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 the now has two fronts for president obama, still trying to get that international support. obviously, it was a big setback for president obama when there was that vote in the u.k. plairm and he didn't get his support he was hoping for for the key ally that special relationship from the u.c. u.k. coming there with the swedish prime minister, echoing the president's concerns that yes it is clear that chemical weapons have been used but at the same time, this is something that should be handled at the united

nations. this is a difficult problem for president obama. >> a lot of energy was focused when it came to combating terrorism. and what i can say with confidence is that when it comes to our domestic operations, the concerns that people have back home in the united states of america, that we do not sur veil the american people or persons within the united states, that are -- surveil c, that there are a lot of checks and balances to avoid a surveillance state. that a lot of times human endeavors have not worked the way they should and we had to

tighten them up. and there are legitimate concerns that as technologies grow, there are laws in place that are not sufficient to guard against the dangers of us being able to track so much. now, when it comes to intelligent gathering internationally, our focus is on counterterrorism, weapons of mass destruction, cybersecurity, you know, poor national security interests of the united states. but what is true is that the united states has enormous capabilities when it comes to intelligence. one way to think about it is in the same way that our military capabilities are significantly greater than many other countries. the same is true for our intelligence capabilities. so even though we may have the

same goals, our means are significantly greater. and i can give assurances to the publics in europe and around the world that we're not going around snooping at people's e-mails or listening to their phone calls. what we try to do is to target very specifically areas of concern. having said that, what i've said domestically and what i say to international audiences, is with changes in technology, with the growth of our capabilities, if our attitude is because we can do it, we should go ahead and do it, we may not be addressing some of the legitimate concerns and dangers that exist any time

we're talking about intelligence gathering and surveillance. so what i've asked my national security team to do, as well as independent persons who are well-known lawyers or civil libertarians or privacy experts to do is to review everything we're doing, with the instructions to them that we have to balance the ends with the means. and just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should do it. and there may be situations in which we are gathering information, just because we can, that doesn't help us with our national security. but does raise questions in terms of whether we're tipping over into being too intrusive with respect to the -- the

interactions of other governments. and that is something that we are currently reviewing carefully. we are consulting with the eu in this process. we are consulting with other countries in this process. and finding out from them what are their areas of specific concern and trying to align what we do in a way that i think alleviates some of the public concerns that people may have. but this is always going to be some -- there's going to be some balancing that takes place on these issues. some of the folks who have been most greatly offended publicly, we know privately engage in the same activities directed at us. or use information that we've obtained to protect their

people. and we recognize that. but i think all of us have to take a very thoughtful approach to this problem. and i'm the first one to acknowledge that, given advances of technology, and the fact that so much of our information flow today is through the internet, through wireless, that the risks of abuse are greater than they have been in the past. now with respect to sweden, i haven't had a chance to wander around stockholm as much as i'd like. it is a gorgeous country. what i know about sweden i think offers us some good lessons. number one the work you've done on energy the united states can and will learn from. because every country in the world has to recognize that if we're going to continue to grow,

improve our standard of living, while maintaining a sustainable planet, then we're going ohave to change our patterns of energy use and sweden is far ahead of many other countries. sweden also has been able to have a ro robust market economy while recognizing there are some infrastructure or education or research that are important and there's no restriction between making public investments and being a firm believer in free markets. and that's a debate and a discussion that we often have in the united states. i have to say that if i were here in europe, i'd probably be considered right in the middle, maybe center-left, maybe center-right, depending on the country. in the united states, sometimes

the names i'm called are quite different. and i think a third observation and final observation i'd make is though i know that i'm sure frederick doesn't see this as he's engaging in difficult debates here, i do get a sense that the politics in sweden right now involve both the ruling party and the opposition engaged in a respectful and rational debate that's based on facts and issues. and i think that kind of recognition that people can have political differences, but we're all trying to achieve the same goals, that's something that a

swede should be proud of and should try to maintain. >> the first question from the american press goes to steve holland of reuters. >> thank you, mr. president, thank you, sir. have you made up your mind whether to take action against syria, whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved, is a strike needed in order to preserve your credibility for when you set these sort of red lines and are you able to enlist the support of the prime minister for report on syria. >> let me unpack the question. first of all, i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. governments in 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons is abhorre

abhorrent. even when countries are engaged in a war. congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. congress set a red line when it indicated that, in a piece of legislation titled the syria accountability act, that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. and so when i said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what's happening in syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of hue humanity is wrong, that isn't something i kind of made up, i didn't pluck it out of thin air. there's a reason for it.

that's point number 1. point number two: my credibility is not on the line. the international community's credibility is on the line. and america and congress's credibility is on the line. because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. and when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage. how can this happen? in this modern world? well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations.

and so the question is: how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed? the question is, how credible is congress when it passes a treaty saying, we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons? and i do think that we have to act. because if we don't, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it, and issue resolutions, and so forth and so on, that somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with immunity. and those international norms begin to erode. and other despots and authoritarian regimes can look

and say, that is something we can get away with. and that calls into question other international norms and laws of war and whether those are going to be enforced. so as i told the prime minister, i'm very respectful of the u.n. investigators who went in at great danger, to try to gather evidence about what happened. we want more information, not less. but when i said that i have high confidence, that chemical weapons were used, and that the assad government through their chain of command ordered their use, that was based on both public sourcing, intercepts

evidence that we feel very confident about, including samples that have been tested showing serin from individuals who were there. and i'm very mindful of the fact that around the world and here in europe in particular, there are still memories of iraq and weapons of mass destruction accusations and people being concerned about how accurate this information is. keep in mind, i'm somebody who opposed the war in iraq and am not interested in repeating mistakes of us basing decisions on fatalitiy intelligence. but -- faulty intelligence. but having done a thorough going evaluation of the information that is currently available, i can say with high confidence, chemical weapons were used. and by the way, iran doesn't deny it. even syria doesn't actually deny that they were used.

and that is what the u.n. investigators are supposed to be determining and frankly, nobody's really disputing that chemical weapons were used. the only remaining dispute is, who used them. which is outside the parameters of the u.n. investigation. so the u.n. investigation will not be able to answer that preliminarily, they're not supposed to. but what we know is, is that the opposition doesn't have the capability to deliver weapons on this scale. these weapons are in assad's possession. we have intercepts indicating people in the chain of command with both before and after the attack with knowledge of these attacks. we can show that the rockets that delivered these chemical weapons went from areas from

within the control of assad to these areas where the opposition was lodged. and the accumulation of evidence gives us high confidence that assad carried this out. and so the question is, after we've gone through all this, are we going to try a reason not to act? and if that's the case, then i think the world community should admit it. because you can always find a reason not to act. there's a complicated difficult situation. and an initial response will not solve the underlying tragedy of the civil war in syria. as frederick mentioned, that will be solved through eventually a political transition. but we can send a very clear, strong message guess the prohibition, or in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. we can change assad's calculus

about using them again. we can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again. and so what i'm talking about is an action that is limited in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task of degrading his capabilities. and deterring the use of those weapons again. and in the meantime, we will continue to engage the entire international community in trying to find a solution to the underlying problems. which brings me to the last question, and that is, what happens if congress doesn't approve it? i believe that congress will approve it. i believe congress will approve it because i think america recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action, even one as limited pass we're talking about, even one

without boots on the ground, that's a sober decision. but i think america also recognizes that if the international community fails to maintain certain norms, standards, laws, governing how countries interact and how people are treated, that over time, this world becomes less safe. it becomes more dangerous not only for those people who are subjected to these horrible criemtion--crimes but to all of humanity. we have seen that again and again throughout history. and people of europe are certainly familiar with what happens when the international community finds excuses not to act. and i would not have taken this before congress just as a symbolic gesture. i think it's very important that

congress say that we mean what we say. and i think we will be stronger, as a country, in our response, if the president and congress does it together. as commander in chief i always preserve the right and the be responsibility to act on -- and the responsibility to act on behalf of america's national security. i don't believe i was required to take this to congress but i did not take this to congress just because its an empty exercise. i think it's important to have congress's support on it. >> and the next swedish question goes to swedish national television. it is gabby ash. >> mr. president, you have given talks about the moral force of nonviolence. i was wondering could you describe the nobel piece prize

winner, in what way did it move the world a step closer to resolving the climate crisis? >> i would refer you to the speech that i gave when i received the nobel prize. and i think i started the speech by saying that compared to previous recipients i was certainly unworthy. but what i also described was, the challenge that all of us face when we believe in peace, but we confront a world that is full of violence, and occasional evil. and the question then becomes, what are our responsibilities? so i've made every effort to end

the war in iraq, to wind down the war in afghanistan, to strengthen our commitment to multilateral action, to promote diplomacy as the solution to problems. the question, though, that all of us face, not just me, our citizens face, not just political leaders, is: at what point do we say, we need to confront actions that are violating our common humanity? and i would argue that when i see 400 children, subjected to gas, over 1400 innocent civilians dying senselessly, in

an environment in which you already have tens of thousands dying, and we have the opportunity to take some action that is meaningful, even if it doesn't solve the entire problem, may at least mitigate this particular problem, then the moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing. but it's difficult. this is the part of my job that i find most challenging every single day. i would much rather spend my time talking about how to make sure every three- and four-year-old gets a good education, rather than spending time thinking about how i can prevent three and four-year-olds

being subjected to chemical nerve gas. unfortunately that's sometimes the decisions i'm confronted with as president of the united states. and as president of the united states i can't woul avoid those questions because as much as we are criticized, when bad stuff happens around the world, the first question is, what is the united states going to do about it. that's true on every issue. it's true in libya, it's true in ra wanda, it's true in sierra leone, it is now true in syria. that's part of the deal. what was the second question? i think we have great opportunities -- i think this is a good chance for frederick to talk about -- >> okay so that's barack obama speaking in stockholm the

swedish capital. he is standing there with the swedish prime minister. he was talking about how he could be a nobel prize winner and still push the case of going forward to syria, that's what he's doing at the podium, pushing the case on syria, turning the question on its head, questioning how the international community cannot act. live in stockholm, take us through the more salient points he's been making as as far as trying to convince the international community that it's important to be going into syria what he's going to be doing today and going forward in this international visit? >> you know i think it was an extraordinary statement by the president only in the sense it was easily the most forth right statement thus far, that he would go to congress a move that

many perceived as a weakness on his part. i think you saw a president today obviously prepared by the question, obviously irritated a bit on the framing of that question from the american reporter about the president's own credibility. after all it was the president who secretary of state john kerry who went before cameras, called bashar al-assad a thug and a murderer, the case was airtight, high confidence that it was the bashar al-assad regime, the president talking about a military response, only to switch gears, you are right he turned it on his head. while it is a fact, it is a fact that the president did use the term red line, he literally said red line a year ago last month in august, the president turning that on its head saying it's not my credibility that's at stake here. it's the credibility of the international community and moss

significantly at this point the credibility of congress. the president by sending it to congress has put this in an inherently political contest. as you may know the american congress is virtually paralyzed. john boehner, the speaker of the house indicated he would vote for it, but there are many twists and turns along the way in the congress. there are any number of scenarios, any number of procedural rigmarole that could happen between now and then. and that's when you saw the president say he believes that congress will pass that. once again threw down the gauntlet to congress. i'm not sure that throwing the onus is going to sit well, for those who oppose him or sit on the fans. that's nature of the political contest going on in washington. you're right there are, sweden

heavily invested in the nobel prize, every nobel prize is awarded in stockholm save the peace prize which was awarded in os lowelow. when i took that prize i said i was unworthy and there were times i would have to take military action. reiterating his statement again and again you could characterize it as a forthright response from president obama thus frar, this is a matter of credibility of violating international norms. he said are we going to find a reason not to act, that basically sums up the president's entire presentation right there. >> thank you, we will go to washington where kimberly hackett is standing by. one that obama very, very clearly said, he says he expects congress to be backing him, when he was asked would you go ahead

without congress's approval and is that confidence founded? is there reason for it? >> well, there shouldn't be reason for it. because historically this congress has not been very supportive of the president's policies but the president thinks this time is different. as we look at a lot of the question that's taking place on the senate side of congress, on tuesday in fact there is a reason to be confident because there does seem to be a majority in that committee that are supportive. but that's just one committee. there are 535 members of congress and the rank and file, each will be voting with their conscience on this and there are certainly a lot that still have questions. i think it was interesting when you hear the president talking he was clearly trying to win over the support of the international community. right now the u.s. feeling it's going alone. that is the same thing the president is trying to do here on capitol hill. he is feeling he is going alone. he is building support but he

needs more people, more consensus in order to get the support he's looking for, congressional authorization to launch those military strikes. ♪

>> any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sorn state is inghissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression. >> and that begs the question, what sort of response could there be there from syrian allies if there are strikes? maneuvering at al maza air base in damascus. resolution came from its u.n. ambassador. >> how cot united states of america act unilaterally speaking from outside the

context of the united nations? who requested mr. obama to be the bully of the world? >> this is not iraq and not afghanistan. >> about but the u.s. president appears resolute. if the resolution is approved he will have the backing of congress for a 60 day period. u.s. navy continues, while in syria for the people at he's, there is the looming question, will a limited action by the u.s. make any difference or could it make the situation even worse? andrew simmons, al jazeera. >> and barnaby phillips is live with us from st. petersburg. barnaby, just a few minutes ago we were listening to barack obama speaking in stockholm. ahead of the g-20 summit, he

made heavy comments about how he's pressing for intervention in syria and how the international community needs to act now. given putin's latest comments how do you think he's going to react to this and what do you think he's going to take from this? >> well, we've had some more comments from president putin reported within the last hour. which gives absolutely no grounds for encouragement whatsoever, that a gap might be narrowing between him and the american president. he spoke about lies having been used during the debate in the united states congress. he said that it was absurd, something he said again, that president bashar al-assad's forces would have used chemical weapons. so there's absolutely no scope for common ground that i can find. you heard how unequivocal president obama was in stockholm, how confident he was the august 21st attack was the

responsibility of president bashar al-assad and he felt he had a duty to act. where does this leave this g-20 summit? it's difficult to be optimistic. traditionally, g-20 summits have focused on finance issues. the long meeting between president obama and president putin had been cancelled. we all assume there will be some sort of talking on the side ground, perhaps on the beautiful palace on the grounds of st. petersburg, that you can see behind me. how much possibility for agreement, no possibility at all i'm afraid. congress is about to debate military action in syria in just

about the next hour or so. jackie roland is live in paris. france will be key, it's one of the few countries that is actually given out any positive signals. tell us about, as we're coming to this vote or this debate that's coming up where france is heading? >> well, we're expecting to hear the french prime minister reiterate france's case, or the president's case for taking action. and it's very similar to the arguments that we've heard from barack obama, namely, the prime minister will argue it's in france's national security interests to act against a government that possesses and is willing to use chemical weapons. and also he'll make the point to do with french values. how can a country based on a principles of liberty, equality

and fraternity, how can they stand by and let a country use chemical weapons against its civilians. right wing opposition has expressskepticism. a number of members of parliament, they say they still haven't seen conclusive proof that this was a chemical attack carried out by forces loyal to al-assad. there won't be any vote at the end of the debate in parliament, however, there are indications that there may at some stage in the future be a resolution sent to parliament. under the constitution it's the president who makes the decision to engage in a war. however, french public opinion rather like u.s. public opinion is strongly in favor. 75% almost in a recent poll said that they think that the parliament should be given a vote on this issue.

>> okay, jackie roland, thank you very much. just ahead of a vote that's going to take place in france, a debate rather where they're going to debate france's involvement in syria. now you're looking at pictures from stockholm, that's the swedish prime minister standing there, with barack obama who has just been speaking himself and speaking to reporters amongst other things he's been pushing the case for intervention in syria, saying that the international community should be held responsible, and the international community should act. in other news the u.n. is pledging to boost its support for the central african republic. aid groups say the country's

health services are close to collapse. in a first part of a special three part series that nasrin rashiri is covering. >> one of the first places to fall to a coalition of rebels known as selica. they began their advance in december of last year. when the fighting started, took children into the bush. for months they lived on roots, plants and dirty water. her youngest son emanuel fell ill so she decided to walk to this hospital. he's now nourished and dehydrated but now has a good chance of surviving. >> our children are ill and we don't have the money to care for them. these children are our future. if they can grow up, then they can take care of us. >> the united nations says that every 21 minutes a child dice in

central african republic from preventible diseases and many more will die without emergency care. during the recent fighting this was the only functioning hospital for around 140,000 people. but much of the drugs here as well as the mattresses as you can see were looted by selica rebels. things are improving here. to get hope to people in more remote areas, it's estimated half the population t has access to any medical care. they are afraid of these selica fighters. the local people say fighters shouldn't see selica as a threat. >> since last december we haven't killed anyone, we haven't hurt anyone, we vns forcibly recruite recruited sol.

people should just relax. >> these warehouses were filled with supplies for around a million people. everything is gone. >> we need vehicle, staff communications equipment people who are going to manage their security. to influence situation of children and what populations most need. good some schools have reopened thanks to u.n. help and in these classrooms there is hope that education can change things. but in central african republic the next battle for control is never far away. there is fear that there will be more fighting sending these children and their families back into the bush. >> and nasreen noosri, joins us from central african being republic. a bleak picture for those in the

central african republic. >> yes, certainly is, more than five months on from when selica took control, many people are still moving in fear. this is a lawless country, that is why international agencies are finding so difficult joining us here. ellen is a country director for nsf, painting a very bleak picture as well, you have described this as the forgotten crisis. why do you think it's been forgotten in the world? >> the reason for it i find it very difficult to tell you. but what we see around us is a huge humanitarian need, put together to help those people then you can only conclude that i.t. falls short to the needs in an enormous way. and it ranks from actual manpower to funding and it affects all levels. >> now you are operating in very

difficult circumstances. what is the situation as you're seeing it out there on the ground right now? >> in the project that we have, we see that for example, many civil authorities have not yet returned to their posts so it's only armed actors who are the representative of the state. and for example in the health sector which is of course the sector we are most involved in, all the regional directors of health have not trowrnd their position -- returned to their positions, which is most vital. >> what do you need urgently to help people out there who through a desperate situation? >> a number of things fm of course there is always security. that's a given that should be there for people to feel comfortable and also for people to work. and next to that is manpower. but it's also funding.

as you look at for example the whole of the u.n. system which obviously has a large role to play in this crisis then you see that many agencies are underfunded which doesn't help their retake of activities which is also so highly needed. >> nsf and other agencies have been working for many years but it does seem that many things have not improved, in fact it seems to get worse not better. why should donor companies keep investing money if that's the case? >> because it's about people. if you look at an average family out far away from the capitol, like subsistence farmers, are subject to all kinds of diseases, we have malaria. every child if this country gets four, five times, malaria every year. >> ellen thank you for joining us.

the humanitarian issue is one issue, obviously security is another, people here in bangi, tell us they want a legitimate government, one that can provide elections within 18 months but also to keep them safe from what they say is looting and killing which is still going on here. >> nasmin nageery, thank you. in japan, radiation levels of the stricken fukushima plant have risessen to the highest level since the tsunami of two years ago. >> 2200 mill iseverts, enough to kill someone without protective gear in just a few hours. the disclosure was made just a day after the government announced a two part plan. the first is to try and filter

out radioactive substance he from contaminated water. the second involves building an underground wall of ice using a system of pipes filled with coolants. the idea is to prevent water becoming contaminated in the process before flowing into the ocean. but the former designer of nuclear reactors say the measures proposed by politicians and the plant's operator tepco is not enough. >> tepco would not be able to solve this problem. we have to appoint more experts and form a project team. making an ietion wall is one idea but whether it's the best idea is questionable. >> there is no other evidence of leaks at the facility, it says the higher readings are due to more sensitive equipment. this recent development can't come at a worst time for japan. the prime minister is pushing for the reopening of nuclear react toors meet the country's energy demands and in a few days tokyo will find out if it has

been chosen to host the 2020 olympic games. >> we are determined to take drastic measures of a maximum scale, so there are no problems by the 2020 olympics seven years from now. >> with that statement coming on the back of recent revelation he may offer little assurance. tepco estimated there are radioactive levels leaking into the ocean daily, only confirm a fears that a cleanup at the fukushima daiichi plant will be worse. twisters struck about 100 kilometers north of tokyo. 13 homes were completely

destroyed while dozens of other homes were demanding. pakistan's cabinet have agreed to send soldiers into the area around karachi. to bring an end to recent violence. more than a,000 people were killed there in the first six months of this year. kamal, looks like a really tough challenge ahead. is it clear what those strategies are going to be? >> well, the government has been talking about the strategy by saying that they've got an excellent input from the intelligence agencies about the list of criminals who are involved in that activity in karachi but there are others who will also tell you that it is the political stakeholders that have foe fomented and will be using the paramilitary not the

regular army which was a part of the movement, they wanted nothing short of that but the government is saying the military cannot be embroiled into a complex political issue. it warns all the political parties to be cooperating with the government, the intelligence agencies have told the government that some of those political parties are responsible for this particular problem, because they have armed wings and they have been told had a they should disassociate themselves from those armed groups. so indeed many challenges ahead and no quick solution in site. >> live for us from islamabad, thank you. >> egypt's interim president has, now it was the first interview given by mansour since his president mohammed morsi was

deposed two months ago. >> there are some paths whether internal or external forces will spare no effort to block the implementation of the plan. we've seen the wave of violence that this country has witnessed. they describe their action as an attempt to paralyze egypt, that's expression they used. the state with all its agencies will not allow any party from satisfying the a aaspirations of people. >> allowed meetings between detained islamists. mohammed ibrahim is taking on the role himself. an official speaking on anonymity, other islamists and communications with people outside. an american man convicted of kidnapping three women has been found dead in his prison cell in

ohio. ariel castro was serving a life sentence. stephanie sy reports. >> ariel castro was found about 9:30 tuesday night hang in his prison sell. officials produced this statement, rounds were taken every 30 minutes. it was too late. the 53-year-old was taken to this hospital in cleveland and pronounced dead a short time later. it's been just over a month since castro began serving life plus 1,000 years in prison after pleading guilty to 937 charges. among them kidnapping, rape and aggravated murder for forcing one of his victims to miscarry. castro abducted amanda berry,

michelle knight and gina dejesus, his sentencing hearing was one of the few times he spoke publicly, following his arrest. >> i'm sick. >> the former school bus driver showed no emotion when a tearful michelle knight spoke in front of the court. >> you took 11 years of my life. i spent 11 years in hell. now your hell is just beginning. >> in july all three women released this youtube video to thank their supporters. >> first and foremost i want everyone to know how happy i am to be home with my family, my friends. >> i was sick, thank you. >> the boarded home where castro had beatenned tortured and raped his victims for so many years

torn down as part of his plea deal. stephanie sy al jazeera. >> time for sports. take us to flushing meadows jill. novak djokavich won 13 games in a row, top speed cruising through. the 2011 champion will play 23ed seed in the quarters. >> some of the best tennis that i played in my career. and it all comes at a great time for me. it's something that i was wishes for definitely to be more aggressive as the tournament progresses. >> joining him is defending

champion andy murray. number 3 seeded scott dropped the first set but he dropped and won 6-7, 6-4, 6-4. beautiful smash, place in the semi finals. defending women's champion serena williams, against carla suarez novarro. the match in just 52 minutes. next is lina of china. >> she's a great challengesser, she moves well and does everything well. the challenge of meeting her is how do you beat a player who does everything well. i'm going to in the next couple of days think about that and hopefully come up with an answer to that.

the first chinese player ever to reach the finals, fifth seed beat ca katarina macarova. the 33-year-old sustained the hunt for her second grand slam title. >> i always try to be the first one. first was exciting because first time, in the open, i was really apart for myself, it's the last grand slam for the end of the year but i'm still fighting a lot on the court to try the best. oracle team u.s.a. will begin their first race of the americas cup on saturday.

two times adrift team new zealand. competition chief from to the team's catamaran. 11 of the 17 races in san francisco to win the cup while team new seel new zealand needs. as our correspondent matt runsey found out it's trying to recover after a doping scandal that sent a spanish doctor sent to jail. >> who is hiding in the cycling shadows? this year's spanish tour is well under way. 21 stages 197 riders crossing spanish sun baked tar but always on the horizon a dark cloud of suspicion. who came here tod madrid inc. >> the clerk: and left a bag of blood?

>> dr. fuentes was found guilty and given a one year suspension of sentence. he gave injections to athletes, the spanish court refused to identify the 100 bags of blood, marked only with code names. spanish privacy law from 2006 when the police seized these bags prevented the court from naming the owners when fuentes was convicted, journalists admit the ruling damaged the sport. >> it was best for our image as country. for all of sports. because clear, the authorities don't have interest to resolve this case.

>> even spanish cycling superstar oscar pereiro who won after the original winner was disqualified for doping has little appetite for a fuentes expose. >> i think the last five years, it was up every year, every year, now in this, the cycling is in good direction. >> not one of the cycling fans we spoke to think the sport is anywhere near clean although they persist in hope that one day it will be. >> you have to do the best with your best around nothing else. >> no chris frume, no alberto. a long climb to credibility.

>> the detroit tigers, max sherzer, missed having a 20-1 record. sherzer was hoping to equal max clemons record. the atlanta braves are just ten games away from winning the national league east. three run defeat of the new york mets on tuesday. two run homer from simon did the damage for the braves. they now lead the division by 15 games. and that's sports for now. >> thank you for that. in the last hour barack obama has been speaking in stockholm. he'll be heading to st. petersburg tomorrow. he pushed the case for intervention in syria saying that the international community

has responsibility to act. we'll have nor in a few minutes.

>> welcome to al jazeera, i'm richelle carey. these are your headlines. president obama is taking his message on syria overseas. during a state visit to stockholm, the president called the attack barbarism and the international community is at stake. >> i didn't set a red line, the world set a red line. the world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent. >> this comes as a senate draft resolution has been prepared calling for military action against syria. the