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 ask is why is

america the world policeman. why should we lead this effort, and when will we learn the nations who will support this action. >> the united states of america is not being the world's policeman. the united states of america is joining with other countries in upholding international standard of 184 nation versus joined into. obviously we have a greater capacity. we have been blessed with an extraordinarily capable military that through the years the american people have invested in in order to protect our security interests. our security interests are directly involved in what is happening in the middle east.

our security interests are directly threatened. >> this is al jazeera, and one again we're following the house foreign affairs hearing on capitol hill on whether to authorize the use of military force against syria. >> specific countries have talked in terms of acting, saudi arabia, the french, the british government felt it should but they had a different vote. but i think that raises the stakes in terms of holding ourselves accountable to a multilateral effort to a multilateral standard to which the united states is the most technologically advanced partner. >> we go now to mr. ted poe.

>> thank you. it seems that we have a credibility problem because our foreign policy in the middle east is inconsistent. our enemies don't know what our foreign policy is, our friends don't know what it is, and i'm not sure that americans know what our foreign policy is in the middle east. we've seen it play out in different regions, going into different countries removing people from leadership, i am concerned about players on both sides. there is no pure side in this civil war. you have hezbollah on one side,

and you have other terrorists on the other side includin. i do believe these are powerful groups on both sides. history will show who will win this silver war. then you factor in the religious connotation in this civil war, and then we really have a real possible on our hands. my concern now is specifically we want to do something to punish mr. bad guy assad. no question about it. he's the bad guy and he's wasting good air breathing. but we're not going to shoot him. we're going to shoot a shell over the bow. we are not going to take him out because we do not want to destabilize the civil war going on the two different sides, let's do that. let's assume that we do that, i'll ask general dempsey this question first. assume we do that, whatever it is to destabilize the weapons of

mass destruction, get rid of them, i assume that's what we're going to do, even though they're getting those things from russia, and they could give them more weapons. let's assume that we do that. they retaliate against us, or iran retaliates against israel all because we've come into this civir.srae >> this is not about eliminating chemical weapons, it's about convincing the assad regime it's unacceptable to use them. that's the limit of this purpose. we're posturing the retaliation, and i' i assure you that our

regionallallieregional allies a. >> can you see that escalating the military involvement in the region, have you made a contingency plan of that happening, the syrian reaction to us specifically, can you made contingency plans for us being in escalated military operation in the region? >> in the spirit of your compliment of this, yes. then you see escalation a possibility. u.s. escalation in the region a possibility. >> i can never drive the risk of escalation to deserve, but i think this limited purpose in the region, the contributions that we'll seek from others.

>> the limited purpose of deterring and degrading, whether we should use military force, i believe there are other ways we can contribute to that through the development of modern opposition but i remain cautious about taking the opposition's role in this. >> thank you, mr. chairman, the use of chemical weapons are

clear, compelling and irrefutable. but history is as well. the situation in syria is that of a national civil war. it's a conflict that america cannot solve and should not try to. this is not a fight for freedom and democracy. there is democracy movement in syria. there is no unifying vision, a constitution, or even a pre pree of what syria wants to become. this is nothing more than a fight between syrian factions, the syrian regime in the midst of those with no air power. it is a conflict between a murderous and brutal dictator and opposition whose best fighters are represented by

al-qaida affiliates and islamic extremists bent on creating islamist state in syria. there are no good options, military options between the united states and syria. add iraq and afghanistan with the civil wars that have to be fought internally, and that political reconciliation cannot come from without. it has to come from within. that cannot be imposed by outside influences. we know that from our own history. the syrian civil war has caused 100,000 deaths in a country of 23 million. the american civil war caused 675,000 deaths. from a young nation of 34 million people. after spending 2 trillion-dollar in iraq and afghanistan representing $40,000 of debt for the american family, and the loss of thousands of lives, and

iraq is as violent today as at any time in its history. and afghanistan is as poor as corrupt. the american people are sick and tired of war. it's time to nation build in america. invest in the growth of the american economy. bashar al-assad used chemical weapons on his own people, that is reprehensible for certain. he should be condemned by an international community and stiff sanctions should be imposed. he should be indicted as a war criminal in the international tribunal for his murders. unfortunately, the use of chemical weapons in this part of the world is not new. saddam hue taken used them between 1983 and 1988 and again against his own population in

northern iraq in 1991. unfortunately, the pil stock pig the use of mustard and sarin gas is all too common today and leading back to decades. international support with the u.s.-led military attack in syria, limited in scope, consisted of two countries, turkey and france out of 194 countries. the rest of the international community but for china and russia say we support you so long as we don't have to do anything. the arab leagues response to this is pathetically weak. given their strategic interest, a joke. so here we are, left to topple the las regime in the middle ea,

and between a national civil war in that part of the world, essentially alone again. secretary chair, you spoke to the hint of world's response to the use of chemical weapons. given that history one would think that more countries would join the u.s. in participating, not supporting, but participating in military strike against syria. >> okay, we are continuing to follow the house foreign affairs committee hearing in washington on whether to use--to authorize the use of military response. this is al jazeera.

>> welcome back. this is al jazeera. we're following the house foreign affairs committee meeting on whether to authorize the military force use. in syria. we're expecting to hear from the senate foreign relations committee scheduled to vote on its senate resolution, scheduled for 2:00 p.m. eastern time. it hasn't happened yet, we'll look at questions. >> tony, this is being very closely watched on this side of the atlantic. here in britain even though the british have categorically decided not to go into syria, but in france where we've had

today a lengthy debate inside the french parliament about this issue, and french president said that he would wait for french involvement for congress to make its choice, but we are hearing from inside the french parliament some saying that absolutely france should join with the u.s. and do something. but we're also hearing massive criticism about the way this is being conducted in france. there will be no vote inside the french parliament. just the debate, and that's coming under heavy criticism. what is happening on the hill today is being closely watched on this side of the atlantic, the british the french, and the russians keeping a very close eye on this. >> my understanding this, the french prime minister has actually put forward intelligence bindings before the parliament, is that part of what the debate?

it's interesting there has not been a lot of debate on the intelligence. is that the case for the french parliament a as well? >> yes, absolutely the french parliament has put out a nine-page document in which the french outlines intelligence reports that they've received about those attacks on august 21st, where those attacks were launched from, and the french claim that their intelligence chose that it was government held territory furthermore the french intelligence reports that this was a coordinated attack, a massive attack using chemical weapons, and this is something that the rebels don't have the capacity to do. so an awful lot of intelligence was released to the parliamen

parliamentairians, and that has been a large part of the debate today. the french hawks saying that it is clear that the chemical attacks were conducted by government forces, clearly saying that the assad chain of command was involved, and the debate does seem to be leaning towards some sort of intervention in syria, that coming out of paris. >> let's take up the issue of the russians. now for weeks now the russians have been trying to draw attention to what i believe is an 80-page report on findings of one particular attack in particular in northern syria in march. which it's findings conclude may have been carried out by the rebels. i wonder if there is subtraction being gained on that report, or is it still a situation where

the russians are on the outside looking in on this particular report? >> well, the russians have released the report indicating that the weapons used in the attack in the town of alepo in march were similar to makeshift weapons that the rebels had been using in other attacks. so drawing a line between the ordinance that was used, and the delivery system presumably indirect fire weapon, perhaps some missile system that would deliver chemical weapons, and the russians all along have been saying that the rebels have been using chemical weapons and they're trying to provoke international intervention in syria by using the chemical weapons and pegging it on the syrian government. president vladimir putin

suspects the attack in august that is causing so much consternation may have been staged by rebels connected by al-qaida. this is all running up to the g-20 and the russians are trying to make the case on the international stage that the syrian regime is not behind the attacks,, and vladimir putin sad if it could categorically be proven that assad was behind the attacks-- >> that's interesting because we know the u.n. team in damascus at the time for the 21 of august alleged attack was to go and evaluating the march alleged chemical weapons attack, but

that team is expected to go back into syria to continue that investigation, but clearly that has been pushed down the road as it continues its work. good to today talk t talk to yo. let's bring in our randall pinkston. any other impression since we last spoke to you, randall? >> only this, the information that the obama administration is receiving from the committees, it's not just republican who is are standing in opposition. listen to this quote: the u.s. should use limited military force against the assad regime, but we should not give the president a blank check. this comes from a democrat who supports the use of force but only in a limited fashion. that would be representative engel.

so the administration administration sees there is much more work to be done before congress will sign on. >> randall, we talk about a check to be written here and no one is talking about the cost might be of any military strike, but that is being considered by the senate foreign relations committee, considering to put a 90-day action. at this moment let's get you back to the hearing on capitol hill. >> a reason is a number of their members, three or four of them are not in favor of it, so they didn't--they did a consensus statement. but individual countries are prepared to, and are in favor of it, and i've named a number of

them. but lebanon for obvious reasons has some problems. algeria, iraq has some issues. iraq for obvious reasons. you can understand why people might an little restrained. let me just share because this has been a recurring theme here today. australia, prime minister card said that australia supports the u.s. position on syria and it's right to take action to enforce vital international norms. he noted that the believes the united states has this right dependent any endorsement by the council. albania is ready to support the u.s. in any action needed to put a massacre down in syria. bosnia. >> before i run out of time, can you respond to putin, how do you interpret his comments?

>> i interpret his comments as hopeful, that perhaps at the g-20 he and the president will have a good conversation, and then maybe they would consider not blocking action. canada, stephen harper said we should take action. denmark, france, poland, turkey, all have suggested that the united states should take action. they would be prepared to take action with us and so forth. this is a building response, and i think other countries understand at the moment. >> thank you. >> we're going to go down to mr. tom moreno of pennsylvania. >> thank you, chairman. secretary hagel, if you could tell me or tell us who are the bad guys or maybe put it this way, who are our allies? who are the good guys over there in syria?

>> you're looking at various groups that are part of the opposition. they have one motive and one objective, and that is a free syria. >> do you trust-- >> that's not my business to trust. >> it has to be the business because you're making decisions to go into war and put american lives at risk. it's a simple concept. you either trust or do not trust. if you do not trust, we don't call these people our allies or support. >> congressman, every nation, every individual, every group responds in their own self interests.

we're not unaware of all the different groups' self interests. >> i think we are, with all due respect, i think we are aware if we look back at what happened in libya, if we look at what happened in the middle east in the past, if we look at muslim brotherhood, if we look at al-qaida, we have to take this into consideration. >> we he focus on a narrowly drafted resolution asking-- >> i don't think the good guys would be using the gas. i don't think good guys would be using the gas. for arguments sake, from one prosecutor to another, i believe you're using beyond reasonable doubt assertion, i truly believe that, but this will not stop the

butchering and the killing that takes place over there. so what is the purpose? what is the end game here? where is the imminent danger to the united states? >> you're absolutely correct that this will not stop the butchering, i wish it would. but what it will do is what it's intended to do, it's intended to assert the principle which has been in place since 1925 that no one should use chemical weapons under any circumstances. >> i understand that. i understand that. what is the reality of this? what is the reality? we've seen this use in the past. you made the comment in 2002 when bush wanted to go into iraq, which i didn't agree with, and the president also made the statements when he--i think it was in the senate in the advancing of his career that we

should not do this even though--even though saddam hussein gassed his own people, the kurds, what is the difference now today that you and the president are so intent in going into syria because assad has done this? >> well, the gassing was not the pretext for that operation, but ultimately saddam hussein was held accountable for not only that crime but all of his other crimes, and he hung. >> i can see in hindsight you saying that, but you weren't supporting that in 2002 like you are supporting it now. an there's no--i don't see the difference. my issue is really gets to this: who is going to pay for this? and what is it going to cost the united states taxpayers? >> i'll let the secretary address the cost issues.

>> we have looked at the different costs depending on the different options and the different decisions that the president makes. we've got the ranges of that. it will be the tens of millions of dollars. >> i see my time is running out, but believe this, regardless--regardless of how minimization of intervention, american military will die. that is not acceptable to me, so i cannot and will not vote for this intervention in syria. >> this specifically notes that no boots will be on the ground. >> we'll go now to mr. william keating of massachusetts.

>> i want to thank all three of you for serving our country, and the information that you have shared thus far to congress, the american public as well as the world. i think clearly that anyone looking at this evenly that has been a success in terms of making clear the case there were chemical weapons used, and the assad government, if he used them. i want to con grate yo congratud the president on those efforts. we're going down a road that i would like to pursue if i could. general, you raised concerns in the past about engaging militarily in the syrian conflict, and obviously you're here today to support a limited military action. you know, did you say, start to say in your remarks there are military outcomes in supporting the opposition.

then qualified it by saying that's not what we're doing here. regardless of our stated intent, others won't share that same view that that's not our intent. if you could, i'm giving you plenty of time, can you just expand upon what your concerns were, and maybe are, that you had in the past that you stated, so we have a better understanding of what they are and see what your views might be on how we can mitigate or navigate around the concerns in the situation we have right now. >> i would like to separate support of the opposition to deterrent of the assad regime of the use of chemical weapons. the former does come with some risk of the slippery slope of not entirely understanding when that support ends and how much

it has to grow over time. which is why helping the opposition by their development, not by becoming their military arm. separate that from what we're here for today. in my view, and how it has increased it's use over time additionally iinitially it was d to terrorize in small portion a neighborhood. now it was literally used to clear a neighborhood. they've reached a point where assad is using chemical weapons as just another military tool in his arsenal. that runs great risk for risk in the region, and runs risk in the globe.

i'm able to come here before you today and make that distinction that we should do something in our national interest based on the use of chemical weapons without committing to supporting the opposition to overthrowing the regime. >> as part that have slippery slope, general, was that partly a concern of how other countries, and how other factions could be taking our actions? even limited in the limited sense we are helping the opposition in attacking the assad government, in that respect, is that any concern that you have prior to that, and how do you mitigate that now? >> we've always considered what effect our actions would have on our partners in the region, the israelis, and others, and the

potential affecten our adversaries, that's always been a concern and a consideration. but when something has reached a level that it has direct impact on our national security, then the overriding consideration is not what others think, it's what we think. >> very quickly, n.a.t.o. it was said in 1999 where n.a.t.o. did move without u.n. security council approval, do you think there's hope for them moving not just individually as countries, have you exhausted everything in terms of trying to get n.a.t.o. support as an organization. >> okay, so we're going to continue to follow the house of foreign affairs committee hearing on capitol hill.

you see that hearing on the right of your screen right now. but on the left of your screen, something that is very interesting and compelling is taking place right now. you're watching senators from the senate foreign affairs committee actually debate the resolution for the use authorizing the use of force on syria. let us do this. let's take you to that discussion, that debate going on right now in the hart senate building, the senate foreign affairs committee actually debating the resolution. >> we're arguing about the specific language of the word "whereas," which we don't need in there. you could change it to constitution. >> senator paul's amendment is broader. i wis understand the wish of yor comments, but senator paul's amendment is broader. >> there never seems to be a

very good time to debate, but this is a very good time to debate this. the nation is looking at us what we believe with regard to what our role, and if congress wants to take back power that's been gravitating the wrong way, this is precising the time to do it. but this precisely comes up because the president has been asked point blank, the secretary of state has been asked point blank on two or three occasion what is happens if congress votes you down. are you going to stand by the authority of congress to make this decision, and they've hedged. so the vote here is a very important vote. this is about, and like i've said to secretary kerry you're probably going to win. you're going to get this war. the thing is that we need to be very clear that by coming he is seeking congressional authority, and he would abide by congressional authority if he didn't win the vote. you shouldn't get it both ways. you shouldn't be allowed to say, yes, i'm going to abide if i

win. but if if i lose, i'm not. we're either for it or not. this is a perfect time to talk about t and it's the perfect time to take a stand if you're truly in favor of the world power act or limitation on presidential power this is the time to stand up and be counted. thank you. >> i appreciate the senator's remarks. i think the issue is weighty and important enough, but not to be done in this context. instead of--i assume that the senator is asking for a vote. his request is put forward. i'm going to move to table the amendment because it's an express from my view that is an important issue that should be held for debate before the committee in hopefully the hearings, but that right now is much greater the issue that is before us. i'll move to table, and clerk

will call the roll. [ roll call ] >> okay, let me just explain to the best of my ability what's happening on the u.s. senate side right now. it looks like there is a vote to be taken now to table an amendment from senator rand paul of kentucky that would bind the president to congresses ultimate decision on the resolution. while that is going on right now, let's switch you back now to the house of foreign affairs committee hearing on capitol hill. >> advocated for anything other than caution in the use of u.s.

forces in conflicts. is the power of the executive branch so incox tatin intoxicatu would pull the trigger so quickly? the reason why i say bengahzi is so germane to our discussion is this: has there been in part directly or indirectly providing weapons to the opposition. >> have there been efforts. >> to put weapons in syrian rebels and transfer weapons from libya to syria? >> well, let me begin, congressman, by challenging your proposition that i've never done anything but advocate caution because i volunteered to fight for my country. that wasn't a cautious thing to do when i did it.

secondly--i'm going to finish, congressman. i'm going to finish. when i of occasions, including grenada, panama, i could run a list of them. i'm not going to sit here and be told by you that i don't killed by gas, and you want to we're talking about people being talk about bengahzi and fast and furious. >> four americans lost their lives. i have sympathy for the people in syria. i do think there should an worldwide response, but we should act cautiously. >> congressman, we're acting cautiously. we're acting so cautiously because the president of the united states is accused of not acting because he wanted to build-- >> it's been 15 days. >> i think this is morning. i think it's important whether or not the--we're going in to

syria in a way that the congressman describes which i think most people in america don't want to see. we don't want to do that. that's why the president has said no boots on the ground. this is not about getting in to syria's civil war. this is about enforcing the principle that people shouldn't be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity. and if we don't vote to do this, assad will interpret from you that he's free to go and do this any day he wants to. this is what this is about. not getting involved in syria's civil war. so let's draw the proper distinction here, congressman. we don't deserve to drag this into yet another bengahzi discussion this norm has only been broken twice, hitler and saddam hussein.

if we continue to allow this, shame on us. >> with gwe go to congressman fm rhode island. >> i would like to thank you our witnesses for being here today. i want to acknowledge the fact that the president in his consultation, i've had an opportunity to participate in meetings with secretary kerry, hagelel, rice, i thank the president for continuing in sharing information. secretary hagel said there are no good answers in the use of chemical weapons is hoff eric. i think the assad regime is responsible for that and should be held accountable. as i talk to constituents in my district who react the same way, this war-weariness and a recognition of all the enormous

risks of military intervention in propping up the wrong opposition and deep by engaged in civil war. they all wonder is there a set of action we could take which would evidence strong condemnation, isolate assad, and vindicate our deep commitment to things like making china and russia act in th on the public e to veto the resolution, indict assad in war crimes. isolate syria with angelses and other international actions where we might build a broad coalition strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons, isolate syria and build this international void and do it in a way more consistent with our

values with the idea of working with other nations. i would like to know was there a discussion of such a set of options that without the risk of military, something that would put together a strong forceful statement that would hurt assad, deter the likely use of chemical weapons again, second question, mr. secretary, secretary kerry, you mentioned that american allies have ample ways of making assad regret those decisions without going to war. i will like to hear what those are, because our concerns are what happens after the military action. i would like to pose that question to you, that whether or not we might think hard about this, there might be other ways.

>> a very good question. we wish, believe me we wish that the international institution that is there for this kind of response was able to respond. that's the u.n. and the u.n. security council. as recently as a few weeks ago when this event took place our representatives at the u.n. attempted, along with other allies, to put a resolution in front of the security council that would have simply condemned the event, not assigning any blame at all. just condemn the use of action, and the russians said no. they blockedded it. so that is what has set us into this path of believing that we have to act in a way that has in effect deterring assad from the use of these weapons. now even if the u.s. did pass something, even if you had some

sanction, if it isn't meaningful in a way that is going to deter the action, and no one has yet contrived that some piece of paper or terminology is going to change this man's calculation with respect to what he's fighting for. the judgment has been made that the only way to have an impact, the only way you're going to hold them accountable is to make it clear to him that this will in fact detract from his ability to abuse his people and stay in military power. >> i think what the secretary said is exactly right. i would add two things. there are a number of tracks that we're on right now to accomplish what you're talking about secretary kerry diplomatic track, which has been ongoing and intense, our reaching out to our allies all over the world.

i was in asia last week with 15 defense ministers from all over asia pacific discussing this, meeting with leaders in countries of those areas. the n.a.t.o. allies, all three of us have been talking with our counterparts all over the world, what the white house is doing, what the president is doing, we're still involved with the united nations. those tracks are being run in addition to what we're talking about here. one exact point on the purpose of this hearing, general dempsey said this morning at the senate on services committee when asked about the violation of the chemical weapons norm, 100-year-old norm, well, is it that important? is it that big of a deal? one of the points that general

dempsey made, which is exactly right, and we start here, this is a threat to our interest, to our forces, to our country. allowing a tyrant to continue to get away with the use of chemical weapons. that's a real threat against us. >> adam kissinger of illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you. i know you've had a couple of very long weeks, i'm about to support this, but i'm going to say at the beginning my disapproval of the president's policies in the middle east, and part of the reason we're having difficulty rallying international coalition is because they have not seen the united states lead on this until recently. that said, as a current serving pilot in the air national guard i'm war weary as americans are war weary. but president reagan said if we want to avoid war, war begins when governments believe--

>> we're following the house foreign affairs committee meeting on the hill. the hearing is whether to authorize military force against syria. we'll take a break, and when we come back we'll talk to our guests and al jazeera correspondents. we'll be right back.

>> welcome back to al jazeera, tony harris in new york city, we're following the house of foreign affairs committee meeting for resolution on military force in syria. we understand that the senate foreign relations committee is due to vote at some point this afternoon on its own resolution. that action still taking place. there was a discussion going on

between senators now regarding the specific language of that resolution. let me introduce our guests and positiver doncorrespondents as e following the debates on military action. let's start with this heated exchange between secretary kerry and jeff duncan of south carolina. what was that moment all about? >> that's right, tony, very heated. you could sense secretary kerry's frustration and emotion mounting as he was brought back to addressing scandals such as bengahzi and really ending with

some strong remarks, shame on us if we don't--pardon me, if the u.s. does not respond. this comes after earlier comments from another republican of south carolina, joe wilson, notorious for his remarks during the state of the union a couple years back when he shouted out "you lied." he brought up obamacare, th scandals and if the president was deflecting from those issues by focusing on syria, and getting political and heated. >> paul, as we go back to the discussions of debate, it certainly seems to be on point for this discussion. it seems that there have been questions about the objective here, and about the opposition. not much different than the line of questioning pursued yesterday by senators. >> that's right. as you mentioned earlier, tony.

there seems to be no doubt that the u.s. intelligence on the attacks--on the chemical attacks of august 21st is correct. that's not being questioned. what is being questioned here are the politics and the tactics of any strike itself. >> you know what's interesting is there hasn't been, although we've heard from secretary kerry on numerous occasions that the president is weighing a number of options, there really only seems to be one option, and the president has made the decision that military action should be taken. there have been questions is there another way to send a very strong message to syrian president bashar al-assad beyond the use of military? >> that's right. they're asking lots of questions about what the tactics would be, what the specifics of any military strike would be, and what other options does the u.s.

have on the table. and again we're hearing from secretary kerry that action is necessary, that bashar al-assad needs to be punished, but again this committee so far very skeptical of any plan coming from the administration. >> paul, stay where we are. i think we found the particular sound bite in question as secretary of state john kerry, this really was a heated testy exchange with jeff duncan. he tried to bring up, as paul mentioned, bengahzi, and kerry responded why we need to take action in syria. >> this is not about getting into syria's civil war. this is about enforcing the principle that people shouldn't be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity. and if we don't vote to do this, assad will interpret from you that he's freed to do this any day he wants to. this is what this is about, not

getting involved in syria's civil war. let's draw the proper distinction here, congressman. we don't deserve to drag this into yet another bengahzi discussion when the real issue here is whether congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice been assad, hitler and saddam hussein. >> let me take a portion of what the secretary said, and turn it to a question for you. the secretary said this is not about getting involved in syria's civil war. the moment military strikes are launched, is america getting involved in syria's civil war? >> well, i think regardless, it is involved in its civil war even in its inaction. it's naive to think that we not

been involved in the policies of the region. should a military strike, there is a lack of understanding, and is it going to be dispositive in any manner in the civil war. >> we're hearing there are consequences of inaction, but we're not hearing much discussion from the cattist a--e catalyst, to the possibilities that could happen with action. we're not hearing what could happen post the military strike, there is probably a reason for that. people just don't well know, honestly. >> i think there is some kind of assumption or buy-in that these strikes will be precise, but the reality is that the regime we're dealing with in damascus is not--this is not going to end. this is not going to end their control over the region that

they have control over. that conversation for some reason, you know, the secretary wants to avoid anything at a talks about a larger involvement because of the sort of trauma the united states feels from iraq. >> stay with us, because i want to get into a discussion with you about syria as you know it, from your last visit. and the difficulties of deciding which side of choosing of sides and who the opposition is, and we'll have that discussion in just a minute. but we want to bring in our al jazeera correspondent randall pinkston and marc jacobs as well. again, a lot of discussion of what the objective is moving forward, and the chances of that being successful, and what success would really mean. >> well, you know, this very interesting and shall we say heated exchange this afternoon has been marked by a lot of

argument, but throughout it all the administration officials secretary kerry, secretary hagel, and general dempsey, have been trying to make some key points. among them that there has been an offer by some of america's partners to support the movement. at one point kerry said the u.s. has received more than they needed for the u.s. strike to take place. the cost would range in the tens of millions, but we hear there are some promises of financial support. and we also know that one of the concerns had been, well, if assad is given time before america strikes he can move the weapons, i can hide them. general dempsey said the u.s. and intelligence agencies have been keeping watch on assad's movements, and the implication that the u.s. knows exactly where potential targets are. so there were--there have been some substantive exchanges as

well as obvious political fire. >> mark jacobsen, what have you been taking note of in the hearings since we last spoke? >> i'm not ready to put a price tag on combating moral obscenity, but what is strike to go me is the discussion of complications on the ground, and secretary hagel said it perfectly. we're in an imperfect situation, and we have vie few if any good options. to address what else we may do is a challenge for the administration, not just these hearings, but the closed hearings as well as. most of the hearings have been substantive. one piece i would point to would juxtapose congressman duncan's remarks with the eloquent statement by the congressman

from florida talking about the moral obligation of congress to act in this situation. >> if you would, stay where you are and continue to listen. let's do a li a bit of a reset . we have secretary kerry along with general denver so dempsey,y chuck hagel in the foreign affairs committees. on the left of your screen is the u.s. foreign affairs committee now this is interesting. the senate foreign relations committee, i should say, is right now working through the particular language of its own resolution. my understanding now is that

once the language is agreed upon there will be a vote. what's interesting then is that the house may, in fact, work out language on its own resolution if the language is different in both resolutions. as you