Daily Rundown   |  August 29, 2013

Parties split over Syria intervention

The Center for American Progress’ Neera Tanden, former top aide to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, John Feehery, and Politico’s Anna Palmer talk about the president’s upcoming decision on whether or not there should be intervention in Syria and give their shameless plugs.

Share This:

This content comes from Closed Captioning that was broadcast along with this program.

>>> and now we have this much larger use, and this does seem to me, and to president obama , and to president hollande that an appropriate moment to ask whether it's time to do something to stand up. you can't on the one hand accuse me of rushing into something but on the other hand say why you have waited for 14 attacks --

>> there's john cameron making the case to parliament. let's bring in the gaggle. a debate, john feehery that we're not going to see on the floor of the u.s. congress .

>> and we should. i don't know how we're going to go on this thing.

>> both parties more split the this is not a natural political all reds are here, all the blues here.

>> there's a huge hangover from iraq, and what is the sense, what will that accomplish? i think there's real misgivings.

>> we had two interventionists now, both of them calling for some sort of intervention, but there's clearly a coalition. we saw it -- i think we saw that coalition in the bill on nsa, where you could see congress saying, don't do it.

>> i think there's a lot of skepticism. we talked to a bunch of members on this, on the intel committee, those who you would think would go -- wait you need to see what they'll do. what is the purpose of this? everybody's war-weary. what does this accomplish for us?

>> the cover of "time," you know, is -- weekly news covers are meaningless anymore, we know that --

>> don't tell "time."

>> i understand that.

>> but i thought this was a very fitting cover. this president won the presidency, was going to be the guy to end these long wars.

>> well, look, the president said, and i remember it well, he doesn't oppose all wars, just opposes stupid wars. the issue here in syria is the use of chemical weapons . the question before everyone is if that's a national security threat, the president and many of our european allies believe that allowing a country, especially in the middle east , to just use would help to destabilize world security. so that's the question. obviously we need to get a handle on the intelligence, but i think he would be able to bring democrats along if he was able to show there's real intelligence here and a national security threat.

>> i think that's what the next 24 hours seems to be about. it's not just giving congress the case, but the public. they plan on releasing more, and it's interesting, it's not a slam dunk , adding the caveats.

>> are they going to bring out colin powell ?

>> no, they're going to do it on background, give reporters and the public the paper. they're not going to have a person do it.

>> i think they also have to tell people what is the end point here? will we -- the problem is when you get into a war like this, it's awfully hard to get out.

>> i had somebody say what happening if you hit him and he does it again, we have to hit him again, and they may attack attack --

>> guess what? israel may counterattack.

>> that could happen anyway.

>>> shamless plug.

>> cat put out reports, and that's why i plugged them.

>> what's this one?

>> about the sequester's impact on head start and how 57,000 children will not be returning to school this year because of sequester.

>> ann?

>> i've got working with my colleague on a series will military sexual assault. there's a landing page . check it out.

>> what feehery theory do we have?

>> the capitol hill little league . very excited for baseball.

>> it is.

>>> that's it for this edition