of when weapons. our intent is to limit it. that's not to say that i discount escalation, but we limit it as low as possible. >> we'll go to colleg congressm. >> my phones have been ringing off the hook with callers supporting the administration's position, we all know that woud not be accurate. nevertheless i'm trying to approach your resolution with an open mind that we'll consider any argument that the administration might make in favor of the use of force against the assad regime. that being said i do have serious concerns, and i think

many of my colleagues on this committee probably share a number of them. whether we ultimately support a resolution on force or not will be addressed in the coming days by the administration, and this of course is part of that process. i've got a number of questions, so i'll get right into them. secretary kerry, president obama did not come to congress seeking a resolution in the use of force in libya. what's the difference between libya and syria when it comes to seeking congressional authorization? >> the difference is that in the case of libya, you had already passed an u.n. security council resolution and an arab league resolution and a gulf states comprehension resolution, and you had a man who we knew was prone to follow through on his word, promising he was going to kill like dogs all of the people in bengahzi.

so there was an emergency, and an urgency to responding, in which the united states provided air support while the french and the british carried out the mission. so i think under those circumstances the president felt the urgency, the emergencicy of protecting life, and a capacity that already had been granted through the international community. which is why he's coming to congress. >> if the british parliament had not rejected prime minister cameron on the issue, would president obama have bothered to come to congress? >> i shy he absolutely would have. i think the president was thinking about this, there were discussions to some degree to whether or not it should happen. he hadn't made up his mind, he didn't announce it to us, but yes, the president believed it was important, and there were people who making that argument particularly on his legal team.

>> mr. secretary, you indicated you hadn't had time to read "the new york times" editorial, so i assume you haven't had time to read tom free man's column. >> i'm familiar with his column today. >> let me refer to that today. i don't agree with mr. friedman, i seldom do, but he said rather than firing missiles into syria, the most effective measure would be arm arming and assisting the rebel groups in syria. my only concern is that it may be too late to do that as failing to arm these groups months or even years ago has allowed al-qaida-connected groups to become more influential and powerful. would you comment, mr. secretary?

>> i would, and i do agree with mr. friedman, but not in this particular situation. he said assad should be shamed. i don't think he would be shamed. there is arming tak taking plac. but if you simply arm and say your policy is to shame, and you back off, deteriorating his capacity to deliver chemical weapons, then you open pandora's box of delivering chemical weapons and all those people being agod. on this occasion it's absolutely vital to send the message and deteriorate his capacity. >> we only have a short period of time. >> and we would have given him impunity with respect to any future use. >> all right, we are following

obviously the thousand foreign affairs committee washington, d.c. on whether to authorize the use of military force against the augus august 21st attack in damascus. let's get back. >> i assume we discussed this one. >> we did discuss it, and what the president said was he felt very, very strongly that it was very important to us to be in our strongest posture. that the united states needed to speak with one voice. and you all asked for consultations. the president, we began a process of consultation. we heard from you. and many of you said it's really important to come to congress. i know mike rogers in one conversation talked about the need to not have the display of your--you've got a group of people you're opposed to, and

instead of fighting the congress, and fighting with your allies, and fighting with u.n. try to unify to the greatest degree you can. i think that was great common sense from chairman rogers, and they tried to put america in the strongest position possible. >> we need to go to new jersey. >> thank you. by the wen end of the year we're going to have about 3 million refugees from the syrian conflict, and i'm concerned that the impact striking syria would have on increasing the number of refugees, and i'm concerned how it's going to destabilize our friends in the region, jordan is already overburdened. turkey is experiencing a burden. are we dissipating, making

policies to alleviate what is coming, this avalanche of refugees? by the end of the year they're expecting 3 million refugees, and that could be a big destabilizing factor in that region. >> this brings you squarely into a confrontation to a question that is fundamental to the choice that you're going to make. there are risks of acting but believe me it is our judgment collectively and the president's that the greater risks are not acting. you have 1.6 million to 2 million refugees today without our acting. and every prediction is that's going to get worse. i guarantee you that if we don't

act, and assad is able to rain gas down on his people, you watch the number of refugees. the greater capacity to prevent the number of refugees in this catastrophe in this region is degrading his capacity, help the opposition, and get to a point where you have a state of syria that is still intact enough to actually have a negotiation for the geneva one implementation of the government. that's the strategy, that's the goal. we have no chance of getting there if we back off and give him a message of impunity. we'll said to him, nobody cares, gas your people. you do what you need to stay in office, and we're backing off. that would be--i honestly find that would be one of those moments in history that will live in.

we look back at jews who lost their lives to gas because we wouldn't receive them. there are moments you have to make a decision, and i think this is one of those moments. >> are we making any new policies? i know we contribute more money than anybody else to assist the refugees. >> the word need--the world neeo step up on the refugee situation. there are discussions of how we might respond to this ongoing crisis in non-military terms, but i think there are options available to us. but i don't want to get ahead of ourselves. >> general, i assume we're coordinating with our friends in

the region? >> we are. >> and do you anticipate they'll go along with us, if it increases the need for them to participate? >> we're reaching out to them, and some will support us directly, and some indirectly with basing and overflight. >> thank you. >> we'll go to mr. wilson of south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership to avoid the crisis that we state today. general dempsey, secretary hagel, secretary kerry, thank you for being here today. we're here to learn more about a very serious issue, an united states strike on syria. as member of the house armed services, as a 3 31-year vetera, and as a father of a son who is

serving in the united states military i'm concerned about what we're hearing today. i have many questions about the proposed strikes, risk to our military, families, and allies, particularly israel, jordan, turkey, and iraq. secretary hagel, some have characterized the strike as a pinprick that will not prevent president assad from resuming his use of chemical weapons. how sure are you to degrade his abilities what will you do if he resumes these weapons and where do these weapons come from? >> congressman, thank you for your service and for your son's service. i can assure you on the first point you made i can speak for general dempsey and all of our military leaders that there is no higher purpose that we all have nor more significant responsibility than the

protection of our men and women who serve in uniform. they are our highest priority. as to your other questions, the president has said and stated again yet with the leaders of congress, and i think congressman engel was there, as war chairman royce. this would not be a pinprick. those were his words. this would be a significant strike that would in fact degrade his capability. the three of us have noted, and you have noted, and you are much aware that any action carries with it risk. any action carries with it consequence. but also does inaction, as secretary kerry has noted. i can assure you as secretary of

againsdefense, that our leaderse spent days and days going over every option, every contingency, everything you talked about and more. security of our forces, security of our embassies, consulates, working with the state department, everything we needed to factor in if we took action the president insisted on that. he wanted to see those plans, collateral damage, innocent people being hurt. we think that the options that we have given him first would be effective, would, in fact, carry out the intend-- >> mr. secretary, i don't mean to be rude but time is flying. where do the chemical weapons come from? >> well, there is no secret that the assad regime has significant stock piles of chemical weapons. >> from a particular country? >> the russians supply them and others supply them with those

chemical weapons, and they make some themselves. >> secretary kerry on apri april 25th the white house director wrote, our intelligence community does assess that the syrian regime has used chemical weapons. end quote. why was there no call for military response in april? was it delayed to avert attention today to the bengahzi, and again, why was there no call four months ago when the president's red line was crossed? >> the president made a decision to change his policy, but did he not believe that the evidence was so overwhelming.

it was significant and clear that it happened, but on a scale that he felt merited the increase of assistance and announcement that he made with the type of aid he would provide the opposition. did he respond. this is so egregious, and now builds on the conclusions of our intel community as to the number of times, but such a clear case, so compelling and urgent with with respect to the flagrancy of the abuse that the president thinks that it's a matter of conscience and matter of policy to proceed through the military action. >> we are of course following the house foreign affairs committee hearing in washington, d.c. in whether to authorize military force syria for the alleged chemical

weapons use on august 21st. randall pinkston is in washington for us, marc jacobs is with us as well. and randall, let me start with you. impressions so far of the hearing? >> well, certain, tony, much more pointed questioning today on the part of members of the house of foreign affairs committee than we heard yesterday in the senate. pointed questions, questions challenging the logic, what the effectiveness of a strike would be, questions of where are america's allies, who else is on board with this plan, and here we're just listening to joe wilson of south carolina even bringing in domestic issues of suggesting, alleging, raising the possibility that the president was some how using

this crisis to divert attention from the affordable care act and some other domestic issues, from my perspective, a very odd com compilation of charges of this decision to use military force. it was congressman wilson who in a state of the union address called mr. obama a liar. >> yes, have you heard much of a challenge to the intelligence case being made by the secretary of state? >> i haven't heard much on that line of question. >> yes, i don't think they're questioning so much whether chemical weapons were used. it sounds to me as if they're questioning what is going to be accomplished if the u.s. takes military action. how much military action will be necessary. will we be absolutely certain

there will be no boots on the ground. i also have heard secretary kerry and also secretary hagel indicate that the administration has already been providing lethal assistance to opposition forces in syria. so this is a whole other set. >> it's interesting, randall, if you're not questioning the intelligence, and put the moratorium on the use of chemical weapons, so what do you do? let's bring mark on this as well. mark, your thoughts, first of all, on what you've heard in the hearing so far. what's jumping out at you. i know there is a big question being asked repeatedly about the region. >> the number one issue is whether or not in secretary hagel's words, if people can

count on the united states in the world. if the united states says they're going to do something, will we be there to do it, in this case to deter a dictator of using chemical weapons again. largely these questions with the exception of representative wilson's last comments, which were very unfair, you have the balancing of risks. what are the risks of inaction, and they're very clear these are not the greatest risks, versus the risk of doing things, what about refugees and what about iran, and will the military strikes work? these are questions from the hearing yesterday. >> it puts a 90-day limit on action and said no american troops can be sent in to syria. i'll be honest with you, that feels a bit more open ended than

i thought we will be seeing in terms of a resolution out of that committee. >> let me take a little bit of a different approach. this is exactly the politician opolitics ofwhat we're looking . we saw congress and senate put in a 60 days limit with 30 day extension to make sure that this is not an open-ended commitment. i think this is where we're balancing risk. will the 60 day, can we wait out this period. or is this the type of language that allows for an unified message from congress and the president say yes, our strikes will be deliberate but they'll be tailored, discrete, and they

will be limited in scope. >> yes, i think i like your take better. appreciate it. let's do this. let's take a break and we'll come back with more of the house hearings in just a moment. this is al jazeera. ç]

>> welcome back. this is al jazeera. while we were away, secretary of state--secretary of defense, chuck hagel responding to a question said the attack on syria would not an pinprick. would not an pinprick. the suggestion there obviously that it would be a serious aim of degrading assad's future ability in syria. >> images of children in damascus are horrific. i do not want to see those images in the united states. that is my grave concern, and this is a dangerous step we're taking. we have to be very careful in how we proceed. with all due respect i think this is well intentioned, but i have those concerns and i would like to hear from those secretaries and the generalf you share these concerns and what you are doing to stop that

outcome because that is the worst scenario, the worse outcome that could happen. >> i apologize for being interrupted. i'm very concerned about the foundation of your question, the premise of it. a woman by the name of elizabeth bagley. she's fluent in arabic and spent an enormous amount of time studying the opposition, she publishedded this today, a very serious article, sitting behind me is ambassador report ford, our ambassador to syria, he has spent an enormous amount of time with the opposition, working with them, and helping us to understand this dynamic. i don't believe that the

majority are al-qaida and the bad guys. somewhere between 15, 20% my be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys. there are many different groups. there are different entities, and styles they're fighting each other, even now. the general belief, there is a real moderate opposition that exists, our allies in this effort, our friends from the saudis, and others are now in a disciplined way funneling assistance through the moderate opposition who are getting stronger as a result of it. >> there are moderates, but the briefings i've received unless i've received inaccurate briefs is 50% and rising. these fighters coming in

globally are not coming in as moderates, they're coming inned a jihadists. i want to hear from the secretaries will. >> well, i agree with secretary kerry analysis. you know this very well, congressman, especially with your responsibilities as chairman of homeland security committee. this is an imperfect situation. there are no good options here. there is complicated. there is no clarity. every point you made, the complications of various terrorist groups which we noted are there, they're in play. this is specifically a part of us trying to sort out who we would support, and how we would support them. i think secretary kerry's points are correct. we are seeing movement on the inside in the right direction.

>> thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. thanks for being here. i believe we stand at a pivotal moment where congress is g--i believe our vote will have to be a narrowly drawn resolution will determine if congress stands up for human rights or allow our power to dramatically shrink. i stand behind the president's request for limited strikes without putting troops on the ground i know this is a difficult position. i know that some of my colleagues wishes we would have done a lot more before now.

i know that my colleagues, other colleagues wish to do nothing now. i acknowledge the difficulty of being able to predict assad's next move. this is a hard choice. i don't think any of us relish making it. no use of force can be taken lightly, but inaction will dramatically harm our national security by emboldening the syrian regime, it's terrostand y civilled nation on earth says you cannot gas innocent children toeath, you cannot use chemical weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass destruction, then we mean it we all saw the images of people

cruelly murdered by assad. preventing the use of those weapons by groupsly hezbollah. the president has and this committee has in strongly bipartisan fashion set a clear red line that we will not allow iran to obtain nuclear weapon capabilities. the congress votes down a limited authorization to iran leaders our red line against their development of nuclear weapons is meaningless. the sanctions we passed unanimously in this committee and 400 members supported on the house floor will be rendered worthless because they are not backed up by a credible threat of force. secretary kerry, i believe if we will do everything in our power

to solve the syrian issue without military action they we know must enforce this authorization. will not be tolerated by this nation. make no mistake this resolution is about syria and holding assad accountable, but it will make it more likely or less likely for them to obtain weapons. i don't want to be in this position, none of us do, put we didn't put u ourselves in this position. the president didn't put you see ius inthis position, bashar al-d put us in this position when he decided to gas his own people. the question i