commitments. we do what we say, and we lead with the belief that right makes might. not the other way around. we all know there are no easy options, but i wasn't elected to avoid hard decisions, and neither were the members of the house or the senate. i've told you what i believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. our democracy is stronger when the president and the people's representatives stand together. i'm ready to act in the face of this outrage. today i'm asking congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move forward together as one nation. thanks very much. >> reporter: will you forego a strike if congress disapproves? >> there you have it, a resolute president barack obama saying he's decided military action in syria is what he wants the

country to do, but he is going to take this vote to your representatives, to congress to get authorization before any military action is taken. that might be taking some of you by surprise. it did not seem that that was the course that the country was on, but he says that he feels it is the right action and that congress will, in fact, back him up. almost challenging them to do so. let me go to mike live in washington. wow, mike. >> reporter: i'm shocked. i thought there was no chance that would happen, and we're going to have to think long and hard about exactly what the calculation was, and we're going to ask that at the white house. congress doesn't return, richelle, until september 9th. i'm not sure what today is. i sort of lost track of time since al jazeera launched, but that is more than a week away. that's extraordinary. not only from a military -- not only from a military standpoint,

and i'll let the professor talk to that matter. if there's a strike and you give someone three weeks' lead time, the efficacy of the strike has to be taken into account but the way the president has framed it in the last couple of days, a core national security interest. throwing it over to congress is one thing, he's getting cold feet and thinks he has the votes and he's going to ram it through with or without republican help. it might sound cynical and callous in a context such as this. the republican party is sharply divided on this, as they are on a number of issues, putting the pressure on the republican party to come to a vote on something like this will tear it further asunder and drive a wedge between them. the core question is core national interests. if it is in the core national

interest to set an example and fire the shot across the bow the president talked about, waiting more than another week is a remarkable turn of events. let's put it that way. >> indeed it is. i brought david shuster into the conversation. it almost seemed like two speeches, really. he circled back and reminded the audience of the intelligence that john kerry mentioned yesterday speaking to the american people and the international community making the case for why he was doing this. he tried to outline what the goals were, right? then he also seemed to be speaking to congress as well. it seemed to be two speeches. >> there are two things going on here. first of all, as far as the military is concerned, we were told that the joint chiefs told president obama last night they were ready to go with the ships in the eastern mediterranean and they had the targets picked out and ready to go. there was this huge debate inside the white house about can they move forward without the majority support of the american

people? the polls were not there. they were getting intense blow-back last night and again this morning from speaker boehner and perhaps mitch mcconnell that republicans were not on board yet. while the democrats were covering for the president, they were making the argument maybe this is where you should punt right now and take it to congress and see if you can get their support. i have to say, this is one of the biggest political gambles you will see any president make, perhaps one of the biggest gambles in the last 40 years. if he loses this vote, and there's no guarantee he will get that, it will cripple his presidency for the second term. he'll be the weakest of lame ducks in 40 years. this is a huge political gamble. >> if he loses, he makes this moral case why you have to act, then how do you not act based on this moral case that he's made? i can't do this now because of a political vote i lost? he said that how do we let --

what is the message we say if a dictator gases children in plain sight and do nothing, but you put it up for a political vote? >> the president said this morning and the white house aides told the press yesterday they felt they did not need the war powers act. the president had the authority to act unilaterally because no u.s. troops were in harm's way. once they made that decision they decided to go back to the american people is an incredible punt and incredibly cold feet. again, he's now in the position to trust republicans, that the republicans need to get the votes on this. they're going to put aside whatever desire they have to cripple the presidency and instead follow the moral absolutes the president has laid out. that is a heck of a gamble the president is taking given the relationship with the senate and house. >> dr. jim walsh, go ahead and weigh in, professor. >> i am stunned. i thought i correctly predicted we would get the decision. he's made the decision that an

attack should be made. i did not see the second piece coming at all. politically he's gone all-in. either he's doing this out of as david suggests out of a position of weakness or out of a perceived position of strength. he figures, oh, yeah? i'm raising you on this, and i dare you to vote against this. you know, members of congress, they like to be consulted. they want to be able to have their say, but when it comes to voting on war, they get very nervous because what no one knows is how it will go. >> i mean, i suspect some of them actually don't want this vote. >> absolutely. >> even some of the democrats, but the democratic leadership, nancy pelosi and harry reid said we will provide cover for you. there's some members of our caucus who don't like this. you're going to get support. the american people rally around any president that decides to go forward with military action. after having heard that to still say maybe we need everybody on the record is stunning. >> it's not just congress he's

putting on the record. he went on in that speech we have friends that silently supported us, and i will press them to take a public position. it's not just domestically. he's going to the g-20 meeting in a week with the foreign leaders. >> they degrade their ability. that's a separate and second objectives and to do that after a month has passed is going to be more challenges. you can deter. >> as far as the potential attack, given the amount of security -- the amount of intelligence we know, this administration, the cia and pentagon put over syria, just the information they get as far as this chemical weapons attack, you would find people that are confident even if you gave syria a month notice this is coming, you can bring the times of

weapons and armaments to bear to destroy essentially anything this pentagon and administration wants to go after. that's how sophisticated they feel about their ability to cripple whatever syria wants to say. >> let me bring in mike in a moment. the professor's pointing out this could go on for a few more weeks. is the president perhaps taking the gamble that momentum will build over the next few weeks. in the next couple of weeks -- >> i think. >> go ahead. >> reporter: i think that's counterintuitive really. what was driving this, frankly, richelle, in addition to the gathering intelligence with the american public wasn't privy to anyway until yesterday. it was the pictures. a testament to the power of those pictures, the technology that gathered those pictures and instantly distributed those pictures around the world that brought an outraged reaction that forced the hand of this administration frankly. the longer the distance between that incident and whatever the

congress gets around to doing their thing and they're not back until september 9th. that doesn't meet they will vote on september 9th. they might come back earlier. >> the passions have cooled somewhat. >> let me ask you this, though. i realized yesterday that secretary kerry said that basically u.s. intelligence trumps whatever the u.s. is going to do. i understand that. we have a couple of weeks before the intelligence comes back, and the evidence comes back from the u.n. there are those in the international community who will give some weight to whatever the u.n. finds. >> reporter: again, we get back to the central question here. is it in the core national interest of the united states to do the things that the president deters or isn't it? in libya when the allied forces went in led by the france, and that was a no-fly zone different than what was contemplated here.

that war powers act wasn't activated. we talk about the vietnam syndrome and iraq syndrome, it wasn't activated. why? the administration reasoned that american forces were not engaged in hostilities. a lot of people snickered at that, but there wasn't a great deal of objection in congress at that point. that's something the professor can tell you to be ruled on. 58 days. >> i am still trying to process. i am that shocked that the president has decided to go to congress on this, and, you know, you can't help but think that there is a political calculation here >> reporter: let's play it again, and let it sink in for

everything, the moment. let's watch the president. >> i believe i have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization. i know that the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be even more effective. >> all right. mike, sit tight. sit tight. we are joined now by retired lieutenant general richard newton. all right. what would be the military's reaction to the president saying he is going to put this to a vote? >> first, richelle, this is an extraordinary moment. this would not be new news to the military up to this point. >> sure. >> they have been involved with the process and certainly general marty dempsey is certainly involved with the discussion, obviously. i think from a military stand point, we have the capabilities on hand as the president said to strike targets as the president

has outlined. from a military standpoint, you know, we will sit tight. >> from a military standpoint, it doesn't matter if it's tomorrow or a month from now? >> we have to keep building in the region. as the president said, we could go tomorrow, a week or 30 days from now. we have the capability and will strike coverall accordingly if called upon by the president to do that. >> okay. let's talk about particularly, he laid out what the goals were: deter and degrade their abilities. these were things that can certainly be accomplished without futting boots on the ground. correct? >> i would agree with that. the challenge with that, however, deter and degrade, obviously, but then, you know, what are some of the unintended consequences. >> yes. >> that could ensue from military action? you know, our planners are skilled and capable to try to plan for those unintended consequences, trying to provide, you know, flexibility and alternatives, should courses of action take the wrong course,

per se. so it's not as if we would go into this without having thought about that. >> uh-huh. >> you cannot control all of the events and circumstances obviously. >> the challenge that this is on military families, i was thinking about this a moment ago, whether there are boots on the ground or not, this is such -- this is a stressor on families. >> richelle, it is. you know, we have been a nation at war since the morning of 9-11, but since desert storm, never left the august since august of 1990. so there are stressos on the american military family. multiple deployments, multiple tours overseas and we are a tired military. and the american military family, having been a son of an air forc air force officer as well as my army, there are certain challenges of serving alongside the loved one where the nation is committed to war and committed to other campaigns. it does become weary, but that said, the american military

family has resolve as well as those in uniform. and so they, i think, would stand beside their loved ones and support them as best they can. >> i will bring in al jazeera correspondent, libby casey. libby, now that we know this will be put up for a vote, what might the next few weeks look like? what are you hearing from some members of congress? reporter: the big question, richelle is whether they will come back to early. they are not scheduled to come back until the monday after labor day. there is a lot of chatter about whether they will be called back early and how that could happen. democrats seem far more willing to come back early than republicans. so there may be a bit of a push/pull moment here the president's laid out where he stands and what he wants from congress. but until they get back to washington and have this debate that he is calling for, we are sort of in a waiting pattern. >> david, i want you to weigh in on that. what will the next few weeks look like now? >> this is going to be the mother of all political battles and debates because as the

general just said, they are going to keep track of everything syria tries to move, where the target did will ship to. >> that's not the problem. the problem is, this is a huge, huge political debate that we are entering and the president has not done very well with political debates in the president. when the president on previous issues has appealed to republicans, and some moderate democrats to say, look, for the good of the country, for the good of the world, we need you to take this vote or we need you to do the following, they have not responded well. here is the president again back from the same situation of how do you say for the good of the world, we can't have chemical weapons used without there being some response? and the response we have already seen from members of congress is, well, why is it the united states's responsibility? why are we the world's police? and who is going stopay for that? >> the same buzz saw he may run in to. again, it's extremely, extremely risky political proposition. you will see a political see bate and over the next two weeks unlike anything we have seen perhaps going back several years to the very end of healthcare reform and what that would do to

1/7 of the u.s. sceconomy, starting a week from plumely a week from monday. >> that seems like a valid description. wouldn't you agree, mike viquera? >> absolute. >> yeah. >> you look at what was already on the plate, we are going to have the debt ceiling expire: huge fight about that, the usual spending fight, whether to shut down the government. we will have obamacare quote, unquote implemented beginning october 1st and we all know particular tea party senator ted cruz lying up to bring that down. the immigration debate hanging over congress and to follow along with what mr. shifter was saying, this fall really was, if you look at it in sort of a cold-eyed political way, probably the president's last best chance to accomplish something in his second term. next year, we head into a mid-term election. after that, it's hillary clinton

and whoever else is going to challenge her, joe biden on the democratic side and who is going to emerge on the republican side and the news media is going to be consumed with that and the press room behind me is going to be thinner and thinner and thinner for those daily bri briefings, less and less interest. so, it's enormous gamble. i can't help but think that the president and his aides looked at this and said, okay. there isn't a lot of support for this. we are getting some blow-back in congress. i still have a hard time thinking they couldn't just go ahead and do what they were going to do and let congress sort it out when they do finally, get around to returning to town. so i can't help come to the conclusion that they think they can win this vote, they think it's going to expose and exploit further divisions within the republican party. but again, getting back to the essential questions of life and death and national security here, for the president to repeatedly say that this is something in the core national interest of the united states and then to put it off for two weeks, you know, militarily, i defer to the general obviously

on those matters, but it just seems like an enormous gamble at least in a political sense. >> the upside as mike we will s knows, if the president gets this passed, the votes in the house and the senate he is in a position for moment u78 for all of these other legislative issues the obama administration is trying to deal with. >> great point. great point, david. >> that's an absolutely great point. i wish i had thought of it. if the president emerges victorious on this, then he's got some momentum going into those other battles i was talking about. >> i want to bring back libby casey. i am not sure if you caught the point toward the end where the president really pointedly tried to say to his political opponents: do not make this vote about me. that was very deliberate, very, very pointed, very political, in fact. >> reporter: that's right, richelle. this is a moment where the president has literally the podium and all eyes are on him. there is a lot of resonance and

powur in saying don't make this political. this is about america's safety. this is about america's partner did' safety but in a couple of day's time, the republicans will have a lot more pour in what they are saying. you will hear democrats who are concerned about his position, and politics are bound to intervene. this may be labor day weekend but everything is ramping up. this is a huge moment. we are going to see a lot from the republicans. this takes congress away from the second-day quarterback. they have to put their money where they are their mouth is. we have heard belowback already for the direction the white house was headed but congress will have to get engaged in this debate and not just be the body that says, we told you so or you should have done this or it's only if you let us have our say. they are held accountable as well. they will have to think about how this plays both politically back home and on the world stage. >> there are a lot of escape hatches for members of congress.

we can see the republican party being the internationalist party saying we will go forward so bring them first and then we will join you. >> let me go ahead and get a quick break. keep it here on al jazeera. much more to come. champs as english and arabic channels. disorder in a mexico court. why this judge lost his cool.

>> our top story: president obama made a statement in the white house rose garden regarding syria a short time ago. pay close attention. here is a portion of what he said: >> the united states should take military action against syrian regime targets. this would not be an open-ended intervention.

we would not put boots on the ground. instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. but i am confident we can hold the assad rage ament accountable for their use of chemical weapons, to deter this kind of behavior and to degrade their capacity to carry it out. >> the president seemed to be leaning toward military action for several days. on the other question, whether he would seek authorization from congress, here is what he said about that. >> i believe i have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization. i know that the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be even more effective. >> let's go live now back to mike viquera in washington. so, mike, what are you hearing about congress, who is on vacation? what are you hearing about them potentially coming back? reporter: i will just read it to you.

it's an e-mail. as part of our ongoing consultations with congress on syria, the administration has offered a briefing at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow on the hill by senior administration officials for all members of the house and senate who are interested in attending. now, while there were ongoing talks, we understand over the course of the last several days, the administration, going out of their way, by the description of one hill aide i talked to on my way in, to consults with congress at least to say they did, offering unclassified br f briefings, lower level staffers. it appears now that these briefings are going to take on a more formal structure. one thing i have to point out about that e-mail i just read, richelle. they usually don't tell us the time and place where they are doing these background places. today, they said 2:00 p.m. on capitol hill and there are a number of crack reporters up there who won't have any problem sniffing out exactly where that is taking place. probably not by accident. we will

we will be there with cameras, watch them walking in and out. we will be able to document the fact that this consultation is going on. >> that's part of the messaging that we are going to be seeing from here until whenever it is that congress ultimately returns, and lights just not rule out the fact, and libby casey can second me on this. they could decide essentially to come back early, the september 9th was the target date. they were gone since early august. i think it was actually before august 1st was the last vote. it's been quite an extended district work period as they would like to call it in the house of representatives. it's not out of the question they could come back early. i have no information about that at this point. but september 9th is the target date. but those consultations begin formally, richelle. >> do you want to way in on that? >> i love the way mike uses that lingo. members think it's an important time to touch base with constituents. they could come back. they have had a long time in their home districts now and there will be political jockeying to even figure out if

they are called back early. they are saying senate democrats are already talking now about trying to come back early. of course, democrats control the senate. now, the house of representatives controlled by republicans at this points and they are saying they are stalling here they are not -- they are going to be a lot more reluctant to come back early. and so we will even see a little bit of the political fighting play out in when congress comes back. and that is going to be of significance because that will set up the battle to come. >> it's so interesting as mike viquera pointed out, the white house is publically declaring where this will happen. the white house wants to use the media to figure out: which members of congress were willing to come back and get this classified briefing and they are going to rely on democratic supporters to put enormous pressure in terms of identifying those members of congress that couldn't be bothered. that way, the white house can start making the political argument. look, it's time for members of congress to take this seriously. drop what you are doing, get the classified information and join us. and at the same time, you may

start to see members of congress say, this is all well and good but now we want general dempsey to come and testify over the next two weeks and tell us exactly how will this mission degrade syria's capabilities? and then you have members of congress who say, we all hate chemical weapons but the international community stuck with us. general dempsey said maybe this isn't going to degrade. there are all sorts of he can ape hatches. they have two weeks to try to figure out who they want to pin this on so they don't have to take responsibility for this vote. >> i would assume a general would rather not be brought into the politics of it? >> well, you know, as david refers to general dempsey testifying on the hill, he has done that a number of times. i have heavitestified in the ho and senate and so forth. actually, you know, by law and certainly, you know, as we are confirmed in certain positions, certainly the chairman of the joint chief of staff, he has an obligation. >> sure. >> you know, to go to congress and to testify. so that, and again, he is a very savory, you know, gentlemen --

savvy general officer and joint chiefs of staff and he can handle whatever mission he is assigned. >> let's go to beirut, one of our reporters, correspondents is on the ground in beirut, robert ray. robert, what we are hearing now is that anything that may happen in syria is actually at the very at least a couple of weeks ago because president obama's putting it to a vote to congress, putting it to a vote. what is the reaction from there? reporter: yes, indeed, and we just did get reaction from air force currently syed el d aim, the opposition forces to the bashar al-assad regime. he says he is very happy president obama came out and spoke. he hopes that the congress does pass this and he also hopes that everyone is informed and prepared. he also tells us that when strikes occur, if they do, if it goes through, that their units are prepared to launch a

large-scale weapons attack the moment the strikes start against the regime. we were also told by quazi quazi zakari, he said, i feel happy just like other people in town finally, obama is taking, and we hope america does, too. another -- another piece of information we just got in from reaction from syria, there is people that are saying that, you know, chemical attacks have taken place. they wish that the strike would be soon. they hope that it is larger in scale than what obama just spoke about and that the fsa is preparing to attack damascus when the strike starts if, indeed, it does. but like you said, this is all in limbo at this point based upon what the president just said. >> it actually may not happen. i mean, are they aware? it may not happen. the president may not get the

vote he is seeking? >> exactly right. exactly right. i think that the perception we are getting from inside syria from people we are talking to on the ground there, they hope that it does. >> that's the opposition forces hope it does. beyond that, yeah, the reality check is that this may not occur. there may not be a strike from the united states of america. >> robert ray, great update live from lebanon. thank you so much. let's go back to d.c. where mike viquera has more to add about what's happening with congress. mike? reporter: well, a couple of things, first of all, as it relates to general dempsey and the general by your side there, you two were just discussing that. it was general dempsey, he was re-upped, recon firmed as chairman of the joint chief of staff but not after a lot of blowback from john mccain chiefly and a few other senators who are in charge in their ad vise and consent role in confirming the president's

nominations and general dempsey came forward at the request of carl levin, the chairman of the armed services committee and john mccain with a list of contingen contingencies, military contingencies for syria and he came forward with the list, a no-fly zone, a buffer zone, a stand-off cruise missile attack on down the line monitoring, and the overall tone from general dempsey, and i defer to the general and would like to ask the general, was very skeptical. he talked about the billions of dollars in costs involved. he talked about the unknown outcomes. and as a matter of fact, more recently than that in that letter we all know about and talked about to a great extent to elliott angel, the top democrat on the house foreign affairs expressed a great deal of skepticism about the riz.com of questioning what the president is considering, a cruise missile strike because you are taking the lid off of all of these disparate elements, hezbollah, al-qaeda on opposite sides, iran, syria, the regional

conflagration there that seems to never end and the competing factors, the proxy war between those different sectors as well as geopolitical aspect of bringing in russia. so dempsey made illusion to all of that with a very skeptical eye. now, obviously, the chairman of joint chiefs of staff, the one given orders by the president is going to present the president with the options, but how much impact, i wonder, does the general think that had on congress, that skepticism from general dempsey and on the president in his deliberations? >> general, do you want to go ahead and weigh in on that? >> i do. >> that's precisely the challenge that, you know, general templesey countered with senator mccain and others perhaps on the armed services committee during his confirmation several weeks back, realized that was before the august 21st chemical attack. with that said, general dempsey provided his best military advice during the confirmation hearing is not only providing

the best military advice to the president but obligated to provide that to, you know, both the senate and houses and certainly to the american people. and, again, i am think that from his standpoint, he is certainly trying to balance a whole lot of contingencies that are, you know, being challenged by the u.s. military. first and foremost we are in afghanistan, 60,000 american men and women serve there. to bring on another contingency in trying to limit it in scope, yes. but what would be the outcome in the event that, perhaps, you know, it wasn't able to be limited in scope and so forth? so ihe's got to provide clear, best military advice to the president but, also, to the senate and certainly the house as well. >> i think to mike's point, though, if there is any daylight between what general dempsey testifies to congress about ability to degrade weapons, between what he testifies to and the president has said, that is the opportunity for members of congress to say, wait a second. the president said we could degrade the military but are you saying we can't x, y, and z and

we are not going to vote for this because we don't believe the president when he says, this is what we can do with the military? >> david, it's a challenging position. i don't believe that general dempsey would say that we cannot degrade the syrian capability, certainly with a limit and scope that perhaps the president has outlined. but, again, as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and certainly as a retired senior military officer from my perspective when i was on active duty, you want to make sure is that the civilian leadership of the united states clearly understands in no uncertain terms what are the capabilities of the military, the challenges, the risks? and then, by the way, the military doesn't make the policy call. the policies are made. those decisions are made by civilian leadership. however, they should be informed. i believe, certainly knowing general dempsey and members of the joint chiefs of staff, they have had that opportunity to make that discussion to make it clear. >> knowing members of congress, when general dempsey gets into that hearing room, they are not going to ask just about syria and chemical weapons but what about these he will rebel groups? we tip the balance?

>> where general dempsey gets in the awkward position that mike viquera was talking about, these are groups we don't necessarily feel we can help, we might find ourselves in bed with al-qaeda and provides all sorts of political cover for members of congress to say, why on earth are we attacking syria if these are the groups who are going to benefit according to general dempsey. >> and or to lay on that, you know, there are certainly many known unknowns that general dempsey or anyone el. he will provide best military vice. there will be discussion in the public square in open session, but they can also perhaps go into closed session where they can talk about, you know, a variety of topics, certainly with security clearances, and go into detail. >> richelle, i think this is one of the situations the president has created and i don't know we have had with so much riding on his shoulders but the possibility that, i mean, the general, if he says something a little bit different from what the president has now outlined, the president, the obama

administration, could find themselves in a world of trouble regarding this potential vote. >> it will be quite a debate leading up to -- leading up to the vote. let's go now to mike viquera. >> reporter: i wanted to follow on this discussion. it's fascinating. within the administration it was known that susan rice, the newly installed national security advi advisor was probably the most hawkish toward certain i can't and the willingness to respond as the president is evidently prepared to do militarily. you know, you hate to talk about it. you hate to bring in this political aspect when you are talking about military matters, matters of national security and matters of life and death, in fact. but susan rice is a political hot potato among republicans. for obvious reasons stemming from the benghazi attacks and her appearance on the sunday show shortly thereafter where she gave the line that's termed out to be if not incorrect, controversial. incorrect by most people's estimates. so getting back to this dynamic

among republicans, you are going to have that dynamic, the fundamental distrust of the and the person amountsties within the administration. you are going to have the traditional sort of establishment republican reflex to rally behind -- rally around the flag in these times of potential military, who traditionally favor more muscular military post temperature and aggressiveness if you will in situations like this and the traditional isolationist wing now occupied by members of the tea party who have been tweeting their little fingers off over the course of the last several days, if you will pardon the expression, calling on the president to come to congress and get authorization accusing him of breaking the law if he went forward without it. so there are very fundamental differences within the republican party that largely mirror the differences among the republican party or a whole host issues, whether it be the nsa surveillance program, immigration, domestic issues, whether to shut down the government over the president's healthcare plan, which largely

goes into effect on october 1st. so perhaps this is -- and it certainly has been in the past. i don't know if it is in this case. perhaps this is part of the white house calculation. and as david very astutely pointed out a little while ago, if the white house were to quote, unquote win this debate, and get this authorization in congress, it would certainly weaken republicans and strengthen the president's hand. you hate to think that cynically when we are talking about issues like that but this is washington after all. we all have been doing this for quite some time. it's not surprising. >> so if you just joining united states, let me recap. we can take a quick break and pick it up on the other side of the break. basically, the president did make a statement in the rose garden about -- about a half hour ago, surprising many people saying that he will seek authorization from congress for military strikes in syria saying that he believes that is the course of action, laying out what his goals are, which are to deter and degrade the ability of the assad regime to use

chemical weapons. what message does it send to the world where a dictator can use chemical weaponsp weapons on children in plain site and no one does anything and making sure this doesn't evering late, that terrorist groups can't get their hands on these weapons and it is a follow-up to what john kerry laid out yesterday but the big take is he will not proceed if he doesn't have the authorization of congress who are on vacation right now. so we are going to continue this on the other side of the break. keep it here on al jazeera.

>> updating you on our top

story, president obama made a statement regarding syria a short time ago. here is a portion of what he said: >> i respect the views, the takeaway is our company emerges from a time of war that i was elected in part to end. buzz we really want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing. here is my question for every member of congress and every member of the global community: what message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? >> the president had seemed to be leaning toward military action for several days. >> that's not a surprise. the question, though, was whether he would seek authorization from congress? it didn't seem that he would, then this: actually, we do not have it.

the sound byte everyone is missing, is when the president said i am going to seek authorization fromges and everyone's mouth fell open. have you seen the e-mail when we have the statement from speaker boehner? do you have that? reporter: i do. this is a statement not only from speaker boehner but from the unified republican house leadership including eric cantor, cathy mcmorris, the conference chair, it reads as follows. i will read it since this is sort of braking news here. >> okay. >> understand the constitution, the responsibility to declare war lies with congress. we are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in syria in response to serious substantive questions being raised. in consultation with the president, we expect the house to consider a measure the week of september 9th. and there you have it, richelle, an ends to our speculation about when they would return, continuing now, this provides the president time to make his case to congress and the american people.

remarkable. i was among those whose mouth fell open. before the approximately came out, we said there was zero chance this was going to happen. shame on us and shame on everyone who got carried away with that kind of speculation. obviously, the president -- it's hard to imagine -- it was hard to imagine given everything that had come before, the red line he had laid down, the fact that that red line was crossed, given the fact the president was talking about a shot across the bow, he was talking about a limited and precise military action. it's remarkable now that september 9th, any action is going to have to weight until congress votes on this. now, of course, the speaker and his group and the leadership making i wiallusion to the powe declare war. congress has not declared war since 1941, at the outset of world war ii, of course. there have obviously been votes of authorization in congress but no formal declaration of war,

and i am surprised the speaker would use that language as opposed to authorization. unclear exactly what he means by that but it's clear that the president is going to seek an up-or-down vote in both the house and the senate and congress, people like to talk down congress. obviously their approval rating is very low. very little getting done in congress here of course, the speaker famously saying don't judge us by what we pass but what we block or repeal. that's the standard by which the president walks into this monumental vote of matters that he, himself, has defined as a core national interest. >> mike, david schuster is chomping at the bit to get in here >> i am going to channel my friend, mike viquera who is with me on this. you will note that the republican statement from the house leadership did not mention syria's use of chemical weapons. it's about the united states being involved in syria. >> yeah. >> mike, i wonder if the political -- the way this is sort of breaking down is we are already going to see the president focusing on the moral imperative to react to chemical

weapons and the republicans and congress are going to say: are we getting ourselves en tangled in syria? are we launching a war? andoos what's that going to look like? >> right. the thing you have to remember about any leader of congress, nancy pelosi, sam rayburn, people get confused. leaders of the country, the speaker in the house is second in line after the vice president. but they are con -- their constituency is their caucus or in the g.o.p.'s case, they like to call it their rconference, roughly 245 minutes in the house of representatives. >> that's his constituency. that is the line he has to walk, between the isolationists, between the tea party and on one side and the establishment folks who favor more robust military presence on the part of the united states on the other. >> that's the line he is trying to walk. and every time you see a statement from john boehner,

that is the -- that is his immediate constitwains. >> that's who he was talking to. and every statement leading up to this over the course of the last week, david and richelle, and esteemed guests gathered around the table. i can't see you. the speaker has not said specifically he wanted the vote it's going to get. he has not said that. he said he wants the president to act within the confines of the coverstitution. he did not specifically, as member oths of congress did. he did not say i want the president to come to congress for a vote. now, he is saying that. >> i have been zoned in on that all week, that he did not say there had to be a reason. all members of congress don't want this vote. they do not all want this vote, mike. >> right. look at the dynamic. there will be members of the congress that will vote against it. there will be republicans who vote for it and with the president of the united states.

>> that's a muddling of the message. the reason they have a position called "whip" in congress, occupied now by kevin mccarthy of california, is to keep members in line, to vote the party line. this is not a new fphenomenon. there has always been partnersh bi-partisan in congress but to have folks going every which way on a vote of this import is a problem for house leadership. it sounds callous, overtly political but that's just the nature. >> that's just the nature of the house of representatives, richelle. >> i was going to ask mike: do you think this is the sort of vote where the house speaker and the whip, kevin mccarthy would whip the vote? say vote your conscience? we are not going to hold it against you either way? reporter: i think that's a great point. it was running through my mind as i was speaking there. you know, it's probably not going to be a vote they whip, yeah, true. it's going to be a vote that

they let people go there their own way. you can't whip a vote like this. at least, i don't think i can. i was wrong on one big occasion already today. so i am not going to go too far back out on that limb. the point i was trying to make in talking about whips and party discipline is that the house is designed for party discipline. they don't like to have votes where you let people go their own way. there are going to be divisions exposed regardless of whether they whip it or not during the courts of this debate because you are going to have folks like justin demosh, perhaps the most out spoken thorn of john boehner on the republican side of congress talking about his opposition to this. then you are going to have people on the other side saying that, you know, we have to get involved because this is an outrage and a violation of international law. it's got to be stopped now because what about iran? what about north -- excuse me north korea? what about north korea? what message is it going to send

if, in fact, this goes unpunished? those divisions are going to be exposed now. they are going to be out there for everyone to see. it's not a good vote for republican leaders. >> guys, if you could sit tight, we will do to the united nations where james bays is standing by. quite a statement from barack obama to making his case while he decides military action is the courts he want. laying out what he says his goals are, much of them on a moral basis although he says it's about more than just that. and then saying, he is going to abide by what congress decides. what is the reaction >> i think people are surprised by that last part, which was the key bit we didn't expect. >> uh-huh >> which was going to congress, but the other part of it, which is, i don't care whether there is a u.n. resolution. he made that quite clear. also, i don't have to wait for that u.n. inspector's report that's going to come out. having said all of that, that n

uninspector's report quo now, i think given the time lines we are talking about, become more important than, perhaps, we thought a matter of hours ago. i tell you why. those inspect orders have left syria. they have gone to europe. they are taken samples. they are put them in lab rattories. those samples would be analyzed now and they will come up with their report. they sayt they will work as fast as they can but they need to do rigorous scientific testing. we are not being given a proper timeline. simply days, possibly a week or maybe two weeks. that puts it in the period, of possibly reporting possibly before that congressional vote. now what if -- i just raise this now. what if the u.n. inspect orders produce their report before the congressional vote and there is some doubt in their report whether white house -- where the white house said there is only certainty? that could be important. >> i did pose this question earlier to mike viquera: i said

perhaps pushing this back might build momentum. you are saying anything could happen. anything can happen in that time. to your point of the president may have his strongest position now and, over time, anything could happen. his position could actually weaken, james. >> his position could weaken. there certainly are international players that would like his position to weakern. certain country tripods, syria, one, iran, but also russia which has that powerful veto at the u.n. security council, who would like the case for war to unra l unravel. there is a danger in what he is doing. >> wow. >> you know, to his point, you are going to see the process -- >> james. >> when he talks about the significance of this united states report becoming far more significance not only to the administration but also to members of congress, you may see the prospects, richelle of members of congress who have previously asked for the united states to defund the united nations are now going to hang their vote on if there is any

discrepancy what the u.n. says in the report and the certainty of the presidency, the obama administration. again, james is absolutely right. the politics of this are so sensitive any sort of information that comes to the united nations now becomes huge in terms of how this vote plays out in washington. >> james, did you hear what david shuster was saying? reporter: i did, and i think that you have what's going on here is -- has seen for some time separate from the political debate that's going on there on capitol hill. the two are possibly going to coincide. >> thank you. live from the united nations. let's take a break. much more on what may be happening in syria. more to come.

same champs as english and arabic channels. disorder in a mexico court. why this judge lost his cool.

welcome back to al jazeera for those much you just joining us, president obama made a statement in the white house rose garden regarding syria just a moment ago. some of it is what we expected.

and then there was also a fairlies significant surprise. let's go ahead and listen to some of that right now. >> while i believe i have the authority to the carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, i know the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be more effective. >> joining me now with the al jazeera correspondent in d.c. libby, i am not sure you have had a moment to listen. >> that's david shuster. libby, there we go. >> reporter: not only have i been listening to the president and the conversation we have been having hear this afternoon but also watching twitter and getting some e-mails and watching the response and seeing republicans push back a bit. interestingly enough when we heard mike vaquiera saying, okay. make your case in a couple of weeklies, president obama and congress, you know, holds a lot of power. we are now seeing republicans

like pete king of new york, a very powerful voice on issues, intelligence and foreign affairs saying that the president is actually advocating -- abdicating his role as chief to congress. this is the kind of conversation we will see unfold in the next couple of days. the president, there is a lot of conversation about how the president wants to move forward on syria but one could argue he has cornered himself a little by putting out the red line. they now have evidence according to the white house of chemical weapons used. at this moment, he actually die fuses things a little bit by pushing the ball to congress's court. he is not totally saying he is going to do the will of congress. we have to look at the words he used careful when he may /* /- cable. he has made his decisions and now congress can look at it. where the power will ultimately lie still remains to be seen. >> libby, i misspoke when i said i don't know if you had seen the statement but the statement that

i was referring to was senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell has released a statement and how it reads is: today, the president advised me that he will seek an authori authorization for the use of force from congress prior to initiating any combat operations against syria in response to the use of chemical weapons. the president's role as commander in chief is always strengthened when he enjoys the expressed support of congress, but if we can backtrack a little, there were -- mitch mcconnell was not one of the republicans actually asking the president to come expressly seek the permission of congress. >> appear couple of hundred members ask for more information and asking the president to come to congress but i have to say richelle, congress is going to have to get up to speed on the intelligence briefings. i heard one democrat talking on national radio saying he doesn't want the company to move forward without congress but when he was pushed about the use of the intelligence that the white house has shared that secretary kerry shared yesterday and he said, well, i haven't had a

chance to look it all over yet. now is a moment where members of congress are going to have to get access to the intelligence that they are given to make some decisions and then, of course, look at the political ramifications of what they do. we are seeing a little bit of cross chatter here on social media, twitter, facebook, but about how republicans are responding to the president's statement today. >> it will be quite a vote today. >> it will be quite a vote. great work by libby to notice that the peking is ageing the president of abdicating his responsibilities. they must be pulling their hair out because they, i think, expected the president would go ahead and make this decision now by punting to congress, it's on theholds of john mccain and pete king to lift this vote so the president can get authorization to do this. puts them in a weird spot because they are critics of the president. even though they support attacking syria, they don't want to have obama's presidency riding on their shoulders. if the president loses this

vote, it will weaken him. it will weaken the united states perhaps in terms of around the world. it will mean the end as far as the president's power over congress. again, it's just so strange there is the president now having to rely on some of his fiercest critics to get this vote, to get the votes he needs to win this. >> international security expert, jim walsh, how do you see this playing out >> my head is swimming, number 1 because this is such a choshock the key word that rings in my head is uncertainty. we are in the early hours of this. this is a story that could take a lot of twists and turns, things happening overseas. things happening domestically. i think it puts congress in a tough position. we have seen the authorization votes before where it's been difficult from a partisan standpoint because you have to vote against the president when he is saying this is a matter of national security. and when you are staring that in the face, that becomes much more desist. it's easier to criticize when you are at some distance away. but who knows what is going to happen tomorrow where this whole

story could take and shift again. the other thing he said is: we are going to be talking about this every day. the air is going to be sucked out of the room because this is going to be fought out in front of cameras every day for the next two, three weeks. >> while the public -- i was going to say the republicans may be interested in wrecking this presidency but they can always say, now, look. the united states being the world's policemen, it is not in our national security interests to be responsible for what syria does to its own people. you may find republicans who find valid reasons to say why they are not going to support the president who also feel the side benefit of, oh, by the way, there is a side political benefit that we can ruin this president. >> to recap, here is what's been happening in syria: president obama says the u.s. will take military action against syria but he will not do south without authorization from the congress. the president says any action also will be limited. keep it here on al jazeera throughout the day for more on what is happening in syria. we will be right back.

>> president obama made a decision about how to respond to last week's chemical weapons attack near the capitol. he spoke in the white house rose garden just over an hour ago. >> after carefully deliberation, i have decided that the united states should take military action against syrian regime targets, the house and the senate. >> the president says he is ready to order a strike at any moment, but i says he wants congress to approve military action first. congressional leaders say they will take up the matter when lawmakers return from their august recess the week of september 9thths. u.n. chemical weapons inspectors who collected evidence from the site are now in the netherlands. the team left syria through