chemist from the west heimer institute in florida who says 3 billion years ago march was a much more livable place than earth. it had water and the building blocks of life that made its way here. that's it for "the lead." i now turn you over to wolf blitzer in "the situation room." happening now circu, is thet push to punish syria going food? i'll speak with mike rogers, who says it's very clear the syrian regime carried out last week's horrific chemical attack. >> and pot smokers can relax a

little bit out there. the justice department said it won't try to block state laws that legalize recreational marijuana. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." just as the drive to punish syria was gaining momentum, there are now new calls for caution. dozens of u.s. lawmakers want president obama to seek formal authorization from congress before an attack. congressional leaders will be briefed by the administration during the next hour. britain's prime minister is facing parliamentary resistance to a strike in an emergency session of the house of commons. they're meeting right now. and france wants to wait until u.n. inspectors finish their job. let's begin our coverage with our senior white house correspondent jim acosta. jim, have things over there hit a snag? >> wolf, you will not hear that publicly from white house officials who say they remain on what they call a compressed time

frame for delivering a response to syria and they say intelligence assessment backing up that action will be delivered to the public as soon as today. in the face of more questions from congress and key u.s. allies, the obama administration says it's determined to send what it calls an unambiguous signal, not just to syrian leader bashar al assad but to the world. >> it's also important for our totalitarian deck tictators aro the world to understand that the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons. >> reporter: the white house said mr. obama is still looking at a compressed too many frame for action and did not deny there are doubts about forming a broad international coalition. that's in part because british leaders want to slow down and wait for assessments of u.n.

weapons inspectors. some question u.s. motives. >> because the american president foolishly drew a red line and because of his position now, he's going to attack or face humiliation. >> reporter: others accuse prime minister david cameron of following the u.s. into another war based on faulty intelligence, another iraq. >> but this is not like iraq and the evidence that the syrian regime has used these weapons in the early hours of the 21st of august is right before our eyes. >> what we saw in that circumstance was an administration that was searching high and low to produce evidence to justify a military invasion, an open-ended military invasion of another country. >> reporter: but the administration still had to defend president obama's comments to pbs that somehow syria could attack the u.s. >> there is a prospect, a possibility in which chemical weapons that can have

devastating effects could be directed at us. >> does he really think that syria is capable of launching chemical weapons at the united states? >> i think we're concerned of the willingness that the assad regime has demonstrated a willingness to use chemical weapons. that doesn't even get into military bases and other interests in the region. >> there were complaints that conversations so far do not constitute formal notification and consultation with congress. even some democrats aren't satisfied. >> i believe there needs to be a vote. >> the white house plans to brief key congress an leaders this evening on its intelligence assess pent and then an unclassified one will go to the fuller congress. that's expected tomorrow.

and then a fuller, unclassified assessment is also expected to go to the public at large and the press in the next day or so. it could happen as early as tonight but that would put the white house on a pretty accelerated time frame. one other thing to note, wolf, is that the language of administration officials about this international partnership and how it's coming to the may be changing somewhat. defense secretary chuck hagel was quoted as saying that whatever happens with syria will involve a, quote, international collaboration. he did not use the words international coalition, tried to reach out to the white house officials for an explanation and did not hear back just yet. >> they're voting on whether or not to support military action in the house was commons in the british parliament as we speak right now. is it feasible based on everything you're hearing that the u.s. could act, to send missiles into syria without britain on board, the closest u.s. ally? >> wolf that, would go against what we've heard from administration officials all this week.

and even what the president himself said in an interview with cnn's chris cuomo last week. he talked about at length about wanting to have an international partnership of some sort in going -- in making a response to what happened in syria. but at this point, wolf, you're right. what happened in the u.k. today and in the last 24 hours raise as lot of doubts as to whether or not they would be fully on board if something were to happen in the next 48 to 72 hours. so what is a big question for this white house. >> and the president in the middle of next week is supposed to be in st. petersburg, russia for the g-20 summit. talk about awkward timing, that would be serious live awkward. jim acosta over at the white house. let's dig a little deeper with our chief analyst gora borj erp and chief correspondent john king. the house of commons, they're debating it right now. they've come back from all of their vacations in the south of

france. i talk a look at the picture of the u.s. congress, everyone is still gone basically from washington, except for congressman mike rogers, who is joining us. the images are pretty stark. >> well, they are. the difference is the course the president has not said i need congress to come back. in fact because i think the president probably doesn't want the congress to come back because if they're in town, it's more likely they would say, wait a minute, let's have a vote, like you're having in the house of commons. by the way, the president of the united states doesn't want them to have that vote. because if they were to have that vote, he could lose. >> in the senate or in the house? >> you've seen the crescendo of over a hundred people signing the document in the house saying we need to give you permission, we need to see the evidence. so tonight they're having a conference call, which is not on a secure line, they're calling in from all over the country and the world.

so they may not be getting the briefings, they thought they would get. >> so the possibility of congress coming back from their recession are -- >> slim to none. you will hear grumbling after this phone call tonight. you can't necessarily blame the white house for that. they are spread out all over the country. you don't want to talk classified information over a normal phone line. chairman rogers will say just a few conversations does not meet the test of consultation. it looks at the moment -- could be wrong about this. it looks at the moments that there are a few more days involved and i suspect the quality will escalate. >> first the u.n. weapons inspectors won't be out thereof until this weekend. then he wants to go back to

parliament for another vote and then the president heads to russia. >> cameron has his own political problems and president obama has his own problems from his own party and also from republicans. you see cameron take caring of his own domestic politics here. and it might have not been what the white house wanted or would prefer. i think we can assume it's not what they would have wanted but they have no choice. would they have also liked for the arab league to come out more forcefully and say we would support any kind of military action? >> yes. that has not occurred either. >> a lot of people were saying it was a blunder for the president a year or so ago to draw this red line saying if the syrians used chemical weapons, that would be a red line for the u.s. and he would have to respond. now there are critics that say it was a mistake. >> we'll have to wait for the memoir. he's not going to say it's a mistake now but he's defined by

that remark. there were smaller scale use of chemical weapons, at least one or two of which the administration says can be traced to the regime. there is finger pointing about whether the opposition could have been responsible for some of them. but then he used verbal gymnastic about not enforcing that. now you have this bigger attack, a monstrosity, morally repugnant in their own words. secretary kerry is out there publicly that they have drawn this line. it's a mess right now. none of that will matter if they get it right. if you talked to generals, retired generals and diplomats, they say at the moment the u.s. credibility is on the line and the president looks weak. >> they put out three pages of

consultations on syria. this is who the president called, this is who vice president biden called, there is who secretary called. they are trying to make the case they are trying to gather this international coalition. >> we'll see how big this coalition actually turns out to be. >> they got to consult can congress. >> thanks very much. >> up next, british lawmakers are in emergency session right now. and there's been an urgent huddle over the security council. and mike rogers has put together his own briefings and he said there's no doubt what really happened in syria. congressman rogers coming up. dad. how did you get here? i don't know.

[ speaking in russian ] look, look, look... you probably want to get away as much as we do. with priceline express deals, you can get a fabulous hotel without bidding. think of the rubles you'll save. with one touch, fun in the sun. i like fun. well, that went exactly i as planned.. really? help the gulf when we made recover and learn the gulf, bp from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company.

i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. yep, everybody knows that. well, did you know some owls aren't that wise? don't forget i'm having brunch with meghan tomorrow. who? meghan, my coworker. who? seriously? you've met her like three times. who? (sighs) geico. fifteen minutes could save you...well, you know. building animatronics is all about getting things to work together. the timing, the actions, the reactions.

everything has to synch up. my expenses are no different. receipt match from american express synchronizes your business expenses. just shoot your business card receipts and they're automatically matched up with the charges on your online statement. i'm john kaplan and i'm a member of a synchronized world. this is what membership is. this is what membership does. that your mouth is under attack, from food particles and bacteria. try fixodent. it helps create a food seal defense for a clean mouth and kills bacteria for fresh breath. ♪ fixodent, and forget it. while britain's parliament is in the middle of a noisy

emergency session right now to discussion action against syria, the u.n. security council members went behind closed doors today also to discuss what's going on. nick payton walsh joins us now. they are voting on david cameron's motion, that would take an initial step of authorizing military action. but it's very weak as i understand it. go ahead and explain what's going on in london right now, nick. >> reporter: it's complex but it's how british politics works. at this point there are two ideas be tabled before the parliament. the first is from the opposition, which is a different idea, which suggests what they refer to as a sequential road map, which would require compelling evidence the regime was behind the attacks, a full report from the u.n. inspectors, a much higher burden of evidence and proof on the government before there could be another vote which could authorize u.k.

participation and military action. they've gone out of the chamber to vote on that. they will then come back in and then go out again in order to vote on the u.k. government motion, which is slightly less complex. it says we need to hear back from the u.n. inspectors to hear what they have to say and we have to be sure we've exhausted diplomatic avenues before we have another vote on whether the u.k. can take part in military intervention. a complex day and it really shows how little control david cameron, the british prime minister, has had over this process. >> a labor amendment from the opposite, they voted no on that. now they're voting on the government motion supported by the prime minister. let me read the last paragraph. it says that the government believes that the united nations security council must have the opportunity immediately to

consider that briefing that every effort should be made to secure a security council resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, before any direct british involvement of such action. a further vote of the house of commons will take place. this relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in syria with wider objectives. basically it's saying they're punting to at least next week. they want another vote, if in fact the u.n. security council doesn't do anything. >> reporter: absolutely. this has been the compromise that david cameron and british prime ministers had to entertain. he wanted to get a vote today to authorize the potential for u.k. intervention alongside the united states. this is watered down. it looks, though, like the timetable may have begin to fit what we wants.

we've seen here a meeting with them. that seems to have ended with most diplomats saying to me no real ability for either side to see eye to eye on this, distance between the u.k., u.s. and russia and china. one source saying to me russia didn't really want to see this come to a vote because it may put them in an embarrassing spot, so at this point with no rounds for the future, we may see the effective death of the bill here. now we have to address the issue of the u.n. inspectors. where will that go? on saturday they will speak to the secretary-general about their preliminary results and i understand that will be passed on to the security council. the question is are those preliminary results of what they found on the ground in syria, are they enough to potentially

satisfy the u.k.'s parliamentary motion and allow them to move on to another vote. the u.n. spokesman very clear there will be some lab results required from the samples found on the ground in syria. it's a very complex protest. what is in many ways remarkable is how did he get himself into this situation. >> they're out there now, they're voting. they go into separate rooms, those in favor, those against the motion, they go into separate rooms and then they do the counting and come back into the house of commons. presumably the government will prevail. we'll see momentarily what that is. but presumably the government will prevail, nick. but as you're saying, even the u.n. weapons inspectors, once they come back, they're only going to confirm presumably what the u.s., the brits, the others have suggested, that chemical weapons were used.

it is not the mission according to the u.n. secretary-general for the inspectors to say who used -- who launched those chemical weapons. >> that is correct. that is not part of left-hand -- it doesn't require compelling proof from the u.n. inspectors that the regime was involved. it just requires them to report to the u.n. security council on what they found. the u.k. has been very clear it holds the regime responsible as has the u.s. some of this is going through the motions in many ways. i think there may be british government lawyers saying you have to been seen as exhausting all options before you can advance forward military intervention. you're seeing both parts of the british parliament going to their separate rooms, they'll

reconvene and we'll have the results. if david cameron doesn't get a positive result here, it will be a huge setback not only for his government but for the transatlantic partnership and many are questioning how could it be that the british parliament here without add kwaut perhaps prepreparation with washington colleagues, how can it be that we've seen the participation in the last few days holding up action. >> it would be a huge, huge setback for the british prime minister david cameron, especially when you take a look at the language as relatively -- relatively modest. and it certainly would still require a second vote next week by the british parliament, before britain would be authorized to use military force. >> when we come back, my interview with a house intelligence chairman. >> stay with us. you're in "the situation room."

azazaz ♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] ultra rugged phones from sprint. buy one, get four free, and $150 credit when you switch your business line to sprint. the pioneers in push-to-talk. trouble hearing on the phone? visit sprintcaptel.com

♪ [ female announcer ] nothing gets you going quite like the power of quaker oats. today is going to be epic. quaker up.

. you're looking at live pictures from the house of commons in london. the members have just voted on a resolution sponsored by the government of david cameron that would give at least an initial endorsement for potentially using military force in response to the allegations that the syrian regime used chemical weapons against his own people on august 21st, killing hundreds of people, injuring many, many more.

nick payton walsh is over at the united nations watching what's going on. it would be a huge setback for prime minister cameron if this resolution goes down to defeat. you're from london. what do you think is going to happen here? we should know momentarily. >> i think it would be highly unlikely given the level of compromise he had to go through to put the motion together. he wanted it to be about authorizing military intervention but he had to change it to be about hearing from the inspectors again and then a subsequent vote after that. if he isn't able to get this through, you have to question the viability of the coalition he's running. it's a coalition between the first and third most popular parties in the united kingdom traditionally. he's faced down the opposition labor party, amendment. we have to wait and see if he's successful here. but there will have been an awful lot of behind-the-scenes maneuvering here to be sure the

wording was right to get the votes. they'd have to regroup, think again, entertain the possibility that they won't be able to get anything through as a motion through parliament to potentially bring the u.k. along the path toward military intervention and that could use the u.s. to go it alone, despite the desire they have put out for the white house to have international lies at their side. this is a key moment for david cameron and for the transatlantic partnership, wolf. >> the speaker will make the announcement momentarily. we assume it will pass. just to be precise, on this resolution, it specifically says if the u.k. were to go ahead with action dealing with the chemical attack, there would be another vote required by the parliament in the coming days. this does not authorize military

action but gives an initial indication of what could be in store. they want to go back to the security council, get the weapons inspectors results from what they saw there and then there would be another vote. this is a very, very tepid initial step. if it were to go down, it would be a huge embarrassment for david cameron and his government but also for the u.s./u.k. alliance. we're waiting for the speaker to make the announcement momentarily. we'll see what that is. we'll stand by and wait for his word. a quick question about the united nations where you are, nick, while i have you over there. is there any possibility that after -- after the u.n. inspectors report to ban ki-moon, the u.n. secretary-general, would meet in an emergency session, a formal vote would take place, even

anticipating a -- >> i understand another diplomat saying the russians don't want to see it go to a vote. the chinese don't want to havto. you have to understand it would be to confirm chemical weapons were used in syria, not to apportion blame. then you would take it to the security council again and then face the russian and chinese ve veto. the u.k. has already gone through that process. frankly the outcome was predictable. we knew the russians and chinese would likely veto.

they historically have on this particular issue. many seeing the u.k. introducing these resolutions going through the motions, a tactical move it was called by within, wanting to be sure they have exhausted all diplomatic avenue, particularly here at the united nations. >> nick, you've been to syria a few times this year, last year. you've had an opportunity to see what's going on up close. if they're watching this debate and deeply divided british parliament right now, i assume president bashar al assad must be taking some comfort. hold on a moment, let's listen in to see what they're saying.

all right, it looks like they're not ready yet. oh, here they come. let's listen in. >> order. order. >> the ayes to the right, 272, the nos to the left, 285. >> thank you. order! order! order! mr. mcneal, you're like an exploded volcano. you've erupted. calm yourself, man. the ayes to the right, 272. the nos to the left, 285. so the nos have it. the nos have it.

unlock. point of order, mr. ed milliband. >> mr. speaker, on the point of order, there having been no motion passed by this house tonight, can the prime minister confirm to the house that he will not use the royal prerogative to order the u.k. to be part of military action -- of military action given the will of the house that's been expressed tonight before there's been another vote in this house of commons? >> order. it is of course not a matter of the chairman but the prime minister has heard it and is able to respond. >> i can give that order. the house has not voted for either motion tonight. i strongly believe in the use of a tough response to the use of kwe chemical weapons but i also believe in respecting the will of this commons. it's clear to me the british parliament reflecting the views

of the british people does not want to see british military action. i get that and the government will act accordingly. >> i'm grateful to the prime minister for that response. point of order, mr. robert flello. >> i'd like to address a separate matter this afternoon. while the eyes of the world have been focused on the appalling atrocities in syria -- >> there you have it. a huge setback for the prime minister of britain, david cameron loses on a mild resolution that would have required another vote. 285 against the resolution, 272 in favor. you and i are pretty surprised

that cameron loses this vote. give us perspective on what kind of political set back this is. >> quite staggering. could you see it in the face of the opposition leader. they're almost trying to absorb what he seems to have pulled off in parliament through the opposition he put up to the government's motion. remarkable, too, to hear david cameron standing up there very clearly saying i get it, we will not use military force at this point. there's a real elephant in the room here and in one word it's ir iraq. there's a huge element of how they ended up in that conflict. they have to be clear to explain to people the intelligence here, the justification behind it. and it's bizarre in many ways because this is a totally separate chain of event, what led up to iraq. the u.s. has been very reluctant

to get involved in this conflict and almost forced by setting a red line that bashar al assad has crossed. so a remarkable set of events we have here. where do we go from now? well, the u.s. is going to have to make a decision. do they wait for david cameron to come up with even softer language that he might be able to push through this parliament? he lost by a sliver here, not by a large margin. so there could be back door maneuvering going on which has left him in this incredibly difficult position but the u.s. are going to have to make a call, do we go it along without the british or do we wait for them to get their house in order, forget the pun. >> a huge, huge political embarrass forme menthe british minister david cameron.

if president assad and his leadership are watching, they certainly are smiling right now. our panel is joining us. jeremy bash and leon panetta, robin wright is joining us, mark thompson, national security reporter for "time" magazine, our sister publication. the new cover, i'll put it up "the unhappy warrior." barack obama ran for president to get the u.s. out of wars, not into them. jeremy, can you believe the setback now the in this u.s.-u.k. alliance? give us your perspective. >> it's good to heed the lessons of iraq. it's good to have iraq on the brain as we contemplate military action in the middle east. but it's also irresponsible to do nothing in the face of comprehensive and military intelligence that assad used chemical weapons against his people.

>> are you surprised that -- >> i would say, wolf, i think the president is going to do what's in our national interest. i think he set a red line. he said that it's important we send assad a message. the military strategy here will be to punish, to degrade and to deter, to punish him for breaking this international tour, to prevent him from doing it again and degrade his ability to do it again. >> is the commander in chief going to take military action without the involvement of britain? >> it would be a terrible setback for the administration if it didn't have support from its key allies. i think this is not over, however. you have a couple of days in which the u.n. weapons inspectors will be completing their mission, pulling out on saturday. we may have new intelligence that would allow david cameron to rally another vote to see if there's some way of getting another vote. this has bigger implications about the nature of the relation

between the united states and its al lie. >> i've been speaking to a lot of military officers, people who know what's going on over at the pentagon. they have no great stomach to do this. they don't want to do it unless they know there's a mission, an end game, they have the sort to do what they need to do. not to just do some modest gesture, if will you. >> right. wolf, the u.s. and britain have had a special relationship, as winston churchill called it. the fact of the matter is the u.s. has plenty of fire power in that neck of the woods right now. a fifth destroyer is coming in, there may be a converted boomer with 150 t-limbs on board. >> tomahawk cruise missiles. >> tomahawk cruise missiles. they want an alliance to do it. if it's only france and turkey, it won't be as good as if britain was on board.

>> my interview with mike rogers, who says it's very clear the syrian regime did in fact carry out that horrific chemical attack last week. stay with us. [ male announcer ] come to the lexus golden opportunity sales event and choose from one of five lexus hybrids that's right for you, including the lexus es and ct hybrids. ♪ this is the pursuit of perfection. like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪ at&t mobile share for business. everybody has different ideas, goals, appetite for risk.

you can't say 'one size fits all'. it doesn't. that's crazy. we're all totally different. ishares core. etf building blocks for your personalized portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal.

♪ (announcer) answer the call of the grill with new friskies grillers, full of meaty tenders and crunchy bites. humans. even when we cross our "ts" and dot our "i's", we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness with our auto policies. if you qualify, your rates won't go up due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human, and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car, we'll give you the money for a new one. call liberty mutual insurance at...

and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life. so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? leading members of congress are still on a recess. they are about to get on a conference call for an unclassified briefing by top administration officials by the chemical attack in syria last week. one key lawmaker said he didn't have to wait around to learn what happened in syria. joining us now, congressman mike rogers, he's the chairman of the house intelligence committee. mr. chairman, thanks very much for coming in. >> thanks for having me, wolf. >> have you been fully briefed

to your complete satisfaction from the obama administration about what they know of syria's alleged use of chemical weapons against civilian targets? >> as the chairman, we sought out our own briefings. i do feel comfortable as i track the stream of evidence on this particular case -- remember, this is not the first case of chemical use in syria. so this i think certainly fits with the patterns we've seen before that we would say that belong to the syrian regime and they were at least responsible for its use. this was a bigger event. so, again, i have a little bit from a different perspective but i feel very confident that the regime did use these chemical weapons. it was likely ordered from senior officials of the regime and they use them and have used them in the past, by the way, to use them as a tactical weapon to clear certain areas for their

own strategic purposes. and this is consistent with all of those facts. >> do you have hard intelligence that the syrian leader, president bashar al assad personally ordered, instructed his military to use these chemical weapons? >> well, i mean, that's hard to say. but if you base -- you can't say that, you know, we don't have the crib notes, assad writing a note to his commander saying, please, use chemical weapons, no, we don't have that. but when you look at the history of these units and you study through intelligence how these units work, how they take their orders, how they're configured through command and control, with other pieces of evidence, all source information from human beings, electronics and other things, and you put that whole puzzle together, it was clear that the assad regime was responsible for this latest chemical attack and other attacks in syria. >> there's been suggestion out

there perhaps some road military unit without the authorization of bashar al assad decided to use these chemical weapons. do you have buy that? >> i don't buy it. that would be like saying that some carrier group in the u.s. started firing missiles but they decided to do it on their own, therefore nobody was responsible. that's really implausible to me. we know how the command and control works of these units. when you piece it together with other pieces of information, it was clear that there was at least some level of command and control exercised at some point throughout tlo through this process that allowed them to move forward with the event. now we believe, and i've seen the evidence at least as late as last week, i think there's even new pieces coming in this week that confirms for me that the regime was responsible for the use of chemical weapons. >> i raise these questions because a lot of people remember

ten years ago when the bush administration, secretary of state colin powell at the time went before the u.n. saying there was no doubt that iraq under saddam hussein had stockpiled chemical weapons, biological weapons, wmd, weapons of mass destruction, a lot of that information came from one source who was dubbed "curveball," who turned out to be a fraud. are you at all concerned that some of this intelligence that you are seeing could be wrong? >> well, you're always concerned of that and that's why you ask for at least multiple sources of confirmation about the intelligence. number one, we have that. and here's the other thing. we have to remember why this is a little bit different, wolf. the regime itself admitted they had chemical weapons. they've even identified some time ago the units that control their chemical weapons. so this is -- that part is indisputable. and the fact that the weapons were used i think now is

indisputable. and so did the regime order it? and it's really clear when you look at all of the levels and different pieces of information that it was clear to me and i would go by the reasonable standard here and looked at all the evidence we see in a classified setting, would they come to the conclusion that the regime used chemical weapons for tactical purposes on the battlefield? i think the answer is definitely yes. so i think we've gotten over that hurdle. i think the administration believes that, i believe that as chairman of the intelligence committee, and i think other people who have seen the evidence believe that. so that part i feel on very, very solid ground that the regime was involved in the use of this particular chemical weapon attack and other chemical weapon attacks in syria in the past. >> we're going to have much more on my interview with the chairman of the house intelligence committee, mike rogers, in our next hour during

our special report "crisis in syria." when we come back, a major announcement from the justice department on recreational marijuana use. our own dr. sanjay gupta is live with the details. [ beeping ] ♪ [ male announcer ] we don't just certify our pre-owned vehicles. we inspect, analyze and recondition each one, until it's nothing short of a genuine certified pre-owned... mercedes-benz for the next new owner. ♪ hurry in to your authorized mercedes-benz dealer for 1.99% financing during our certified pre-owned sales event through september 3rd. like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing.

hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪

the justice department here in washington announced today it won't try to block newly enacted laws in washington state and colorado, legalizing marijuana use, including recreational marijuana use. our chief medical correspondent, dr. sanjay gupta, may have had a huge impact on the national conversation as a result of his recent documentary that aired here on cnn, "weed." what do you make of this decision, sanjay? give us a perspective.

the justice department now saying they're not going to get involved in washington state and colorado, where recreational use of marijuana is legal. >> you know, it may represent a bit of a softening of the stance toward this overall. they had some very specific areas that they wanted to continue to enforce, but less sort of enforcement on individual users. you know, wolf, as you know, i mean, part of the reason why we did the documentary was really to talk about this substance, marijuana, cannabis, that could be a very effective, potential medication for people and a medication where no other medications existed for certain conditions. what i did not hear, as part of, you know, this news today, and what may be coming, hopefully, down the road is this idea that the studies, the science behind this could be more easily done, because of a loosening of the law. so researchers having more access to be able to study this. also, the fact that it's still listed as schedule i, the most dangerous substance, the most dangerous category of substances in the country.

one things we didn't talk about much. this little girl, charlotte, in the documentary. she lives in colorado, she's able to use her medical cannabis in colorado, but you can't leave the state. she's sort of locked into her state. and i'm not sure that's still being fully addressed. people going to colorado, who live in states where it's not available, because they can get it there. i think that that may be something that's going to change as well down the road, wolf. >> i think your documentary may have had a big impact with that other little child in new jersey, and governor christie. talk a little about that. >> in july, governor christie was very adamant about this. he said, we are not going to allow new jersey to become, you know, one of these other states that has legalized cannabis for medicinal purposes. he said that back in july, and then, you know, a month later, he basically is allowing it, with some stipulations and some important stipulations. but the story was of a little girl who had uncontrollable seizures, again, for whom nothing worked. lots of different medications had been tried, nothing had worked. she was very similar, again, to

this girl, charlotte, in our documentary, for whom now there is plenty of evidence, not just in charlotte, but in hundreds of kids around the world that get benefit from cannabis, an oil form of cannabis that does not get you high, they're not smoking it, and i think governor christie in some ways ultimately reversed his position on that and now a child in new jersey is going to have better access to that. >> thanks to all the excellent reporting work you do and all the medical work you do. dr. sanjay gupta reporting for us in "the situation room." just ahead, a special report in "the situation room." crisis in syria. plus, the battle for the new jersey senate seat is caught up in a heated, somewhat unusual debate over sexuality. that's next. when we made our co the gulf, bp had two big goals: help the gulf recover and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts

watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. ( bell rings ) they remwish i saw mine of my granmore often, but they live so far away. i've been thinking about moving in with my daughter and her family. it's been pretty tough since jack passed away. it's a good thing you had life insurance through the colonial penn program. you're right. it was affordable, and we were guaranteed acceptance. guaranteed acceptance? it means you can't be turned down because of your health. you don't have to take a physical or answer any health questions. they don't care about your aches and pains. well, how do you know? did you speak to alex trebek? because i have a policy myself. it costs just $9.95 a month per unit. it's perfect for my budget. my rate will never go up. and my coverage will never go down

because of my age. affordable coverage and guaranteed acceptance? we should give them a call. do you want to help protect your loved ones from the burden of final expenses? if you're between 50 and 85, you can get quality insurance that does not require any health questions or a medical exam. your rate of $9.95 a month per unit will never increase, and your coverage will never decrease -- that's guaranteed. so join the six million people who have already called about this insurance. whether you're getting new insurance or supplementing what you already have, call now and ask one of their representatives about a plan that meets your needs. so, what are you waiting for? go call now! we'll finish up here.

shaq 1, pain 0. [ male announcer ] icy hot advanced patch with 50% more medicine. pain over. the battle for new jersey senate seat is now caught up in some heated and unusual debate over sexuality, after the front-runner in the race, the rising star, the democrat cory booker, made some candid comments about his own personal life. cnn national correspondent jason carroll is following all the details for us. what's going on, jason? >> reporter: well, you know, wolf, newark mayor cory booker has always made a point of keeping his personal life private, but for now, some of his public comments have taken the race for senate in an

entirely different direction. when the candidates for the senate seat from new jersey face the cameras, it's not just the economy or education up for debate, but what it means to be a real man. >> it's just disheartening to hear somebody in this day and age, in the united states of america say, basically, implicate that gay men are not men, that they're not guys. >> reporter: that's cory booker, newark's mayor and new jersey's democratic candidate for senate, it came after republican steve longgan came out with statements. >> he said, i love seeing on twitter when someone says, "i'm gay," and i say, so what does it matter if i am. so be it. i hope you are not voting for me because you are making the presumption that i'm straight.

>> longgan response. >> his peculiar fetish is how it was described. i have a more peculiar fetish. i like a good scotch and a cigar. >> the fact that what defines manhood is the drink you drink or the cigar that you smoke, i think he just really misses the boat on what it means to be a man in america. >> reporte >> reporter: booker also to twitter saying your bigotry is no less heinous than race bigotry. lonegan clarifying his position during a press conference. >> this election is not about validating cory booker's lifestyle. i don't care if cory booker is gay or straight. the problem is he's too liberal for new jersey. >> reporter: his earlier comment stils a concern for gay rights advocate like troy stevenson. >> to have a public official, someone running for the united states senate, to tell them there's a way they have to behave to be considered a real

man, it's shocking. >> reporter: for now, the man leading the latest polling is booker by nearly 30 percentage points. >> thank you! thank you! >> booker is going to win easily. at some point, he'll have to clarify and certainly if he runs for president. that's a completely different ocean as opposed to the pond of the senate race. >> and wolf, the big question is, does it all matter? voters will make that decision when they go to the polls on october 16th. wolf? >> all right, jason, thanks very much. happening now, a conference call between the white house and key members of congress. they're being briefed on what the united states knows about syria's alleged chemical attack. also, britain's parliament, bitterly divided as it votes on what to do next in syria. plus, growing fears of a cyber pearl harbor, as some are calling it. will syrian hackers retaliate

with a massive cyberattack if the united states attacks their country. i'm wolf blitzer, this is "the situation room," special report, "crisis in syria." some lawmakers clamoring for more information about syria's alleged chemical weapons attack are getting it right now. top administration officials including the secretaries of defense and state, they are scheduled to start briefing congressional leaders and key committee heads by phone. the conference call comes as the u.s. and its allies way a possible military strike against syria, but the debate is growing and momentum may be slowing down. we're using cnn's global resources to cover the crisis from all angles in this hour's special report. let's begin, though, with your chief congressional correspondent, dana bash. she has details of the syria conference call with members of conference -- members of congress going on right now. da dana, what do we know?

>> we know that it has begun and this is good news for lawmakers, who have been really asking the obama administration for more information, was we have pretty heavy hitters, the secretaries of defense and state, as you said. other officials, talking to congressional leaders and key committee heads of both parties. that's the good news for them. the bad news for these lawmakers is that obama officials are going to be limited in what they can say, because they're going to be talking, or are as we speak, on a phone line that is not secure. so what that means is that they're going to be able to discuss only unclassified information. and that could rule out what many of these lawmakers really want to know. what the intelligence the administration has the to back claims about assad using chemical weapons, not to mention military options for strikes against the syrian regime. that is all likely still classified. so there isn't much that they can likely say on that. the other thing is, it's a limited group of lawmakers, wolf. rank and file members out there, many of them have been saying, not only do they want more information, they want to have a vote to authorize before anything goes on. they're still saying that they're in the dark.

they don't anything beyond what they're hearing from us and from other news organizations. >> and in contrast to the relative silence up on capitol hill, britain, the house of commons, they came back from their vacation, the prime minister brought back all the members of the house of commons, the parliament. they had a very spirited debate today. is there any possibility that members of congress, including those who are clamoring for more information, will come back to washington and start dealing with this? >> no. not before they're scheduled to in two weeks. look at what happened just last hour in the house of commons. david cameron lost. and i have not talked to any members of congress or aides, even those who very much support going after assad, and even limited military strikes, who think that a vote or even coming back to have a discussion on a resolution, never mind authorization vote, would be a good idea, because it likely wouldn't pass. the concern, even among lawmakers who are maybe not in the president's party, was are natural allies of him on this issue, they say that they're very concerned, very frustrated,

because they think that he and his administration simply have not made the case enough publicly, and that ties their hands in what they can do to support him in going forward. >> dana bash, our chief congressional correspondent, thanks very much. let's get some more now on that huge parliamentary vote in london. a huge defeat for the british prime minister, david cameron. listen to this. >> the ayes to the right, 272. the nos to the left, 285. so the nos have it. the nos have it. unlock. >> what a setback, what a political embarrassment for the prime minister, david cameron. max foster is on the scene for us. max, this was a relatively tepid resolution and cameron couldn't even get that passed by the house of commons even though he's in the majority. what happened? >> reporter: exactly the problem. what they were voting on here

was the principle of intervention in syria. what cameron wanted initially was bintervention in syria. it got defeated and it was a remarkable defeat, wolf, of david cameron and his government. and afterwards, david cameron said it's clear the house of parliament didn't want a military strike in syria and he could act accordingly. i've spoken to a labor member of parliament and a conservative member of parliament and they both interpret that as saying that they will now be no british military involvement in syria. they can't back america if that's going to be what obama wants. it so looks like it's over, but both did say, we have to hear more detail in the morning. but all the words from cameron seem to suggest that this is pretty much over. >> so how politically damaged is this for the prime minister and his coalition? >> well, it is damaging. he had watered the motion down. and he couldn't even get that

through, as you say. so it's embarrassing people, who are questioning his power on foreign policy. certainly something he's going to be considering. northea he's in a coalition government. he's not in a huge majority situation, as others have been in britain over the years. he has certainly been weakened, and it's a triumph, i have to say, for the opposition leader. many people see him as a weak opposition leader, but certainly he's not that tonight. >> and it certainly is a setback in u.s./uk relations, because you know, max, the obama administration was counting on its number one ally, britain, to be together with the united states in case there were military strikes against these targets in syria. so this could be a real setback in u.s./uk relations as well. >> reporter: yeah. the president was brought up in a debate today as well, but david cameron brought out he doesn't run uk politics, it's parliament that does. he did describe the president as

a friend though. he said he's repeatedly spoken to him very closely. i know all levels of government in the civil service as well, they've been speaking to their american counterparts. they certainly tried the to support america as much as possible, but david cameron just couldn't get it through. the problem is, iraq. they went to war in iraq, backing america up without the evidence. and this huge shadow cast over parliament because of that. they didn't want to do it again, so maybe david cameron made a mistake. coming to parliament before they had the evidence from the weapons inspectors. and maybe he was premature on all of this. the opposition leader did say he wasn't get intervention per se, but the case has been made very well. so, yes, wolf, i do think it was been damaging to the prime minister. >> max foster reporting for us from london. a huge, huge setback. thanks very much. a setback for the british prime minister. as we reported, congressional leaders and the heads of key committees, they are being briefed this hour on a conference call with the secretaries of state and

defense. some lawmakers have already been looking at the classified intelligence, was do they feel they're getting enough information about the crisis in syria? now part two of my interview with the chairman of the house intelligence committee, mike rogers. do you support a military strike to deal with this, to punish the regime of president bashar al assad, off a the use of these chemical weapons? >> i believe when the president called for a red line, and by the way, that red line has been crossed numerous times, the full credibility of the united states was put on the line. some 60 years of walk softly and carry a big stick is at stalk sheer. and one of the reasons the world behaves in so many places is because of the strength of the united states and its conviction we will do things when we say we're going to do things. i think all of that's at stake. so the very fact that you said that we're not going to use chemical weapons, that's our threshold, that we won't tolerate.

and what chemical weapons were used, we're going to do something. >> you know if the u.s. were to launch strikes against weapons depots, command and control facilities, the al qaeda elements in syria, al nusra and other islamist terrorist groups, they would be cheering the united states of america for weakening their dire enemy, the regime of president bashar al assad. that's a major dilemma, isn't it? >> it's a huge dilemma. and unfortunately, not making decisions earlier have led to really bad choices today. so not making a decision was an affirmative decision to allow things to get worse in syria, which i thought was a mistake. i still do. but now we're at a point where we are in a box. the president has issued this red line. they've crossed this red line. we know that they have these chemical weapons. the problem is, how do we make sure -- and the u.s. national security interests are to make sure that these chemical weapons don't fall into the hands of al qaeda, hezbollah, others, that are conventional weapons

stockpiles. the russians are pouring weapons into syria like there's no tomorrow and they're pretty sophisticated. the sophisticated anti-air weapons systems, other systems, anti-tank systems that cause us some concern. we don't need that falling into the hands of the bad guys either. >> was it a mistake for president obama to issue that red line? >> well, it's hard to tell now. my argument is the red line has been issued. he should have only it shoussue red line if he meant it. now it's too late. now we've got a problem here. we've got chemical weapons usage. listen, i argue that allowing syria to turn into a jihadist recruiting pool from the rest of the world and dissbiintegratinge stability is a huge national security problem for the united states. pretending it didn't, it was ant problem and we didn't need to have to deal with it was a terrible decision. on top of that, you issue a red line and don't do anything about it is a worse decision. and we're going to pay a price for this. that's why you see the russians

so emboldened. they think that the united states just won't do anything. they think that -- you see china being more aggressive. why? because they think the united states won't do anything. why is iran so bold in syria and progressing on its near program? because day don't believe the united states will do anything. there is credibility in this that will impact our country and our national security for generations if we do not get it right. >> but you know that we don't know what the consequences of the very limited, even precision air strike or missile strike would lead to. we don't know how the iranians would react. would they retaliate, because they're so closely aligned with the syrian regime. what about hezbollah. would they start launching rockets from southern lebanon into northern israel once again? and would that further drag the united states into what the american public clearly doesn't want, which is another all-out middle eastern war that could last 10 or 15 years. you've got to worry about that,

don't you, mr. chairman? >> absolutely. we worry about all of those contingencies. you also worry about the fact that if you say, oh, iran has threatened us, let's stand down. that also presents some real consequences for the united states. remember, this is a regime that tried to kill the saudi ambassador by blowing up a restaurant in washington, d.c., just a few years ago. they've had a numerous, i think about a dozen different covert attacks around the world, argentina, pakistan, other places where they have tried to assassinate and in some places been successful, some of their adversaries around the world. they are very aggressive on this. and they're going to understand if you say you're going to do something internationally, you need to keep your word. you need to show them that you're serious. >> here's a question a lot of people are asking. why does the united states always have to do this? where are the europeans? where are the friendly arab countries? the arab league? why can't they retaliate for the use of these chemical weapons? why is it always the united states?

>> well, we have been working with our arab league partners. remember, our arab league partners think we've just been absent in this. they've been asking for our leadership. >> i don't see the air force of saudi arabia or the united arab emirates or qatar or kuwait or jordan, i don't see them getting involved in this. >> i'll tell you, all of the countries you just mentioned are involved in syria today. and what they've been asking for for almost two years is we just need leadership, u.s. leadership at the table here, and they haven't gotten it. >> they've been involved covertly, they're on the ground, they're helping with arms supplies, but as i said, i don't see their air forces or their missile capabilities and they all have that kind of capability, i don't see that kind of involvement. >> well, yeah, no, i understand what you're saying, but i'll disagree on two points. a, i think you'll see a coordinated effort. this won't be done solely by the united states. but the united states has special capabilities that no other military in that region

or, candidly, even our friends and allies, have. and i think it would be wrong to expose people without using our capabilities, in conjunction with an international effort, including the arab league. the arab league should be involved. they are. the consultations are happening. so should the french and the british and others, through consultation about what our options are here and what we all ought to do. but at some point, we are going to have a role. i would not outsource u.s. leadership to countries in the middle east on matters that protect what has been a red line for the united states. that's not something you want to outsource. >> the chairman of the house intelligence committee, mike rogers, speaking with me earlier. president obama might unilaterally order a strike on syria, rather than seek congressional organization. and he wouldn't be the first president to make that kind of move. the 1973 war powers resolution has been bypassed five times by both republican and democratic presidents, who ordered military action in grenada back in 1983,

panama in 1989, iraq in 1991, haiti in 1994, and kosovo in 1999. up next, the horrifying reality of chemical weapons and just how little it takes to kill. plus, unknown consequences from a strike against syria. we'll have a closer look at the very disturbing worst-case scenarios. this is "the situation room" special report, "crisis in syria" #. i think farmers care more about the land than probably anyone else. we've had this farm for 30 years. we raise black and red angus cattle. we also produce natural gas. that's how we make our living and that's how we can pass the land and water back to future generations. people should make up their own mind what's best for them. all i can say is it has worked well for us.

desperate pleas for gas masks to protect against chemical attacks refused, apparently, by the obama administration. we'll have that when our special report, "crisis in syria," continues. male announcer ] this is jim, a man who doesn't stand still. but jim has afib, atrial fibrillation -- an irregular heartbeat, not caused by a heart valve problem. that puts jim at a greater risk of stroke. for years, jim's medicine tied him to a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but now, with once-a-day xarelto®, jim's on the move. jim's doctor recommended xarelto®. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective

to reduce afib-related stroke risk. but xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. so jim's not tied to that monitoring routine. [ gps ] proceed to the designated route. not today. [ male announcer ] for patients currently well managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke. xarelto® is just one pill a day taken with the evening meal. plus, with no known dietary restrictions, jim can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto®, rivaroxaban, without talking to the doctor who prescribes it as this may increase the risk of having a stroke. get help right away if you develop any symptoms like bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death.

you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto® and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. xarelto® is not for patients with artificial heart valves. jim changed his routine. ask your doctor about xarelto®. once a day xarelto® means no regular blood monitoring -- no known dietary restrictions. for more information and savings options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com. all right. we're finally going to be getting some reaction from the white house, reaction to a devastating setback for the u.s./uk relationship. the british parliament only moments ago rejecting a motion to authorize, at least

preliminarily, a resolution that would have allowed the british government to go ahead and work with the united states in dealing with a military response to syria's alleged use of chemical weapons against civilian targets in syria, but that resolution just moments ago went down to defeat, despite the urgings of the british prime minister, david cameron, 285 votes against the resolution, 272 in favor. a major setback, could be a serious political problem for the longevity of david cameron's government. let's go to our senior white house correspondent, jip acosta. he's getting reaction from officials over there. what are they saying, jim? >> wolf, we can report that a senior u.s. official tells cnn that unilateral action may be necessary annoy against syria in light of the vote in britain. that source telling cnn, quote, i do think that is a possibility, and then speaking about the vote in british parliament, this official said, quote, we care what they think, we value the process, but we're going to make the decision we need to make.

and this official pointed back to what the principled deputy press secretary said josh earnest said at the white house briefing earlier this afternoon, who talked about the national security interests of the united states and how the president is going to seek out actions that advance those interests, no matter what is happening on the world stage. so this is an indication, wolf, that the president is willing to go it alone against syria. >> well, he certainly doesn't have the british government onboard, at least not yet, in this huge, embarrassing setback. here's the question. the u.n. weapons inspectors, they're supposed to be coming back over the weekend, saturday or sunday, reporting to ban ki-moon, the u.n. secretary general on what they discovered, what they found. i assume the obama administration will at least wait until their report reaches the u.n. is that right? >> reporter: i haven't gotten a sense as to what the white house is willing to wait for. i think that the message has been communicated to the united nations, from this white house, that those inspectors are in harm's way and that they need to

get out of this area, at least in the short-term, very soon. but, wolf, one thing i've heard from administration officials all week is that this white house is not going to allow diplomatic maneuvering get in the way of what they feel like they need to do to advance u.s. national security interests and the president has said, time and again, while he hasn't made a decision to execute some sort of strike against syria, that he feels like a chemical weapons attack against civilians in syria carried out by the regime not only is a threat to u.s. national security, but is a violation of an international norm, such as the geneva conventions, the chemical weapons treaties that have been assigned and adhered to by countries around the world. the white house is pretty firm on this. they've been saying all along that they wanted international cooperation, but you always had the sense that when you talked to them, that it wasn't necessarily a deal breaker if they didn't have it, wolf. >> and a further complication,

the president is supposed to be in russia, in st. petersburg, russia, next week, at the g-20 summit. russia a key ally of syria. that puts the u.s. in an awkward position if air strikes or missile strikes are launched before he leaves washington for sweden and then st. petersburg, russia. jim acosta over at the white house. we'll stay in close contact with you. we'll take a quick break. much more of our special report, "crisis in syria," right after this. help the gulf recover and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. when she's happy, she writes about bunnies. when she's sad, she writes about goblins.

[ balloon pops, goblin growling ] she wrote a lot about goblins after getting burned in the market. but she found someone to talk to and gained the confidence to start investing again. ♪ and that's what you call a storybook ending. it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

up next. the horrifying reality of chemical weapons and just how little it takes to kill. ( bell rings ) they remind me so much of my grandkids. wish i saw mine more often, but they live so far away. i've been thinking about moving in with my daughter and her family. it's been pretty tough since jack passed away. it's a good thing you had life insurance through the colonial penn program. you're right. it was affordable, and we were guaranteed acceptance. guaranteed acceptance? it means you can't be turned down because of your health.

you don't have to take a physical or answer any health questions. they don't care about your aches and pains. well, how do you know? did you speak to alex trebek? because i have a policy myself. it costs just $9.95 a month per unit. it's perfect for my budget. my rate will never go up. and my coverage will never go down because of my age. affordable coverage and guaranteed acceptance? we should give them a call. do you want to help protect your loved ones from the burden of final expenses? if you're between 50 and 85, you can get quality insurance that does not require any health questions or a medical exam. your rate of $9.95 a month per unit will never increase, and your coverage will never decrease -- that's guaranteed. so join the six million people who have already called about this insurance. whether you're getting new insurance or supplementing what you already have, call now and ask one of their representatives about a plan that meets your needs.

so, what are you waiting for? go call now! we'll finish up here. happening now, as the united states weighs possible military action against syria, some are asking just how solid the intelligence is on that alleged chemical weapons attack. i'm ask the former cia chief general, michael hayden. also, if the decision is made to strike, could there be unintended consequences? we're taking a closer look at some possible worst-case

scenarios. and looming fears of what's called a cyberpearl harbor. what a military strike potentially could mean for hackers. we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer, this is a "situation room" special report, "crisis in syria." the images of countless victims perishing in an apparent poison gas attack are horrifying every time you see them. it's clear chemical weapons could be lethal, but you may not realize just how powerful they really are. cnn pentagon correspondent, chris lawrence, has the story. we want to warn you, the images you are about to see in this report are extremely graphic and very disturbing. >> reporter: describing this video as disturbing doesn't do it justice. but some attach a different word. proof. >> i have absolutely no doubt

this was a chemical weapons attack. >> reporter: amy spitsen has been studying the use and effect of chemical weapons for 20 years. and says it was the child in this video that erased all doubt. >> maybe 5 years old, and the twitching of the eyes and the mouth and the arms were all going in different directions at different times. that simply cannot be coached in a child of that age. >> reporter: and here's another with white foam pouring out of his nose. what is that and what does it mean? >> it's one of the hallmark symptoms of exposure to a nerve agent. it could have been a cocktail of chemicals, not just classic warfare agents like sarin or vx. >> reporter: victims can die within ten minutes of breathing sarin gas. in liquid form, a fraction of an ounce can be fatal. even contaminated clothes can hurt you. iraq used sarin against the kurdish people in the 1980s,

killing thousands. the japanese cult used sarin in terrorist attacks in the mid-'90s. the people treating these victims don't have any sort of respirators or protection on. why aren't they getting infected as well? >> there's been an attempt to wet these people down and decontaminate them. that's what decontamination in a rush is all about. to make sure they're at least doused with water, if not soapy water, and the clothes are taken off. >> reporter: nerve agents like sarin blind victims, causing them to choke and spasm. >> like this. see the twitching in the body? >> reporter: and these images of the dead show no sign of a conventional bomb blast. >> there you see bloody bodies, broken bones, and gaping wounds. >> and obviously we did not see this in this attack in syria. now, some people do survive these kind of attacks. there are certain drugs that can help counteract the effects, but they have to be given so quickly, that most times people

do not get the help that they need. wolf? >> chris lawrence reporting for us. thank you. there's, meantime, a stunning new report that the obama administration actually refused to send gas masks and chemical weapons protection gear to syrian opposition groups, despite frequent requests going back long before last week's horrific attack. josh rogue broke the story for the daily beast. you spoke to some opposition members. what did they say? >> they said, despite over a year of pleas to the obama administration for equipment like gas masks and the nerve agent antidote, the white house has not provided any of these materials to the opposition, and still refuses to provide them, despite a spate of chemical weapons attacks. >> why? you spoke to officials. how did they justify? that. >> the explanation i got that they determined it was too risky to give the opposition gas masks because they could be misused or given to extremist groups and

those groups could use them for nefarious purposes. >> like what? >> they actually said that you could use them, if you wanted to attack a chemical weapons depot and steal chemical weapons, these would help you do that. that's a risk for sure, but it's not very comforting to the people on the ground. >> so the concern is that it could wind up in the hands of al nusra al qaeda sympathizers, in opposition to bashar al assad, they could use it to go to a chemical weapons depot, steal the chemical weapons, and then use them. that's the concern? >> that's what they said. >> you sound skeptical. >> well, lawmakers who have pressed the white house to provide these materials as well as opposition on the ground say that that risk is minimal. they also say these groups could find gas masks on the black market if they wanted to. they also say that gas masks are being provided the to the military and to other regimes, including by north korea. they think this risk is well overblown. this also reflects a really broad concern about working with the opposition, that the obama administration has held throughout this conflict.

>> these kind of gas masks, these atropine shots, they're pretty available. they're not that hard to get. why wouldn't the united arab emirates or saudi arabia or kuwait, why wouldn't they provide this kind of -- they provide arms covertly to these groups? >> as it turns out, access to some of these areas, especially in the opposition areas that are really under attack is very difficult. and it turns out that actual storage of these weapons are in warehouses all over the region, so they believe the u.s. is in the best position to provide this. it's true the u.s. isn't the only entity in the position to provide this, but a lot of people are lackiooking to the u to do and the u.s. decided not to. >> thanks very much for coming. an important story. let's learn from lessons from what just happened. up next, how good is u.s. intelligence when it comes to syria? i'll talk about that and more with michael hayden. he's here in "the situation

room." plus, growing concern that syrian hackers could retaliate against the united states and what some characterize as a potential cyber-pearl harbor. this is "the situation room" special report, "crisis in syria." [ male announcer ] a guide to good dipping. sabra hummus is really delicious so you might be tempted to dip more than once. ♪ ahh...don't be afraid, flip it around, go back in. yup. oooo, this is a dilemma. oh, go ahead, we're family. ♪ oh, really? come on! you're lucky you're so cute. sabra hummus. dip life to the fullest.

up next on our special report, key members of congress. they're still out on recess, they're not up on capitol hill, but they are getting an unclassified briefing on syria ra right now by phone. like a milk-bone biscuit. ♪ say it with milk-bone.

female narrator: through monday, get three years through monday, get three years interest-free financing and save up to $400 on beautyrest and posturepedic. even get three years interest-free financing on serta icomfort and tempur-pedic, but this special financing offer ends labor day at sleep train.

high stakes for the united states and its allies if and when the decision is made to launch military strikes against targets in sarah. but could there be some unintended consequences? cnn's tom foreman is over at the virtual studio with cnn military analyst, general james "spider" marks, retired. what's going on? >> those unintended consequences is the concern here. the white house has been talking a great deal about the idea of a controlled strike, where they would have everything around control. in effect, these ships would come in here, launch these missiles, the message would be

sent, mission accomplished. but there are many things that can change in this equation, including, first of all, basically the reaction to everything. general, what are we talking about here? >> well, syria obviously is going to respond militarily and diplomatically. more importantly, the response of russia, and iran. but those uh three allies have been providing assad a lot of support over the course of years. there's every reason to believe that this support will continue after this strike by the u.s. or the coalition, if they have one, and ironically, assad may be stronger after the strikes than he is before, because of this additional support. >> that's one unintended consequence. there's also the question of what happens with the insurgent groups there. there's a lot of talk about many, many fractures in these groups. many different groups in play. the goal right now from the white house is not to topple assad at the moment, but if he

is severely weakened by this, what can be the unintended consequence? >> well, tom, we don't anticipate that assad will capitulate, put up his hands and quit, but what we can see are the insurgent groups, which are made up of hezbollah and al qaeda affiliates in syria. they're going to gain momentum, they're going to gain strength, and they're going to gain confidence. and again, they may end up being successful in syria, against assad, because of our direct support. >> there are other groups there as well, of course, but, yes, terrorist groups, in effect, could get power because of what we had to do. that's something the white house has to measure, and as you know from your experience, there are always the unknowns. what are we talking about? >> well, as an intelligence guy in the intelligence field all my life, i can tell you, intelligence can be wrong. for example, a target may be struck, for example, we may unintentionally hit a hospital or hit a target that has civilians. that may have women and children in it. and we would be complicit in

this humanitarian disaster. sadly, we have some experience in that, in that in 1999, in operation allied force, the united states struck the chinese embassy in belgrade, yuk yugoslavia. >> and that can radically change te equation of what happens out there, wolf. as you put it earlier today, a great way of describing it. the u.s. can fire the first shot, they can start it. >> the u.s. can turn this on, but they give up the off button to their opponent once the fight starts. they can't turn it off. >> and that's where all the unknowns come in, how that reads to the international community. all thoughts the white house has to be considering this very evening. wolf? >> tom foreman, thanks very much. general marcus, thanks to you as well. a conference call this hour among top administration officials and key congressional leaders, who are being briefed on syria. the white house sharing its intelligence on last week's apparent chemical weapons attack. let's dig in a little bit deeper right now with retired general michael hayden. he served as the cia director

from 2006 until february 2009. he's now a principle with the chertoff group, that's a security consulting firm. he serves on the board of several defense firms as well. what's your read, general hayden, on how good u.s. intelligence is, right now. because we know it's often excellent, but there have been times when there have been major blunders. >> no, there have been. i actually think we're pretty solid here, wolf. and let me give you three sentences, all right? chemical weapons were used. i think that's obvious. that's incontrovertible. you ran the piece a few minutes ago. that happened. secondly, that the regime did this. i'd give that high confidence. i don't think the opposition has the ability to do this. i think the circumstantial evidence is very powerful. and i've not seen any of the secret reporting. but i would think we've also got additional data here that makes us highly confident -- >> but when you say the regime did it, there's no evidence, at least as far as i've heard, that the president, bashar al assad, personally authorized it.

>> and that's the third sentence, all right? and that support, where it's going to be very difficult to be certain, whether or not this came from the very top, this was permitted by the very top, or it's something that the very top would have opposed had they known it. frankly, though, wolf, i think based upon american policy, what the president said a year ago, that's a difference without a distinction. the regime used the weapons. >> the regime, but there could be a rogue element within that regime. some army unit, not necessarily listening to the top, is saying, you know what, we're going to go kill these opposition guys, because we hate them. >> right. and i have to be open to that possibility. it's an hypothesis you've got to put on the table. now what you've got to look at, which i suspect has already been done, you look at the detailed tactical communications of units in the area. what were they saying before the attack, during the attack? what did they say after the attack? >> does the u.s. have the capability to monitor those kind of situations? >> i don't want to go into great detail, but the united states in

conjunction with very friendly states in the region, i think might give us some insight here. >> so you think that could be one of the reasons why the president is now going to go forward, presumably, with or without any coalition partners? >> yeah. >> how big of a setback is it that the british parliament rejected any military force, at least for now? >> it's certainly a setback at the political level. at the level of military operations, we have certainly the firepower to do what the president said we were going to do. but, again, at the political level, quite disturbing. but i think what's happened here, wolf, is the president has made this personal, personal to him, and personal to the united states. >> is he right? >> yeah, i think he is. but i think he regrets making it publicly. step back. let's rewrite history for a moment. let's say that we hadn't made that statement a year ago, all right? >> about the red laine. >> about the red line. that the president hadn't personally identified with it. right now, i think most of the world would be looking at us with perhaps a slightly

different view and we would be satisfying our overall responsibility by working to build a multilateral, international coalition. but we can't do that now. we've got to act on our own, even if no one else supports us. >> for every action, there's going to be a reaction. do the syrians, hezbollah, that's an alliance, have the capability to retaliate with a cyber-pearl harbor against the united states, shutting down communications grids, power grids, all that kind of stuff? >> no, i think that overstates their capability. but i do think you've seen the syrian electronic army -- >> they shut down "the new york times" website. >> i actually think that's a proxy for the iranians. >> the iranians are totally aligned with the syrians. >> oh, i agree. >> they could cause some serious damage. how serious could the damage be? because you've studied this. >> here's what we've seen so far. not a remote attack. they've had to have access. they destroyed 35,000 hard drives. almost certainly the work of the iranian government. by remote attack, computer

network operations, they've had massive distributed denial service attacks against american banks. now, that's more than an irritant, but it's well short of what you're describing, wolf. >> one final question on this "washington post" story that moved on their website, which has not been shut down today, a story once again information from edward snowden, detailing the $52.6 billion, let's call it, black budget, of the u.s. intelligence community. this was always kept secret, how this money was spent. it's now been out there. what, if any damage, do you believe was caused by this report? >> we'll have to see. i read the story that was posted, all right? and that talks in general figures, what the cia budget was, what the nsa budget was, and so on. that causes some harm, but not a great deal of harm. you go to the website and start clicking on things and get down to specific operational activities. that could be very, very disruptive. >> general hayden, thanks very much for coming in. we'll continue this conversation. up next in our special report, how a u.s. strike in syria could set off a cyberwar.

more on this when we come back. ] these days, a small business can save by sharing. like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪ we know in the cyber world, threats are always evolving. at first, we were protecting networks. then, we were protecting the transfer of data. and today it's evolved to infrastructure... ♪ ...finance... and military missions. we're constantly innovating to advance the front line in the cyber battle, wherever it takes us. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman.

[ sneezing ] she may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec®. powerful allergy relief for adults and kids six years and older. zyrtec®. love the air.

and kids six years and older. help the gulf when we made recover and learn the gulf, bp from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back,

offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? there are serious concern about what some are calling a

cyberpearl harbor as we just heard a massive attack by hackers loyal to the syrian regime possibly tarpging u.s. infrastructure and there's one mysterious group that may be capable of doing something along those lines. let's bring in brian todd who has been reporting on what's going on. what are you learning? >> the latest attack on the "new york times" website by the syrian electronic army, wanting to send a message ahead of a possible u.s. strike on syria and it was sparked concern about a broader cyberwar bringing in other enemies if the u.s. does strike. server not found, a screen designation that manitimes website customers had to deal with for about 20 hours. the website of one of the nation's largest newspapers taken down. a group called the syrian electronic army claimed responsibility. who are they? >> the syrian electronic army is a pro-assad hacking group. it appears to be a loose

collective of a few individuals. there's been some information put out on the internet that it could be even as young as 19-year-olds. >> reporter: a former hacker now with the cybersecurity firm called beyond trust has followed this group's attacks. this spring the syrian electronic army hacked the associated press twitter feed, put in fake message saying breaking, two explosions in the white house and barack obama is injured. a u.s. official tells us this is a murky underground group that makes its name plastering pro-regime propaganda on popular websites, but he says the method these hackers used this time was an escalation. previously experts say the syrian electronic army would go after the direct managers of the websites they were hacking, using a phishing e-mail like this one to try to trick them in to giving up their login credentials. this time the hackers went after the larger connection chain it's called the domain name system which connects you when you type

in a website like cnn.com or nytimes.com to the specific computer addresses where that content is found. this time the hackers went are a the managers of those connections, in this case a firm that works with a company called melbourne i.t., they tricked them into giving up their pass words. as a result some people trying to go to "the times" website were steered instead to servers controlled by the syrian electronic army. then -- >> you could basically have your computer attacked. >> reporter: if the u.s. conducts it are military strikes on syria, will the hacks get worse? as the pentagon once warned a cyber-pearl harbor, a homeland security expert said the syrian hackers will likely strike again. >> if they did work with some of their allies, with iran, if they were to get some support from china and russia, then, yes, the game changes quickly. it escalates in terms of capability. >> the targets for america's cyberenemies? the u.s. electrical grid, government computer systems.

experts say the syrian electronic army is not sophisticated enough to do a lot of damage to those systems right now but with iran's help, certainly with china's or russia's, they could get there, china and russia have already mapped out the american electronic grid and other things. >> thank you, brian. very disturbing. when we come back bashar al assad vows syria will defend itself from any aggression in the region.

ingeniously uses radar to alert you to possible collision threats. and in certain situations it can apply the brakes. introducing the all-new 2014 chevrolet impala with available crash imminent braking. always looking forward. while watching your back. that's american ingenuity to find new roads. and recently the 2013 chevrolet impala received the j.d. power award for highest ranked large car in initial quality. nascar is about excitement.

but tracking all the action and hearing everything from our marketing partners, the media and millions of fans on social media can be a challenge. that's why we partnered with hp to build the new nascar fan and media engagement center. hp's technology helps us turn millions of tweets, posts and stories into real-time business insights that help nascar win with our fans.

the syrian president bashar al assad appeared on syrian tv today and said syria will defend itself against any aggression, his words. cnn's fred pleitgen has just left syria.

he's now in beirut. >> reporter: people are getting more and more nervous in damascus, we had to leave the country early this morning because the government didn't extend our visa and as we were making our way to the borderer a lot of cars heading in the same direction and a lot of people to the bor border and the cars had suitcases stacked on top, i wouldn't say it's an exodus but more people are trying to get out than usual. meanwhile we know the assad regime remains defiant and today they showed that again, the first video of bashar al assad since the chemical weapons allegations surfaced last wednesday, meeting with a yemeni delegation in damascus and there he said once again if syria is attacked by outside powers then syria will retaliate. of course, it's totally unclear how syria intends to do that. however, we do know that the syrian military appears to be moving hardware around possibly to shield it from attacks by american jets. wolf? >> excellent reporting from fred

pleitgen. he's out as you just saw, he's out of damascus, he's in beirut right now safe and sound. that's it for me. thanks very much for watching our special report. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. erin burnett "outfront" starts right now. "outfront" next, at this moment the white house is briefing lawmakers on capitol hill about the latest intelligence on syria. is this country headed for war? and the obama administration says it will not interfere with the state laws that legalize marijuana. is this a step toward legalizing weed nationwide? plus, a major development in a story we have been following. a montana teacher sentenced to only 30 days in prison for raping his teenage student. will there be an appeal? let's go "outfront."