose garden yesterday when he had that joint press conference that, and said again today, that he was deeply moved, as anyone was, anyone who saw the pictures of the children, women and children, the innocent people, who were the victims of this attack. so we understand that this could be happening very quickly. i don't have an exact minute-by-minute timing for you. but clearly, it is top of mind for the president, for his staff that is down there and also obviously here on capitol hill where most of the house has started to go home, but of course, members of the senate are going to be here

that's why assad must go. as long as bashar al assad is in syria, there will be radical elements in syria, not just fighting to get rid of him, but ultimately to spread that ideology to other places. that's why it's in our national security interests. that's why it should matter to all americans, as well. this is important for us as a people because it goes to the core of who we are, but it's also in our national security interests, and we can't ignore it. we also can't ignore the countries that made this possible. if you are a country led by vladimir putin like russia is, who is going before the world and saying this was the rebels, this wasn't the regime, that's absurd. that is fake news at its highest. it's grotesque that they could say it with a straight face is even more troubling. this would never have been possible had they not had the cover that vladimir putin has given assad. and it leads to this question, anyone who supports bashar al assad in doing these sorts of things and tries to cover for him on

it's never been about assad, the man himself. in fact, i think they see him as a sort of unwieldy ally. they wish that he would sort of be a more easily influenced bhi what they want to achieve. the russians as cal perry was explaining earlier have some very concrete goals and things they want to achieve in syria. mostly maintaining their stronghold in the middle east. maintaining control and access to their bases there, especially the tar tas base on the water. this is a priority to them. it's a military priority to them. it's a national security priority to them. assad himself is not so much someone that they care for. will they double down? that remains to be sign. i think for russia they'll certainly milk this to the fullest for the domestic propaganda value. especially if these deaths we have not confirmed to be true, the ability of putin tos an audience. >> well, at the very least, what it could potentially signal to china is when the obama administration -- pardon me. when trump administration officials say things like the

but the final outcome in our view does not provide for a role for the assad -- for assad or for the assad family in the future governance of syria. we do not think the international community will accept that. we do not think the world will accept that. host: from moscow, marc ginsburg and secretary of state rex tillerson and was polar opposite of what he said previously of bashar al-assad. guest: it's been a complete 180 degrees that's occurred within the administration insofar as involving itself in syria. president trump when he was a candidate said he'd never involve the united states again, america first. we should not be involved in syria but obviously the chemical weapons attack that assad committed caused the president to fire 59 tomahawk missiles into a syrian base. you are know, when i watch secretary tillerson, this is really his most important debut on the world stage when he went to moscow and he had been mostly in the shadows in the first 90 days of the administration. i don't think he quite had his footing. i don't think with the budget that he inherited which is in effect

gillespie, how do you deal with assad? >> we do not have to deal with assad. our interest in iran right now or in the middle east has to do with islamic terrorism, not the assad regime which is a disgusting regime. d you go after the terrorists. we are not in the business of policing what the assad does. >> bill: we are going after terrorists. we are doing two things here. very good discussion, appreciate it. sebastian gorka on next. we will get the white house. world security as it stands tonight. that as "the factor" continues around the usa and all the world.ta that as "the factor" continues >> bill: let's go back to washington and bring in sebastian gorka, deputy assistant to mr. trump. we assume that you are happy the missile attack was successful. you are a strategist, dr. gorkaa we heard a lot tonight that this is not going to dissuade assad from using gas, he will use it again. number one, i don't believe that what i could be wrong. if he does do it again, have you guys been game planning for that? >> oh, absolutely. there are people inside the of the

the assad regime. the assad regime has benefitted from isis. they have a sim —— symbiotic relationship. i don't think that the bombing will drive more people into the hands of isis. in fact, sills sis is gaining adherence because the assad regime, which —— isis is gaining adherence because the assad regime has been slaughtering sunni muslims for the last six years without impunity and something that the holocaust museum in the united states says resembles a genocide. the assad regime is killing sunni muslims and the sunni community is radicalising because of that. if we target the assad regime, maybe that would undermine support for isis and sunni radicalism. do you have a sense of where all of this is going in syria? how the country is likely to look in six months or a year?|j to look in six months or a year?” think we're going to look at something that is a fedderal system, a syria that is divided where either assad or assad's successor, if the russians decide to give him up, control the sp

can -- if assad -- there's the concern about a power vacuum if assad is taken out of power one way or another. what role isis then plays in the country. >> yeah. that's an ideal solution. that's the one i favor. frankly, the geometry of the battlefield has changed, anderson, after the russian intervention. the a. ener the amount of energy on our part to take on assad and isis is beyond what any president could now reasonably demand of this country. that's a great sadness. it is going to be a festering sore for a very long time. but i think, frankly, at best, we're going to have to handle this sequentially. park the assad problem. work on isis. and then go from there. >> how difficult -- the level of russian involvement in syria, it seems like it is even more complicated now than it was during the obama administration before russia got involved. having them on the ground and iran as well, it's much more three dimensional battlefield. >> exactly. again, i would have been right where senator mccain was earlier on your show three years ago, four years ago when everything was more malleabl

and assad won. so we're not going to get into a new iraq kind of war or a new afghanistan kind of war. >> you mean the civil war is essentially over. >> there may be some more fighting for another year or two, opposition is not going to give up. but they're not going to win. assad is going to win. we're not going to send a large ground force into western syria where there is is tens of thousands of iranian and proiranian fighters, and at least four or 5,000 russian personnel 6789 that's not like iraq, that is not like afghanistan. this is a totally different thing. we're not going to go bombing in these places because in iraq we didn't face that. we only had to face saddam hussein's forces or iraqi, sunni and shia militia fighters. same in afghanistan. now there are big states like iran and russia with big forces in syria. so we're not going to get into a big conventional war with them, in syria. that is just not going to happen. assad has won. and i think when the administrationas saying ten days a

do they want assad to go? during a briefing with reporters sean spicer said what we want at the very least is to see assad not use chemical weapons. i think the president will be here and taking a very close look at how the syrians respond to all of this. i think put together the next steps accordingly. they are make it very clear. assad is almost in charge of his own future. >> but something like barrel bombs which they have used which will kill large number of people, i mean that assuming that can continue a pace without u.s. military involvement. >> you know, and i think this is where it becomes a very serious question. you heard members saying the president wants to go further than this and we heard similar discussions happen during the obama administration. the question is how far can assad go before this shifts from a proportional response in to regime change. you heard the president during the campaign time and again talk about the dangers of trying to go after assad and topples will with russians on th

because iran backs assad, and as long as assad is slaughtering the syrian civilians, the civilians have no chance of defeating isis or a resolution for a greater syria against assad. >> interesting point you make, kevin. angela, i'd like your take on this. people like to draw this distinction. that we're fighting isis, and isis poses a threat to the rest of the world. the assad regime doesn't. and that's a civil war. the united nations takes that view, by the way, and hence, doesn't do anything about bashar al assad, as well. do you agree with kevin's take, that maybe we shouldn't be -- maybe we shouldn't be drawing such a clear li? that's john mccain's take. >>ohn mccain's take that kin has given us. >> well, you know, why does isis have support in syria? what assad has done to his own population and the past years have fueled recruits for islamic state. therefore, you can't draw a distinction between them. the russians do. they're not interested in fighting islamic state. they're interested in keeping bashar al assad in power and consistently deny any connection between what he's done

after assad. what worries me is that there's two options, and occupation in which we engage in nationbuilding and the american people will not stand for that, or we can the country to isis and al qaeda, because we know the opposition is divided, if a side leaves, the nation falls into anarchy. we need creative diplomacy and we need someone who knows how to make the deal of the century to solve the situation. i don't know what the deal is right now i'm very worried about people saying let's just take assad out because that is not the answer right now. >> you said of the world got use to former president obama and his passiveness, waiting to take action, seeing how things settle before he does anything drastic. how do you think the world will respond to this move? happening so quickly, such a big move by president trump. >> the russians and allies of russia are going to be upset that we didn't go to the united nations, look, we could be at the united nations till the cows come home and nothing would

isis over assad. secretary tillerson and ambassador hailey say it is still isis. >> accelerate the demise of isil. they're great threat to the homeland and assad as not. but i have never been more encouraged by the trump administration than i have today. ambassador hailey said you will never end the war with assad in power. so you need more american kro s troops. 4,000 to 6,000. destroying isil. you need a safe haven quickly so people can regroup in syria. then you train the opposition to go after assad. and you tell the russians if you continue to bomb the people we train, we'll shoot you down. >> 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 to give him that authority. >> he already has that authority. you have good people on this program but i differ in this regard, i think he has authorization to use force. assad signed the chemical weapons treaty ban. there is an agreement with him not to use

assad violated the agreement. that makes the moral justification the answer to that syrian father's question, how can the world allow this to go on? that much stronger today than in 2013. i don't think it should have been done without congressional approval. i don't think frankly obama should have put troops back in iraq or syria without congressional approval. i don't think this president should have taken the strike without congressional approval. >> doesn't he have the inherent right under the constitution to do that? >> i don't think so. you can argue. president obama did. he said he has the article two power to do that. i also think, frankly, that congress has itself to blame here. we sat on our hands for years. i have introduced an authorization to use force. i couldn't get a single vote. no one could. we have weakened our own role in the checks and balances. i think congress needs to step forward immediately. >> do you think congress could come close to agreeing on a use of force resolution at this point? >

assad's won. when the administration was saying 10 days ago that assad's a reality to deal with, they were right. charlie: tillerson was right. robert: he was. it is unhappy. many of us who wanted to see syrians have a chance to create a new kind of system that was more accountable, providing greater respect for human rights, we are provided -- we are disappointed, but it happened. the idea that the u.s. can still go in and try to change assad government or impose, i think we are long past that. charlie: if the civil war is over and assad has when kospi, i don't understand what our goal is. robert: in the short term, stop the use of chemical weapons. medium-term, figure out how to govern the places taken by the islamic state and keep the insurgency coming there under wraps. very long-term, try to figure out a way to get a cease-fire in patchand maybe someday that sat country back together. that is a long-term thing. derek: just to add onto roberts find a way to alleviate the humanitarian suffering

soi looking to replace bashar al—assad. so i think there is a huge shift in attitude when it comes to whether or not bashar al—assad has any staying power. michael, thank you so much. thank you for having me. we will go back to barbara plett—usher at palm beach. i think we are expecting something from donald trump, a statement. what are you hearing? we are still waiting, actually. we are waiting for an audio statement by the president. as well, we are waiting to get a briefing rum the white house spokesman sean spicer, and national security officials, who are here at mar—a—lago. —— from. they will give a briefing as well. but what we have discussed, the tomahawks were fired from two navy destroyers and hit an air base in the city of homs. it seems to have been a small—scale and limited strike. we don't know much about the damage or whether there we re about the damage or whether there were any casualties. it seems to be the airbase that the planes that carried out the chemical attack took off from, therefore,

they are frustrated with assad. if you look at the reports that are coming out out of russia and inside syria, it is plainly clear that the russians are reaching their end. however, they still want to come out of syria was something. they want to have a base, they want to make sure that they still have a client state, but the syrians have been moving away in terms of their missile technology away from some of the russians. they are now using chinese technology, they are using chinese satellite. >> what about that with the chinese president like today? >> he deftly should. i think you should take a picture of what actually happened inside syria, take a picture to the meeting with the chinese and say, take this back to your north korean friends. this there is a new sheriff in town and we said this earlier but nothing goes over better with our allies than a credible threat of military action. much as a threat of military action but when that military action is credible, when the threat is credible, that's when i think

or an alternative to assad or assad being brought to bear. is that realistic? >> at the end of the day he will leave. he goes counter to the syrian population. we have to remember that the refugees who have fled syria have fled mostly because of the assad regime. 8 million people inside syria who are displaced have fled because of the assad regime. the majority of the population is opposed to assad staying in the long term. what does that look like? first we have to assure that the assad family leaves power. syrians together can reconcile and figure out how to have a unified government. it will take time. the longer we drag this out with the regime in play the longer it will take to solve for it. >> thank you all. coming up, as lawmakers weigh in, many who opposed strikes by president obama are cheering president trump tonight. more on that next. stay with us. look closely. hidden in every swing, every chip, and every putt, is data that can make the difference between winning and losing. the microsoft cloud helps the pga tour turn countless points of data into

i mean, assad's brutality doesn't need to be compared to anything. it's bad enough as it, is and, look, i think it's great that they took this strike in retaliation for the chemical attack and i'm glad that secretary mattis came out and explained that they are not afraided to do it again. that's where you need leave t.making comparisons from that podium, particularly that -- that comparison, never a good idea. >> thanks, guys. more news coming in. president trump scolds kim jong-un on deanwitter accusing north korea of looking for trouble. our exclusive report, that's next. >>>. >>> north korea is calling the u.s. deployment group a strike if provoked. cnn's will ripley is inside north korea for us right now. let's go live to pyongyang. will, what's the mood over there. >> reporter: well, this really is an unprecedented situation here. we've never seen dynamics like this with north korea. we've heard north korea threaten attacks again the united states for quite sometime. never before have we add u.s. president responding with such fiery rhetoric and

is it to pacify assad? is it to keep these chemical weapons which are so horrible from actually being used again against civilians, and then what is the outcome in syria that we really want? is it a negotiated settlement? is it something where assad kind of controls a rump state? is it assad leaves power? does he die? all these questions must be answered to the best of our abilities before we can actually proceed on an actual strategy. because unless we know what the mission is, the strategy cannot follow it. >> thank you i appreciate it. i mentioned how complicated these matters are. the president saying that it's the video of the sarin gas attack that changed his mind. the administration truly did a 180 on its policy toward the syrian regime and is conflict in the matter of the just three days. remember, it was the white house that said that it will syrians would decide to fate of bashar al-assad. today, the secretary of state spoke, seemed to indicate that regime change is something that the united state

now, as it says, there is no role for assad. that makes it very hard to figure out a diplomatic outcome. >> all right. thanks one and all for being here. really appreciate it. great conversation. follow me on facebook and twitter @jaketapper and on sunday my guest on "state of the union" u.s. absnikki haley. i'm jake tapper. turning it over to wolf blitzer in "the situation room." thanks for watching. >>> happening now. breaking news. strike on syria. the pentagon is reporting significant damage to a syrian air base after president trump launches a missile strike in response to syria's chemical weapons attack. it's the first direct american assault on the assad regime since the war began six years ago. >>> policy shift. president trump's decision to strike syria is a dramatic shift from his promises not to get involved in the conflict. did the horrific images from syria cause a change in his strategy? what message does the strike send to enemies and allies around the world? >>> putin responds. russian president vladimir putin ca

feels about backing assad. i think what you saw in this press conference, it was really interesting, especially in the beginning, they're wanting to focus and highlight areas of cooperation but the situation is so bad at this point that the best that could come out of this is an agreement after four hours of talks to talk some more. so that happened. i mean, that goal is out there. they now have this working group to try to work on the relationship. but to hear lavrov not accuse others or blame others for assad, not try to deflect, not try to deny it and that's what we've been hearing from russia, you know, denials that the assad regime was behind this, what he did was call for that investigation. that's kind of his way of hiding today so not being so aggressive as to blame anybody else but to use that full investigation as the kind of deflection point. not great news but it's a softer tone. he did the same thing on the hacking. we don't have any evidence. we haven't seen anything. he was able to use that and h

what are we going to do about assad. one final point on this, the russians have paid virtually nothing for their interference in syria so far and i do not believe they will see this as a serious price they paid for being there, so if we believe these strikes will accelerate conversations with the russians about ousting assad, i don't think that's true. >> panel, there's stick around, we will rely on you throughout our breaking news coverage. >>> there was swift response, we will tell you reaction from the middle east and more. next. >>> we are breaking news. the u.s. firing 59 tomahawk missiles aimed at a syrian air base where officials say that's where the assad regime took off and carried out that deadly chemical attack. at least six people are reportedly dead from the strikes. that's coming from syrian authorities. the syrian army condemning the u.s. strikes saying america is now a partner of isis and other terror organizations. cnn's muhammad lila is live in istanbul. >> reporter: good morning, responding in a predic

they have been covering for assad, if it were not for the russians, assad would not be in power. >> bill: that's true. putin continues to prop assad up, and 5 million are refugees. not most sane people support the missile attack last night. saying >> -- to all of a sudden use poison gas? i think it's zero chance that he would've done this, you know, deliberately. >> bill: former congressman believing that assad was set up by someone. now the morality of the attack is certainly acceptable when you have war crimes being openly committed. a noble nation will confront that. unfortunately, noble nations are in short supply these days, and the usa is an exception to that. also, america's national security is in play because poison gas can be used by terrorists. assad has a very close relationship with iran and hezbollah. one chemical weapons are acceptable, the world will become a more dangerous place. talking that assad's air force should have been destroyed along time ago ago, and nato should of established safe zones inside syria to protect the incident to make innocent. under president oba

i think al—assad's regime in any other way. ithink in al—assad's regime in any other way. i think in that sense i can't... i would imagine that he would get some support from voters. they don't want more soldiers going into syria, dying ina more soldiers going into syria, dying in a middle east war to which they don't see an end. or an advantage. but for... inaudible. they don't see an end. or an advantage. but for... inaudiblelj think we havejust advantage. but for... inaudiblelj think we have just lost the connection with barbara to. let's speak to the middle east analyst who we spoke tojust speak to the middle east analyst who we spoke to just now. he is also an intelligence operative, all was, for many years. you raise this earlier and it would be good to know more about it. you said the most likely response was from iran, possibly through proxies. how much of a problem is that for everybody concerned? it duction -- iranian proxies are the ground force for the russian airforce, proxies are the ground force for the russian air force, so proxies are the ground force for

what do you expect to hear from the assad regime and what do you expect to happen in the assad regime in syria? >> i expect him the assad regime not to escalate him any further. first four years of the civil war, assad was in the brink of being overthrown, only after the russians intervene in the last 18 months that the tide of the war has been reverse. the last thing assad wants to see renewed commitment to overthrowing him. overthe russians, frankly i'm happy that the russians sound disconbobilated. we are very unhappy. i expect given the amount of issues the u.s. needs and russia need each other on, the russians aren't going to escalate any further either. nicole: rex tillerson has been saying that he talked about allies in europe and turkish foreign minister calling for ousting of transition that has long been waited, your thoughts? >> that started with a popular uprising, people were suppressed fbi assad regime and people split and fighting back against the assad regime. there's no question at least from the international community that assad is not -- as long as assad is in powe

you have to get rid of assad. >> assad could not bring peace to syria. those families who have seen their children choked to death will not allow assad be president. he has to go. >> again, the devil is in the details. do you believe that your colleagues in congress would authorize something like that? because as you know, heretofore, you have not been comfortable with that. you voted in 2013 for president obama to take military action in syria after the last big chemical attack. your colleagues in congress were not all on board. >> two questions here. we're not going to be able to use military to win a war in syria that can bring peace. there's no military solution. it will have to be a political solution. congress will bes cautious on the use of military force. congress can help the president achieve the political success of bringing the parties together. let's have -- we need a plan first. we don't have a plan from the president. we don't know his strategy in s syria. how does he deal with russia? how does he deal with iran? that is part of the crisis

this assad's behavior? >> this is a man as of two weeks ago was sitting pretty. he had what was a pro-assad president in the white house, a guy that wanted no quarrel with the regime. rex tillerson saying the syrian people will decide. what happened? as of 2014, he was meant to have released all of, or relinquished all of his stockpiles of chemical weapons. john kerry issued a statement, i remember it very well, we congratulate all parties in successfully ridding syria -- >> did not do it. >> assad has been dropping chlorine gas since that chemical deal was struck between obama and putin. now he dropped sarin, a nerve agent he's not meant to possess, killing 70 people, which is not going to strategically change the dynamics, it's not going to tact tickly change. and all the pages of the newspapers are saying, assad the butcher, nobody's talking about terrorism anymore. this is the height of stupidity and insanity. >> he did it before. actually two months ago, i remember, in february, there was a security co

now he is attacking president assad. now he is attacking president assad. now he is attacking president assad. yes, it is interesting, isn't it? first of all, as you said, when president obama was mulling the possibility of carrying out a similar kind of strike, mrtrump carrying out a similar kind of strike, mr trump was very much against it at the time. he tweeted about it quite extensively. now he has taken this action. he has also basically presented himself as somebody who doesn't want to get involved in foreign entanglements. and on syria, he had up until now, very much had a different approach. he had been quite indifferent about bashar al—assad, not really that interested , bashar al—assad, not really that interested, or at best saying maybe assad, together with the russians, could fight islamic state. so he backed off the opposition to assad. and now he is saying that assad is the bad guy, and therefore he is going to strike against him. so it is quite a shift from him, i think. it is actually shift for american policy in general, because as you

assad is the mayor of damascus. she is trying to create a shiite carter for the russians and the rest of the country is controlled by a variety of militias, isis controls raqqah. it is a very hard place to figure out what is going to happen next. matter is that assad and his russian allies, and more importantly, his iranian allies will do everything possible to keep him in power in order to protect their respect active interests in syria. >> and there continues to be some question about whether we had legal authority to carry out the raid last night. morris davis, former chief prosecutor for the guantanamo commission said in a tweet, quote, there is a clear moral basis for war with assad, but what is the legal basis? has assad attacked or posed imminent threat to u.s. or is there an international mandate? did the administration have the proper legal authority? >> i think so. i think it's a close call and i think it's an arguable one, but i'm a dean with the the tufts university at the school of law. it boils down to

assad is their client. russia's assad's guarantor. they have it within their pow to tell him to knock it off. and by the way, i would think that vladimir putin is livid with bashar al assad. there was no need for him to do this. the russians helped him get the upper hand in the civil war, and he has now gratuitously used these horrific weapons. it's a huge embarrassment to russia. the administration should continue to put russia on the spot. and there's an opportunity here, an opportunity to leverage what the president did last night with diplomacy to get the russians to rein in assad, to stop the use of these weapons, to get the air force on the ground, and hopefully, to even get into some kind of negotiation that could lead to the end of the civil war. >> well, assad's been pretty clear on this interview he gave to a corrosiroatian newspaper b the strikes, "there is nothing but victory for us ahead." we can't stop at anything shorter, you know, the syrian state depends on it. so, that begs the question of what diplomacy can do at th

they may now be more determined to resist assad and be prepared to do more against assad. militarily. now does that affect leverage that makes negotiations and cease-fire more attracted to the russians? more attracted to the radiance? that's a question at this point it is easier to oppose. >> what is the risk in your judgment that the assad regime and his forces who are aligned with him might take action against u.s. forces who are on the ground and in support of a strike on rocco? >> i think there is a risk of that. i think maybe the risk is higher in iraq where the irradiance have more shiite militias where they are more immediately available to me closer proximity to the americans. i don't think we can discount the possibility that there could be that kind of a risk in and around raqqa as well. here though, it also means they want to take on turkey as well, do they want to take on the kurds as well? the cursive had a relationship with the assad regime it's been off and on. it's not such a simple proposition for them. that the think pretty hard about it, but i do think t

he wants one or two airbases, he doesn't care about us are al-assad. the great thing here, and called vladimir putin's bluff. trish: i will leave it there. liberals rolling out their latest conspiracy theory that donald trump's airstrikes on syria was a publicity stunt coordinated with russia to show the trump isn't in cahoots with 2. i'm not getting on this. this is what they are saying. we will show you and have reaction next. [ engine revs ] [ screams ] [ shouting ] brace yourself! this is crazy! [ tires screeching ] whoo! boom baby! rated pg-13. [ screams ] did you know slow internet can actually hold your business back? say goodbye to slow downloads, slow backups, slow everything. comcast business offers blazing fast and reliable internet that's over 6 times faster than slow internet from the phone company. say hello to internet speeds up to 250 mbps. and add phone and tv for only $34.90 more a month. call today. comcast business. built for business. >> conspiracy theories alive and well on the left. the latest attempt to discredit our president,

how can they cover for assad? there are answers that need to come from russia. >> reporter: nikki haley and h.r. mcmaster echoing tillerson's criticism and keeping the door open for imposing additional sanctions on both russia and iran due to the support for assad. >> i don't think anything is off the table. >> reporter: the administration's top official sending conflicting messages about the future of the syrian dictator. tillerson emphasizing that america's first priority is the fight against isis. not toppling assad. >> through the political process that we believe the syrian people will ultimately be able to decide the fate of bashar al assad. >> reporter: as ambassador haley resists, regime change is a primary concern. >> there is no sort of option where political solution will happen with assad. >> reporter: an extraordinary reversal from last week and discrepancy which is not unnoticed by tillerson's critics. >> i think the strategy is based on assumptions that will not work. there is no such thing as assad

the bottom line is to get assad ushed out. the weight you push them out as you take his airpower off table, begin to train syrian opposition in a safe haven. the next step is a safe haven. we have to declare parts of syria say havens until the russians and the assad air force that if you come across this line, you will be shot down. with those, established humanitarian zones so people can live without being bombed and allow people to go back to syria and start training syrian opposition groups to take assad n. the ultimate goal is not only to destroy isil, it is also to push the assad regime out. >> mr. o'connell said in his press conference a few minutes ago that he sees last night as strictly about one thing, don't use chemical weapons against. it sounds like you would see that -- sen. graham: if it is about one thing, it will not fix the nderlying problem. the underlying problem is assad is a war criminal, he is a punt of the ai rainians. -- iranians. radical sunni islam in the form of isolation al qaeda have to be ealt wit

assad is no dummy. i mean, he let isis people out of jail as the revolution was starting because that's who he wanted to fight. that's who he wanted to pit himself against. i will say if it comes down to assad still being in power, i don't believe we can defeat isis, as long as he's out there as a symbol of oppression, then you will have people who, you know, support isis, still coming into syria to fight assad as an illegitimate ruler. so it does no clear path. there's no easy path. we cannot just say we accept assad, period. that sends the wrong signal. >> okay, thank you gentleman. ambassador, i'll just say to the american people let stand for that point of view, it is a fact, however, we had to get rid of assad before we'll get rid of isis. if we can't get rid of assad, we're stuck with isis. i don't think american people will accept that. >>> up next three special elections are giving democrats hope that they can win traditionally republican territory. that's coming up next, this is hard ball with

moscow can't make assad follow its orders. and that would seem to be an answer to some of the statements by secretary tillerson, saying, you know, essentially, that russia can influence assad and should and if it's not, it's complicit. so, i think we're going to see a more formulated response pretty soon from the kremlin, but that's what we've got right now. >> jill, i want to ask you, because the secretary of state, rex tillerson, clarified some information for us yesterday, said the u.s., about the u.s. being in contact with the russians, said no contacts were made with moscow, with president putin. he said, but u.s. military did make contact with russian military officials in accordance with decon flix agreements in syria. so, we know there were some russians at the base, and that the u.s. notified russia ahead of this military action, jill. >> well, the way they notified, i think, is important. they did not, at least as far as we know, contact directly president putin, or the kremlin in a kind of political way, to say, we

nikki haley called assad a war criminal. we will have more of that interview later on in our program. >> president trump announcing the air strikes while meeting in florida with china's president. joining us now live from mar-a-lago with the latest from a trump compound in florida is fox news correspondent kristin fisher. kristin, what's happening on the ground. >> he made his first big military action and presence he showed two things. he is willing to take decisive military action perhaps what his predecessor were not. he also said he is willing to be very flexible and change his stance as situation more in. it was just last week that the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. nikki haley said that regime changing in syria it was no longer the top priority. this white house and then watched syrian president escalated with a series of escalations culminating with that syrian gas attack. from there, president trump had a series of two meetings with his national security council. they presented him with a series of options, president tr

assad is the chicken. assad is the man who has started this war, who has used well cal weapons, who has created so many deaths and so many refugees. and isis grew from the actions and the vacuum in syria. so, it is a complicated process. and really, the united states, its allies and potentially, if they can manage to get russia onboard, are going to have to think how they can continue. if not more military action, the political situation is not working. there's no peace talks to speak of. syrian regime does not partake in them. has never been productive. there's nothing going on there. >> we're talking about the future of assad, what this means. maybe a week ago, a week ago. it looked as if -- the administration said it was up to the syrian people to decide the future of assad. now, the secretary of state, rex tillerson, in florida, before the strike, this is what he says. >> assad's role in the future is uncertain, clearly. with the acts he has taken, it would seem there would be no role for him to govern

they are not interested in assad is a person. they have said repeatedly, assad sen. kaine: eventually, and they say leave it to the syrian people. by the way, that is what tillerson said about a week ago. for russia, trying to think about this, assad is the syrian state. these are highly personalized state in these regions of the world. if you kill assad -- and that is talking about --ing abou the syrian state will collapse, just as it did in arachnophobia when we basically assassinated the leaders in those countries. collapses,an state and leaves the syrian army, which is doing most of the fighting on the ground amidst the islamic state, will collapse. being the will desert to the syrian army. i would ask all o of these americans who vilify assad, i would ask all of your listeners and viewers, if you destroy the syrian state, who is going to do the fighting against terrorists in syria? are you going to ask russia to send troroops? are we going to send troops? for russia, and this is important, it is not assad. they could give a hoot about what happens. it is about t

putin/assad relationship. assad just gave him a lot of headaches and you probably think of assad's merits. this is a one time event and they have no plans of any actions involving syria. that's the breaking news. that's coming in as we been speaking. that's senator briefed on the administration plans have just revealed that the administration has no follow up in a plan for this at all. when vladimir putin looks at that and says, they coordinated with us ahead of time so that we could get everybody out of danger in that airfield, they make sure they did not destroy the airfield they were in effect as gentle as they could be for the missile strike and vladimir putin gets the word tonight, that's it. that's the end of donald trump. donald trump is finished. how does putin react to that? >> there is a possibility that pew p putin is not going to back down. letting them know of the rockets is part of the procedure. also, by the way, putin from the embarrassment, lets say they try to shoot down 59 tomahawks and they

going after president assad is much thinner. and the international defense of thathemical weapons is there is a chemical weapons convention that is being violated by the syrian regime and you have to pin that on humanitarian concerns versus international law. host: at the same time, there have been calls by the members of congress last year since last thursday on a debate in congress on the authorization of military force. whether that should be on the table. is that something trump should pursue? guest: i think you would be wise. the action hee took under his article to authority as commander-in-chief specific threat that he sought to american interests in the region was probably valid and that is based on past president, other presidents have taken that kind of action short of all-out war without going to congress. but i think there is real value in the executive branch going to congress and getting by and having a debate amongst the american people about what our interests are there. and that under certain circumstances, the

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. of course it's to defeat isis. we've got to do that for peace and stability in the area. it's also to get out the iranian influence which we think is causing so much friction and worse issues in the area, and then we've got to go and make sure that we actually see a leader that will protect his people. and clearly, assad is not that person. >> that was, of course, nikki haley, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations. >>> my next guest has been a frequently critical person on political issues. the senator joins me from clemson, north carolina. thank you for joining me again. >> thank you. >> i want to get to that last question i asked ambassador haley. does this change america's position here of prioritizing -- what to prioritize in syria, isis over assad? both secretary tillerson and ambassador haley have indicated isis i