they are not there yet even though that's what the senate majority leader thinks, but they are not taking anything for granted inside the house. it's remarkable to watch. >> they shouldn't take anything for granted there's a lot of opposition between not only republicans and plenty of democrats inclined to vote no right now. brianna, how confident are officials over there that in the end they will get yay votes from the house and senate. >> reporter: wolf, they are feeling better today than yesterday and better yesterday than they were the day before. the white house officials i've spoken with are optimistic, not that they have the votes at this point, but that momentum is on their side. they think it's so key that they got this full throated response and support from nancy pelosi and john boehner today, not just them but as well the number two republican in the house. when they add that up with the

tentative support they got from the key republican senators yesterday, lindsay graham and john mccain, they feel this extraordinary level of outreach that that i have seen from president obama and his administration that it is working. it's still unclear whether the votes are where they need to be at this point. there's still a lot of winning over to do and the white house says that they realize that. officials say that the president is prepared to be engaged in this as he heads overseas and heads to sweden this evening and goes to russia for the end of the week. there's still the question of if he does not get the vote he wants from congress, what does he do? officials here say they he has the authority to act alone but, wolf, they are still not saying he'll go ahead and do that. >> and he hopes that will not be the case, that he will have the votes in the senate and house. brianna, stand by and dana as well. we're less than a half hour away from the start of the hearing before the senate foreign

relations committee. the secretaries of state and defense getting ready to testify as is the chairman of the u.s. joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. i want to send it over to christiane a.manpour. you have an exclusive interview with the syrian ambassador to the united nations. >> yes, indeed, it does fall to bashar jaafari. and from the earlier days of his government's brutal crackdown, mr. jaafari defended the government's actions. they are trying to flood the zone as we're saying with its case as the obama administration is doing with its case. on monday, bashar jaafari made this plea to the united nations, said the syrian government calls on the secretary general to shoulder his responsibilities from preventing any aggression

on syria. bashar jaafari joins me live from new york. mr. ambassador, welcome. >> thank you very much for having me. >> mr. ambassador, you just heard what wolf has been talking to with the congressional and white house correspondent, that is a formidable array of diplomatic and political power and military power that's arrayed now against syria. you see who's going to be testifying today later right after our interview. and the secretary of state and secretary of defense. is your government fully aware of how vulnerable it is to the might of the united states and its allies? are you prepared and are you aware that many of your significant military facilities are possibly going to be destroyed? >> well, first of all, please give me some minutes to clarify some very important points. number one, i'm a diplomat and my main job and mission is to

extinguish fires, not to trigger wars and animosity among nations. supposedly sovereign and members of this big home called the united nations. number two, the issue is not related to a war against syria. it's about an aggression, according to the charter item 4 of article 2 of the charter, member states should refrain from any unilateral action or any aggression against any other member states. so the issue for us is not about military strike coming from here or there. it's about an aggression that will strike the whole syrian people. and i hope that these wars wore extremely important for the congressional leaders and congress members who are discussing in their hearings

the -- whether they will allow the white house to strike or not. we are all -- >> mr. jaafari. >> we are all victims of any escalation of the situation. you cannot say by killing children and civilians. >> how will it affect the morale of your government if and when the u.s. takes this action and a lot of your military facilities will be destroyed? they are not saying they are going in as an invading force. you've seen these actions in the past, cruise muissiles, can be devastation. are you afraid of the allies collapsing? >> we're not war mongers, not war advocates. we are a peaceful nation, small nation. we don't pretend to be equally strong enough to confront the united states military.

this is not the case. we are the victim of any aggression that might happen at any time. we are mainly a keen interest in safeguarding the interest of our people and preventing any aggression. we have been calling on the american administration for years since the beginning of the crisis to get involved positively speaking and resolving this crisis which is dramatic and regretful -- reg t regrettable -- the american administration closed the embassy in damascus and shut down diplomatic channels and worked out a secret strategy to help insurgents against the government. >> mr. jaafari, you are portraying your government as the victim, presumably that's your job at this point. but obviously what's happening is because of the aggression by your government against syrians,

including right now the use of chemical weapons. there is a forensic syrian chemical weapons expert who has defected according to the opposition and is now in turkey and will, he says, make public what he knows about the regime's involvement in the use of chemical weapons. that is going to seal this situation, isn't it? >> christiane, these allegations are false and unfounded. you can repeat the same mistakes that the previous american administrations did at many times during vietnam war or cuban crisis, or the iraqi war with colin powell and the security council presenting high confidence, evidence at that time by the way he used the same description used by mr. kerry three days ago, when mr. kerry said, also, he had high evidence -- high confidence

evidence. any opponent, any opposition could come out to the media or to any other intelligence sponsoring him and say his government did this and that. you may remember what mr. -- the iraqi guard did before the invasion of iraq when he pushed the american intelligence to the high poj they sis of them having weapons of mass destruction. then they apologized later on, including mr. colin powell for this allegation. i'm really afraid we are repeating the same tragic and regrettable scenario in the case of syria today. >> the problem with what you're saying though, the problem with what you're saying is that you're confusing iraq and syria. syria does have chemical weapons and many, many doctors and independent investigators as well as national intelligence have concluded that those

weapons have been used and have been used by the syrian government. this is not the first time, there's been many occasions and many tests of victims of biomedical tests, hair and blood and urine samples which have proven it. are you saying there are no chemical weapons in syria, or are you just saying you didn't do it? >> thank you very much for asking this very important question. number one, the syrian government did not say that sarin gas was not used. actually we were the first to say that in march the 20th, which means one day after the attack by chemical substances. and we insisted in our request on two things, a, to prove that the chemical weapons were used and b, who did it? the american delegation and french and british at that time

objected to b. they just wanted to focus on whether the chemical weapons were used or not. we were highly interested from the beginning in shedding light on the use of chemical weapons by groups. this is number one. number two, we are not saying that chemical weapons were used -- chemical weapons in each conventional definition as one type of the weapons of mass destruction, what mr. kerry said two days ago about the signatures of sarin found in the results he referred to is not a big discovery. the syrian government said it five months ago. we said from the beginning that the sarin gas neurotoxic gas were used and nobody cared about it at the time because all of

them knew and the british intelligence sneaked illegally inside syria and to analyze samples and came out with the result, which is that the only groups used the -- >> mr. jaafari. mr. jaafari -- the british and french and united states -- sir, the british and french and united states say chemical weapons have been used but that they have been used by your government. to simply not have access to the delivery systems to the wherewithal and stockpiles. this is unfortunately a historical precedent that people are gassing themselves. this is a major problem with your argument and it does sound that the syrian government is pretty afraid, all of a sudden all of you are out giving interviews, president assad, you talking to me and others talking

to other journalists and i figure out you believe that there is going to be a major u.s. strike on your facilities? >> christiane, the reports emanating from usa and france and britain are not and could not be taken seriously and not credible because these three governments are deeply involved in the syrian crisis against the government -- >> sir -- nobody can take seriously -- >> give me some time, please to clarify my point. >> you've made your point. you've made your point -- >> to the security council. the judge from geneva testified that according to her information the groups used the chemical weapons. so please we have other resources of information who say exactly the opposite of what the america and british are saying. why anticipating on the results of the team of investigators who

are currently working very seriously on obtaining results of their mission in syria? why preempting the results by this kind of irresponsible anticipation? why preparing the ground for an illegal military aggression against syria? >> if indeed -- >> what would be the result of the investigation -- investigative team? >> they seem to say they have taken a lot of samples. as i say, yet, again, there have been many, many tests done over the last year or so because you haven't used them just once but several times according to intelligence and opposition figures. so again, if indeed given what's going on, would you -- would syria agree to a proposal happening and being floated right now to allow the u.n. or others to come in and simply remove all of your stock piles and chemical weapons from syria?

>> this is not the issue right now. the issue right now is about preventing the american aggression against my country. then any related issues to the weapons of mass destruction could be examined seriously later on. i would like to remind you that syria when it was a member of the security council in 2003, submitted a draft resolution to the security council on the establishment of a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction. we were objected to at that time by the american delegation. so we are keen interest in having all weapons of mass destruction out of the area of the military, including the israeli nuclear arment, which is the most dangerous weapon. >> let me ask you this, sir. nobody believes you basically, because everything you've said -- not just you but your government, everything you've said over the last two and a half years have simply been swatted away by the facts.

you have simply escalated this war and the use of different weapons conventional and now nonconventional and so you are in a very, very weak situation in terms of having the credibility of your side. you're trying to say it's the others using them and not you. can i ask you because there are countries that favor you, such as russia and china and others, are you getting military or intelligence help from the russians? >> christiane -- >> in terms of what's going on now. >> i'm really worried at hearing these bellicose talks in the american media. the media is a very important weapon of mass destruction also. you, the media -- >> i don't think you can say that. >> you should lead the public opinion towards the right path. we don't need wars or aggression in the area. we are fed up with wars. the american people are fed up with wars.

you have had thousands of american soldiers killed in our area, in iraq, afghanistan, libya and lebanon. we don't need wars. we need peaceful settlement of conflicts according to charter of the united nations. >> the problem is you're prosecuting this war. you're prosecuting this war and the way you have put it out is that you are fighting against terrorists. that is your government's -- >> absolutely. >> that's how you've been justifying it. here's the thing. even your arab brethren, arab league said that the use of weapons is illegal and those that use them and they believe it has been the syrian government, kicked you out of the arab league, those who use them should be tried like war criminals. i guess i want to know in a final minute or so, how do you sleep at night, mr. jaafari,

defending regime government that has caused so much bloodshed and really crossed the line from any kind of civil war into weapons of mass destruction, into one of the highest crimes of intel national law. how do you personally sleep at night? >> i believe that the use of chemical weapons or nuclear weapons is a horrible appalling crime. those who perpendicular such a horrible crime, whether israelis or others, should be held accountable to the international established mechanisms. not to the bully of the war, the policemen of the war represented by the american intelligence reports or false allegations coming from france or britain or saudi arabia or israel. we are in favor of a peaceful settlement of all of the con flibl flikts in the area and my country has been a victim of

intrusion, interference in the domestic affairs by foreign intelligen intelligences. don't forget there is room of operation and jordan operating right now by the saudis and the pentagon and where they are training and instructing thousands of syrian mercenaries to invade syria from the south. the same thing exists in the north within the turkish territory. please, we have to look at the picture in its entirety and comprehensiveness. we are not training for wars or for agresing anybody else. we haven't declared war to the united states or any of our neighbors. >> mr. jaafari. >> we have a domestic crisis. yes, wrong doings happened in the past. yes, injustices took place in syria in the past. we need to correct these and we believe in what obama said as his logo in elections, a change, yes, we can and yes we need.

in syria itself as well as outside of syria, the whole area needs peace. we don't need further wars. we don't need further destabilization. after all, all of these bloodshed, that would happen sooner or later. all of the victims will be innocent, whether they are -- syrians, iranians turkish and saudis or jordanians. >> mr. jaafari. >> the sons will be the victims. >> thank you for joining me. >> thank you. >> christiane, thanks very much. christiane amanpour, i want to pick your brain for a second before i let you go. what did you think, it's not often we hear a syrian official, high ranking syrian official envoy from the government of bashar al assad to the united

nations making their case. give me your reaction. you had obviously very forceful tough interview with the ambassador. >> well, it's to be expected. he's obviously defending his government. they obviously don't need to be struck by the united states. it is going to be something whereas i try to get out of him women degrade their military facilities, at least many of them, even if it's not an invasion which nobody is planning. it will affect the military capabilities at least according to commanders and politicians. also what's interesting is that they are now, quote/unquote, what you're saying, flooding the zone. it's hard to get the syrian government to talk. they only do when they want and need to. they believe something is going to happen and they try to put the spin on what is going to happen. i'm sure mr. jaafari won't argue with that use of that word because he's now having to talk the party line.

i think what's interesting though is they failed to realize thousand they brought this on themselves. it couldn't be clearer that neither president obama nor prime minister cameron or international community wanted to intervene in syria. for two and a half years they have not. it is the syrian regime with the accusations and most people believe is their use of chemical weapons that has brought the international community to this point where we are right now, wolf. >> very, very sensitive moment, not only in regional history but world history. we're standing by for an important hearing before the senate foreign relations committee. christiane, we'll talk to you throughout the day here on cnn and cnn international. we're standing by and go to the senate foreign relations committee. we're going to hear the secretaries of state and defense and chairman of the joint chiefs getting ready to testify before republicans and democrats, a critical vote coming up maybe as

early as next week on the floors of the senate and house of representatives after president obama urged them to authorize the use of military force in syria. we'll also get immediate reaction to what's going on, including christiane's interview. ron paul will join us live. we'll get a different perspective from mike quigley, a democrat of illinois, much more of our special coverage coming up right here in the situation room. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] some things are designed to draw crowds. ♪ ♪ others are designed to leave them behind. ♪ the all-new 2014 lexus is. it's your move.

yeah... try new alka seltzer fruit chews. they work fast on heartburn and taste awesome. these are good. told ya! i'm feeling better already. [ male announcer ] new alka seltzer fruits chews. enjoy the relief! i put in the hourswhere nei am today by luck.ts chews. and built a strong reputation in the industry. i set goals and worked hard to meet them. i've made my success happen. so when it comes to my investments, i'm supposed to just hand it over to a broker and back away? that's not gonna happen. avo: when you work with a schwab financial consultant, you'll get the guidance you need with the control you want. talk to us today. we're only minutes away from the senate foreign relations

committee hearing. we'll hear from the secretaries of state and defense, testifying together with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. lots of anticipation, let's bring in two guests, former republican presidential candidate, former congressman ron paul and democratic congressman mike quigley of illinois. congressman paul, first to you, you are totally, correct me if i'm wrong, totally opposed to any u.s. military force in syria right now despite all of the evidence that the syrian regime united statesed chemical weapons against its own people, is that right? >> yeah, but i don't accept your statement because i think that a lot of people question some of that evidence. but i don't -- that is besides the point because of the policy that i advocate is nonintervention foreign policy. i don't believe it's in our interest or national best interest to be involved. i don't think it's legal under national law or international

law. i think killing more people because he has killed people if that is the case, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. noninterventionist doesn't pretend they can go into a country that's been in civil war, where there's several different factions killing each other, christians getting killed by rebels and the assad regime being blamed for doing this and that. i don't believe it's capable, norrally, nor are we able to go in and say we know who the good guys are, there's three different groups of rebels and we won't give any help to the al qaeda and we have to punish assad. it's a civil war and there's no way you're going to figure it out. i smell iraq all over again. i remember the assurances that were given us ten years ago. and members of congress believed that. let me tell you, the situation is different. the american people are on my side on this issue today and

there's a lot more people in congress now saying it makes no sense and just listen to the military commanders, they said, we don't even have the money for this. we have to have a supplemental. how about all of these war mongers getting ready to bomb and kill and invade and do whatever they think is necessary. they don't have the money and then have to appropriate the money which means more money drained from our economy. the policy of a noninterventionist, pretty easy. we mind our own business and take care of america and obey the law and constitution and don't have to pretend, he know how bad assad is and know that he's a little bit worse than the al qaeda. let's go on the side of the al qaeda. makes no sense whatsoever to us. >> congressman ron paul totally opposed to any involvement in syria and doesn't necessarily believe the president of the united states, secretary of state when they say they have high confidence that the syrians did use chemical weapons against their own people. congressman quigley, do you

think ron paul is right or do you think president obama is right? >> well, let me just say this, it is clear to me after being briefed that gas attacks took place and as the assad regime was responsible. what do we do now? i have every faith the administration was honest and forthright about this process. this is an extraordinarily messy sectarian struggle. it is not exactly clear to me at this point that our involvement will help the situation and perhaps not create unintended consequences. i think there are serious questions to be answered but trust in the administration isn't one of those. >> there's going to be a huge debate that begins within the next few minutes and before the senate foreign relations committee and the house will take up all of these matters. there will be floor based votes in the house and senate. we know how you would vote if you were a member. why is it so many republicans,

including john mccain, lindsay graham and others, not only want the president to go ahead and launch strike against targets inside syria but want to go further than what the president says he wants to do. these are members of your own party. why is there this serious split between those -- shall we say more libertarian isolationist types like you and your son, senator rand paul and people like john mccain and lindsay graham? >> i think people are waking up. there's been a tea party movement, grass roots movement. the young people in the congress on our side of this, look at bipartisan support we got for trying to reign in nsa, that was democrats and republicans. and the leadership of both levels, they want the nsa and spying going on. this is not going to happen on this vote. leadership will get together and

get some sort of authority passed for the president to make him feel better. how many people does he have to feel better because he drew a line in the sand or had this red line? what was the purpose of that. nobody knows why we're going in there or sure who the good guys and bad guy is. the people are waking up. they remember ten years ago and remember and witnessed the results today of what's going on in iraq. now, even some people in iraq are saying, do not go in there and bomb because we're going to help assad. some of the shia wants to come in. assad wants to go in and help them. this thing could easily spread. but who created iraq? we did, our country. they are in line with iranians. the whole theory, we're going into syria because that's the way you march into iran. at the same time, we made it tougher for israel and tougher

for the people who want to live in peace in iraq and now we're just stirring it up in syria. it's a civil war we don't have the authority. and the vote in england, the british vote in the parliament, that is fantastic. first time since 1782. people are getting in charge. >> i've got to wrap it up. but i want to clarify, you're not blaming the united states for the civil war in syria over the past two and a half years that have already resulted more than 100,000 people dead? >> i think we just lost ron paul. the satellite must have gone down. ron paul joining us, congressman quigley, thanks to you as well. let's bring in two of the new hosts of the brand-new qus cross fire, newt gingrich, first, to you. who's right? ron paul or barack obama? >> i don't know i want to be

caught in quite that -- >> you're a blunt guy. are you more inclined to go along with the president of the united states and a limited retal tri strike or do you want to stay out of syria as much as ron paul is? >> i don't think i want to stay out as much as ron paul does but today's hearing is an important first step to this. the congress doesn't have to choose yes or no. the congress has been invited by the president to think about a major national security problem. and to rendser a judgment. i think it's very important to watch this. you currently have senator leahy for bombing as long as it's narrow and mccain, who is for bombing as long as it is broad. >> where are you, sir? >> i would be opposed to actions that get us involved in syria because i think there's no evidence that we're going to be effective and there's every evidence that after we're done, assad is still going to be the

dictator and going to say, what did that prove? i think we'll end up after we bomb, still looking weak. >> it sounds you're closer to ron paul. don't get involved at all -- not necessarily totally aligned with him but not with patrick leahy. >> there's no point to a limited strike because it sends exactly the wrong signal. >> on this issue, van jones, do you agree with the speaker? >> last week when i saw those children gassed and that kind of thing, let's go light these guys up, need to send a clear message. i'm glad the president was wise enough to create a break in the action, trying to crowd source wisdom from the u.s. congress. let wisdom come forward. as you look at this now, we'll look back and say we're on verge of another ground war in the middle east. this idea that we can sit back here and throw bombs -- >> when the president says this is not going to be iraq -- afghanistan, no boots on the

ground -- >> look at what -- >> you say the president -- >> i'm saying the president has not put that in writing. this authorization is as broad as the authorization to go in iraq. >> forget about the language, he just said it today when he met with leaders of the house, no boots on ground. no iraq war, no afghanistan. >> he's done the magic words but not a magician. >> you're satisfy saying there are unintended consequences he's not thinking about it -- >> he may be thinking about it but one last thing. we're jumping up and down in a pogo stick in a roomful of banana peels and i think what happens is, they do something back, we do, and they do and we're in a ground war and need to take a big step back. >> he's on the right and he's on the left. >> i agree in this sense, most of the country agrees, we learned out of the last 12

years, you don't know what happens next. we had a terrific 23-day campaign to replace saddam hussein and then got stuck in sticking around for another -- >> ten years. >> all of the casualties came after we won. we went in very light in afghanistan and thought we were very clever and you don't know with iranians engaged in syria, the russians protecting syria, the russians have more ships in the med train yan than any time since the cold war. we have no idea how this could suddenly -- always ask the question and then what. we fire off the first wave of missiles and then what. we fire off a wave of missiles and assad deliberately uses weapons to say, you didn't bother me. what do we do then? once you start down this road, it's very dangerous. >> the other thing we haven't talked about enough, there are

other options. for instance, we could be fighting right now for an arms embargo or trying to get some sort of peace summit or could go to the u.n., even though china and russia are on the other side. i hate to praise george w. bush, but he had a bigger coalition going into iraq than this president would go with these strikes. george h.w. bush spent months building a global coalition. >> in the first gulf war. >> in the first gulf war. we're now as democrats being asked to support president obama going with no global coalition and no u.n. mandate and no real plan to win the war or peace. i don't think this makes sense. congress should -- if they pass something, put real conditions and exhaust every peaceful option, no boots on the ground. put it in writing. we cannot do a repeat of the iraq war. >> we've got two co-hosts of crossfire from the left and right agreeing on this. very interesting. stand by.

the speaker, one of your succ s success successors, john boehner, endorsed what the president is going to do. we have a lot more to discuss. members of the foreign relations committee are now there. we'll wait to see who else -- there's john kerry, the secretary of state shaking hands. they are getting ready, chuck hagel is there, martin dempsey and chairman of the joint chiefs. our special coverage continues right after this. brad. his day of coaching begins with knee pain, when... [ man ] hey, brad, want to trade the all-day relief of two aleve for six tylenol? what's the catch? there's no catch. you want me to give up my two aleve for six tylenol? no. for my knee pain, nothing beats my aleve. spending the day with my niece. i don't use super poligrip for hold because my dentures fit well. before those little pieces would get in between my dentures and my gum and it was uncomfortable. even well-fitting dentures let in food particles. super poligrip is zinc free. with just a few dabs,

it's clinically proven to seal out more food particles so you're more comfortable and confident while you eat. so it's not about keeping my dentures in, it's about keeping the food particles out. [ charlie ] try zinc free super poligrip. three top officials representing the obama administration are about to testify. here's what's going to happen. the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, the democrat bob menendez of new jersey will bring this hearing to order and make a statement and corker of tennessee will make a statement. then we'll hear from the

secretaries of state and defense, john kerry and chuck hagel and the chairman of the joint chiefs martin dempsey. they will make statements and all of the members of the committee, the democrats and republicans will have a chance to grill these three officials. there's bob menendez -- i think he just gavelled the session to order. let's listen in. >> this hearing of the senate foreign relations committee will come to order. let me first say that other actions of approval and disapproval from the audience. we welcome you to be here on this important occasion. but we welcome you to be observers of this important occasion. and the chair will not tolerate actions that are in violation of committee rules.

let me welcome secretary kerry back to the committee he chaired, secretary hagel and the committee he served on and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dempsey to the committee. we convene this hearing as we have convened many before, to make one of the most difficult decisions we are asked and tasked to make. the authorization of the use of american military power. this time in syria to respond to the horrific chemical attack of august 21st that took the lives of 1,429 syrians, including at least 426 children. the images of that day are sickening. in my view of the world cannot endure the inhumanity and horror of this act. i do not take our responsibility to authorize military force lightly or make such decisions easily. i voted against the war in iraq

and strongly have supported a withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan. but today i support the president's decision to use military force in the face of this horrific crime against humanity. yes, there are risks to action but the consequences of inaction are greater and graver still. further, humanitarian disaster in syria and regional instability and loss of american credibility around the world and in iran and north korea and this international law. this decision will be one of the most difficult any of us is asked to make but it is our role as representatives of the american people to make it, to put aside political differences and personal idealogies, to forget partisanship and preconceptions, to forget the polls and politics and even personal consequences.

it is a moment for a profile in courage and to do what one knows is right. it is our responsibility to evaluate the facts, assess the intelligence we have and debate the wisdom and scope fully and publicly understanding the geopolitical ramifications and fully aware of the consequences. at the end of the day, each of us will decide whether to vote for or against a resolution for military action based on our assessments of the facts and on conscience. the decision rests with us. it is not political. it is a policy decision that must be based, i believe, on what we believe is in the national security interest of the united states. to be clear, the authorization we will ultimately seek is for focused action with a clear understanding that american troops will not be on the ground in combat and the language before us is but a starting point. the president has decided to ask congress for our support.

now the eyes of the world are upon us. a decision we make and resolution we present to the senate and votes we take will e reverberate around the world. our friends and allies await our discussion as pyongyang and ayatollas of tehran and terrorist groups wherever they may be. what we do in the face of the chemical attack by the assad regime against innocent civilians will send a message to the world that such violations cannot be used with impunity. the question is, will we send a message that the united states will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world by anyone for any reason? will we in the name of all that is human and decent authorize the use of american military power against the inexcusable, indiscriminate and immoral use of chemical weapons or will we stand down?

what message do we send to the world when such a crime goes unpun picked. will those who have the weapons use them again and use them more widely and kill more children or against our allies or troops or embassies or give them or sell them to terrorists who would use them against us here at home? are we willing to watch a slaughter just because the patrons of that slaughter are willing to use their vote toe at the united nations to allow it to happen so their beneficiary can stay in power? are we so tired of war we're willing to silence our con shens and accept the consequences that flow from the silence to our national interest? we will hear the arguments and options presented today and look at the facts as we know them according to the declassified assessment released last friday that secretary kerry has so passionately presented to the nation. according to that assessment, we

know with high confidence from the intelligence community that the syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the damascus suburbs on august 21st, they they stock piled chemical agents including sarin and mustard gas. we know that president bashar al assad makes decisions when it comes to the stockpile chemical agents and ensuring loyalty to the regime and security of the program. we have evidence that chemical weapons have been used on a smaller scale against the opposition on several occasions in the past year, including in the damascus suburbs and sarin gas has been used on some of those occasions and it was no the opposition that used it. we know that chemical weapons personnel from the syrian scientific studies and research center, subordinate to the defense will operate from sunday august 18th until early in the

morning august 21st near an area the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. human intelligence has shown activity in the creation of chemicals, including the distribution and use of gas masks. we have multiple streams of intelligence to show they launched a rocket attack against the damascus suburbs and satellite collaboration that they were launcheded from a regime controlled area and struck neighbors where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred. clearly tieing the pieces together. that is what we know in terms of who deployed these weapons. more evidence is available and we will be looking at all of the classified information in a closed session of the committee tomorrow that more clearly establishes the use of chemical weapons by the regime, military response is available to us and results we expect from those responses. as of now, in my view, there is

a preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that assad's forces willfully targeted civilians with chemical weapons. having said that, at the end of the day the chemical weapons attack against innocent civilians in syria is an indirect attack on america's security with broader implications for the region and the world. if chemg cal weapons can be used with impunity, crafted by the league of nations and signed by the united states in 1925, signed by syria itself in 1968, they can be used without fear of reprisal anywhere by anyone. and in my view such heinous and immoral violations demand a clear response. we are at a cross roads moment. a precedent will be set either for the unfettered use of weapons or for the deterns of the such weapons through the limited use of military force

that sends a message that the world will not stand down. we will either send a message to syria, iran, north korea and hezbollah that the world will not tolerate the senseless use of chemical weapons by anyone or we will choose to stand silent in the face of horrific human suffering. we need to consider the consequences of not acting. our silence would be a message to the ayatolla that america and the world are not serious about stopping the march to acquiring nuclear weapons. israel would no longer believe we have their back and hard stressed to retrain itself. the silence would em bolden king jong-un and send a message we are not serious about protecting south korea and the region from nuclear chemical weapons and would em bolden hezbollah and hamas to attire chemical weapons and they might succeed. clearly at the end of the day, our national security is at stake. i want to thank our

distinguished witnesses who will present the facts as they know them and evaluate them and debate a resolution and at the end of the day, each will decide whether to send a message to the world that there are lines we cannot cross as civilized human beings or stand silent and risk in threats. let me say before i turn to senator corker, the president is asking for an authorization for the use of limited force. it is not his intention or ours to involve ourselves fully in syria's civil war. what is before us is a request and i quote, to prevent or deter the use or proliferation of chemical or biological weapons within too or from syria and protect the united states and allies against the threat posed by such weapons. this is not a declaration of war but declaration to values. world, we are willing to use our military power when necessary against anyone who turns such

heinous weapons on innocent civilians anywhere in the world. we know the facts and hear the arguments and have the debate and then it will be up to each of us to search our conscience and make a decision. i trust we can achieve that in a bipartisan way. i have been working with senator corker as we move towards a resolution, i hope we get broad bipartisan support. before i turn to them, i want to acknowledge the presence, we're thrilled to see her here, theresa hines kerry, glad to see you so well and being here with us. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for inju your comments and time we spent together. i want to thank witnesses not only for the service to the country in the current capacity but every way for many, many years. i thank you for being here.

you're asking each of us to make the most important decision many of us will make during our tenure in the united states senate. everyone here and those who are not take that decision very seriously. i've noticed a distinct sense of hue millty as we've gone through the conference calls and various meetings today and this week, and i know every member here knows whether they decide to support an authorization for the use of military force or not, they are making a decision about our country's national interest. and i know everybody is going to be taking that decision very, very seriously. one of the issues that many members will have is the fact is that should we support an authorization for the use of military force and i think that everyone here knows that i am

very generally inclined to do so and working closely with senator menendez for something that will be a starting point for this committee's discussions and i know each member will have its input and have its imprint on what it is that we end up deciding to vote upon. one of the problems this hearing has is while we make policy, you implement. and the implementation of this is very, very important. and i think there have been mixed signals about what that implementation actually is going to mean. and the effect it's going to have on the country that we're involved in. i want to say i was just in the region as i know many people have been. and i am still totally dismayed at the lack of support we are given -- given to the vetted

moderate opposition. we've publicly stated what that support is going to be, even though it's being carried out in a covert way. but it is to some degree humiliating to be in a refugee camp when our policy has been that we're going to train, we're going to equip, we're going to give humanitarian aid to the vetted opposition. yet, when you sit down with the people coalescing around, very little of that has occurred. so i know today's focus is going to be largely on the issue of chemical war fair and the case has to be made and each of us have had the opportunity to hear that case, to see intelligence, to understand on what basis these claims have been made. and my guess is most everyone here fully believes that chemical weapons have been used

on civilians to a large degree. so i know that case is going to be made to the american people today as you're making it to us. but it's my hope that a big part of what you're going to do here today -- and i know we talked about this earlier this morning at the white house, but as to make a case as to why syria is important to our national interest, why syria matters to the region. why it's important for us to carry out this strategy and how we're going to continue to carry out that stated strategy. one of the things that i do not want to see in this authorization, if it's authorized and force takes place, i want to see us continue to carry out the strategy that has been stated. and that is building the capacity of the vetted moderate opposition.

i would like to have you address that. i would like to have you today also address how this use of military force supports that strategy, how it's going to affect the region in the aftermath. i thank you for being here today. i know a big part of what we're discerning today and what we're making decisions upon is the credibility of the united states of america. i know that people in the watching. i know that we've been hesitant to move on with many of the activities that we've stated we're going to be carrying out. today i hope that each of you will bring clarity to this and i know we're going to talk about chemical warfare. but i hope you'll give us more clarity about the opposition strengthening and how this is going to affect us overall. and i hope we'll all leave here today with a clear understanding of how this strategy is going to be carried out. i thank you and look forward to

your testimony. >> secretary kerry. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, ranking member corker, thank you very, very much for having us here today. we look forward to this opportunity to be able to share with you president obama's vision with respect to not just this action but as senator corker has inquired appropriately, about syria itself and the course of action in the middle east. mr. chairman, thank you for welcoming theresa, this is her first public event since early july. we're happy she's here. as we convene for this debate, it's not an exaggeration to say to you, all of you, my former colleagues, that the world is watching not just to see what we decide but it's watching to see

how we make this decision. whether in a dangerous world we can still make our government speak with one voice. they want to know if america will rise to this moment and make a difference. and the question of whether to authorize our nation to take military action is as you have said, mr. chairman and you've echoed mr. ranking member, this is obviously one of the most important decisions and most important responsibilities of this committee or of any senator in the course of a career. the president and the administration appreciate that you have returned quickly to the nation's capital to address it and quickly beginning a process of focusing with great care and great precision, which is the only way to approach the potential use of military power.

ranking member corker, i know you want to discuss why syria matters to our national security and strategic interest beyond the compelling humanitarian reasons and i look forward with secretary hagel and general dempsey to laying that out here this afternoon. but first, it is important to explain to the american people why we're here. it's important for people who may not have caught every component of the news over the course of the labor day weekend to join us, all of us in focusing in on what is at stake here. that's why the president of the united states made the decision as he did contrary to what many people thought he would do. of asking the congress to join in this decision. we're stronger as a nation when we do that. we're here because against

multiple warnings from the president of the united states, from the congress, from our friends and allies around the world, even from russia and iran, the assad regime and only undeniably the assad regime unleashed an outrageous chemical attack against its own citizens. we're here because a dictator and his family's personal enterprise in their lust to hold on to power, were willing to fekt the air of damascus with a poison that killed innocent mothers and fathers and hundreds of their children, their lived snuffed out by gas in the early morning of august 21st. now, some people here and there amazingly have questioned the evidence of this assault on conscience. i repeat here again today that

only the most willful desire to avoid reality can assert that this did not occur as described or that the regime did not do it. it did happen and the assad regime did it. i remember iraq. secretary hagel remembers iraq. general dempsey especially remembers iraq but secretary hagel and i and many of you sitting remember iraq in the special way because we were here for that vote. we voted. and so we are especially sensitive, chuck and i, to never again asking any member of congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence. that is why our intelligence community has scrubbed sean rerescrubed the evidence. we have declassified unprecedented amounts of information. we ask the american people and rest of the world to judge that

information. we can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that our evidence proves the assad regime prepared for this attack, issued instructions to prepare for this attack, warned its own forces to use gas masks, that we have physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when. not one rocket landed in regime controlled territory. not one. all of them landed in opposition controlled or contested territory. we have a map, physical evidence, showing every geographical point of impact and that is concrete. within minutes of the attack, 90, to be precise, maybe slightly shorter, the social media exploded with horrific images of damage that was

caused, men and women, elderly and children sprauled across the floor, no blood or wounds, but all dead. those signs of human chaos and desperation were not con trifed. they were real. no one could con trif such a scene. particularly from the heart of regime territory, just think about it, in logical terms, common sense. with high confidence our intelligence community tells us that after the strike the regime issued orders to stop and then fretted openly, we know, about the possibility of u.n. inspectors discovering evidence. so then they began to systemically try to destroy it. contrary to my discussion with

their foreign minister, who said we have nothing to hide, i said if you have nothing to hide, let the inspectors in today and let it be unrestricted. it wasn't. they didn't. it took four days of shelling before they finally allowed the men under a con strained prearranged structure. we have now learned that the hair and blood samples from first responders in east damascus has tested positive for signatures of sarin. so my colleagues, we know what happened. for all of the lawyers, for all of the former prosecutors, for all of those who have sat on a jury, i can tell you that we know these things beyond the reasonable doubt that is the standard by which we send people to jail for the rest of their lives. so we're here because what happened two weeks ago. we're also here because of what happened nearly a century ago in

the darkest moments of world war i, and after the horror of gas warfare, when the vast majority of the world came together to declare in no uncertain times that chemical weapons cross the line of conscience and must be banned from use forever. over the years that followed, over 180 countries, including iran, iraq, and russia, agreed and joined the chemical weapons convention. even countries with whom we agree on little agreed on that conviction. now, some have tried to suggest that the debate we're having today is about president obama's red line. i could not more forcefully state that is just plain and simply wrong. this debate is about the world's red line, about humanity's red

line. and it's a red line that anyone with a conscience ought to draw. this debate is also about congress's own red line. you, the united states congress agreed to the chemical weapons convention. you, the united states congress, passed the syria accountability act which says, syria's chemical weapons are quote, threaten the security of the middle east and the national security interests of the united states. you, the congress, have spoken out about grave consequences if assad in particular used chemical weapons. so i say to you, senator corker, that is one of the reasons why syria is important. as we debate in the world watches as you decide and world wonders, not whether assad's regime executed the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century, that fact i think is now beyond question. the world wonders whether the

united states of america will consent through silence. to standing aside while this kind of brutality is allowed to happen without consequence. in the nearly 100 years since the first global commitment against chemical weapons, only two tyrants dared to cross the world's brightest line. now bashar al assad has become the third. i think all of you know that history holds nothing about infamiliary and little sympathy for their crusaders. the reality is the gravity of this moment, that is the importance of the decision that this congress faces and that the world is waiting to learn about in these next days. now, ranking member corker asked

a essential question, why should americans care, beyond what i just said which ought to be enough in the judgment of the president and this administration? well, it is clear that in addition to what i've just mentioned about the syria accountability act and threat to the middle east, we cannot overlook the impact of chemical weapons and the danger that they pose to a particularly volatile area of the world in which we've been deeply invested for years. because we have great friends there, we have allies there. we have deep interests there. since president obama's policy is that assad must go, it is not insignificant that to deprive him of the capacity to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity to use those chemical weapons, actually

deprives him of a lethal weapon in this ongoing civil war. and that has an impact. that can help to stabilize the region ultimately. in addition, we have other important strategic national security interests, not just in the prevention of the proliferation of chemical weapons but to avoid the creation of a safe haven in syria or a base of operations for extremists to use these weapons against our friends, all of us know that the extremes of both sides are there waiting in the wings, working and pushing and fighting. they would be desperate to get their hands on these materials. and the fact is that if nothing happens to begin to change the equation or current calculation, that area can become even more so an area of ungoverned space where those extremists threaten even the united states and more immediately if they get their hands on those weapons allies

and friends of ours like jordan or israel or lebanon or others. forcing assad to change his calculation about his ability to act with impunity, can contribute to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament. as i think you know, it has been the president's primary goal to achieve a negotiated resolution but you got to have parties prepared to negotiate to achieve that. syria is also important because quite simply, i can't put this to you more plainly, then to just ask each of you to ask yourselves if you're assad, or if you're any one of the others in the region and the united states steps back from this moment, together with our other allies and friends, what is the

message? the message is that he has been granted impunity. the freedom to choose to use the weapons again or force us to go through this cycle again with who knows what outcome after once refusing it. we would have granted him a capacity to use these weapons against more people with greater levels of damage because we would have stood and stepped away. as confidently as we know what happened in damascus, my friends, on august 21st, we know that assad would read our stepping away or our silence as an invitation to use those weapons with impunity and in creating impunity, we'll be creating opportunity. the opportunity for other dictators and/or terrorists to pursue their own weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. i will tell you there are some

people hoping that the united states congress doesn't vote for this very limited request the president has put before you, iran is hoping you look the other way. our inaction would surely give them a permission slip for them to at least misinterpret our intention, if not to put it to the test. hezbollah is hoping that isolationism will prevail. north korea is hoping that a.m. biflance carries the day. they are all listening for our silence. and if we don't answer assad today, we will erode a standard that has existed for those 100 years. in fact, we will erode a standard that is protected our own troops in war. and we will invite more dangerous tests down the road. our allies and partners are also counting on us in this situation. the people of israel, of jordan,

of turkey, each look next door and they see that they are one stiff breeze away from the potential of being hurt, of their civilians being killed as a consequence of choices assad might take in the absence of action. they anxiously awatd our assurance that our word means something. they await the assurance that if the children lined up in unbloodied burial shrouds were their own children, that we would keep their promise. the authorization that president obama seeks is definitive in our national security interest. we need to send to syria and world and dictators and terrorists and allies and civilians alike, the unmistakable message that when the united states of america and the world say never again, we

don't mean, sometimes, we don't mean somewhere. never means never. so this is a vote for accountability. norms and laws that keep the civilized world civil mean nothing if they are not enforced. as justice jackson said in his opening argument at the nur berg trials, to make statesman responsible to the law. if the world's worst des pits see they can go without prohibitions against the world's worst weapons then those prohibitions are pieces of paper. that is what we mean by accountability and what we mean by we cannot be silent. let me be clear.

president obama is not asking america to go to war. i say that sitting next to two men, secretary hagel and chairman dempsey who know what war is. and senator mccain knows what war is. they know the difference between going to war and what president obama is requesting now. we all agree there will be no american boots on the ground. the president has made crystal clear we have no intention of assuming responsibility for syria's civil war. he is asking only for the power to make clear, to make certain that the united states means what we say, that the world when we join together in a multilateral statement mean what we say. he's asking for authorization to degrade and deter bashar al assad's capability to use chemical weapons. some will undoubtedly ask and i

think appropriately, what about the unintended consequences of action. some fear a retaliation that leads to a larger conflict? let me put it bluntly. if assad is arrogant enough and i would say foolish enough to retaliate to the consequences of his own criminal activity, the united states and our allies have am maple ways to make him regret that decision without going to war. even assad supporters, russia and iran, say publicly that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. now, some will also question the extent of our responsibility. to them i say, when someone kills hundreds of children with a weapon the world has banned, we're all responsible. that is true because of treaties like the geneva convention and chemical weapons convention and for us the syria accountability

act. but it's also true because we share a common humanity and decency. this is not the time for arm chair isolationism or neither or country or conscience can afford the cost of silence. we have spoken up against unspeakable horror many times in the past. now we must stand up and act. and we must protect our security, protect our values and lead the world with conviction that is clear about our responsibility. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> committee will be in order -- committee will be in order. >> we don't want to go to war! >> ask police to restore order.

>> nobody wants this war! launching cruise missiles -- the american people do not want this! secretary kerry -- >> secretary hagel. >> can i say before -- the first time i testified before this committee when i was 27 years old, i had feelings very similar to that protester. and i would just say that is exactly why it is so important we're all here having this debate, talking about these things before the country. and that the congress itself will act representing the american people. and i think we all can respect those who have a different point of view and we do. >> secretary hagel. >> mr. chairman, thank you. chairman men endez and members of the committee and ranking member corker. in the coming days congress will

debate how to respond to the most recent chemical weapons attack in syria. a large scale sarin gas assault perpd by the syrian government against its own people. as a former senator and member of this committee, i welcome this debate and i strongly support president obama's decision to seek congressional authorization for the use of force in syria. as each of us knows, committing the country to using military force is the most difficult decision america's leaders can make. as ranking member corker noted. all of those who are privileged to serve our nation have a responsibility to ask tough questions before that commitment is made. the american people must be assured that their leaders are acting according to u.s.

national interest with well defined military objectives. with an understanding of the risks and consequences involved. the president along with his entire national security team asked those tough questions before we concluded that the united states should take military action against syria because of what the assad regime has done. i want to address how we reached this decision by clarifying the u.s. interest at stake. our military objectives, and the risk of not acting at this critical juncture. as president obama said, the use of chemical weapons in syria is not only an assault on humanity, it is a serious threat to america's national security interests and those of our closest allies. the syrian regime's use of chemical weapons poses grave risk to our friends and partners along syria's borders.

including israel, jordan, turkey, lebanon and iran. if assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like hezbollah would acquire them and would use them. that risk of chemical weapon proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends and partners in the u.s. personnel and region. we cannot afford for hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the united states to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons. the syrian regime's actions risk eroding the nearly century old international norm against the use of chemical weapons, which secretary kerry has noted. a norm that has helped protect, helped protect the united states' homeland and american forces operating across the globe from those terrible weapons.

weakening this norm could em bolden other regimes to acquire or use chemical weapons. for example, north korea maintains a masses stock pile of weapons that threatens our treaty ally, the republic of korea. and the 28,000 u.s. troops stationed there. i just returned from asia. we had a very serious and long discussion with south korea's defense minister about the threat, the real threat that north korea stock pile of chemical weapons presents to them. the allies must be assured that the united states will fulfill its security commitments. given these threats to our national security, the united states must demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. the president has made clear that our military objectives in syria would be to hold the assad regime accountable and degrade

its ability to carry out these kind of attacks and deter the regime from further use of chemical weapons. the department of defense has developed military options to achieve these objectives. and we have positioned u.s. assets throughout the region to successfully execute this mission. we believe we can achieve them with a military action that would be limited in duration and scope. general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s. forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. we're also working with our allies and partners in this effort, key partners including france, turkey, saudi arabia, united arab em rates assured us of their strong support of u.s. action. in defining our military objectives, we made clear that we are not psyching to re -- seeking to resolve the conflict through military force.

instead, we're contemplating actions that are tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons, a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to ultimately end the violence in syria. and secretary kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties in syria move towards a negotiated transition. a transition that means a free and inclusive syria. we're also committed to doing more to assist the syrian opposition but assad must be held accountable for using weapons in defiance of the international community. having defined america's interest in our military objectives, we also must examine the risks and consequences of action. as well as the consequences of inaction. there are always risks in taking action. the assad regime under

increasing pressure by the syrian opposition, could feel empowered to carry out more devastating chemical weapons attacks without a response. chemical weapons make no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians. and inflict the worst kind ever indiscriminate suffering as we have recently seen. a refusal to act would undermine the credibility of america's other security commitments, including the president's commitment to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. the word of the united states must mean something. it is vital currency in foreign relations and international and allied commitments. every witness here today, secretary kerry, general dempsey and myself has served in uniform, fought in a war and seen its ugly realties up close as has already been noted,

senator mccain. we understand that a country faces few decisions as grave as using military force. we're not unaware of the costs and ravages of war. but we also understand that america must protect its people and its national interest. that is our highest responsibility. all of us who have the privilege and responsibility of serving this great nation owe the american people and especially those wearing the uniform of our country, a vigorous debate on how america should respond to this horrific chemical weapons attack in syria. i know everyone on this committee agrees, and takes the responsibility of office just as seriously as the president and everyone sitting at this table. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, secretary hagel, i know general dempsey is available to answer questions

from the members of the committee. in that regard, let me start off by urging members tomorrow there will be a intelligence briefing for the committee on both the issues at hand as well as potential military action. in this setting we are obviously somewhat con strained about what we might discuss with greater specificity tomorrow. mr. secretary, you make and have made a compelling case and i think it's important and i appreciate you reiterating the high degree of confidence that exists in our intelligence assessments, i think those are conditions precedent to move forward. this weekend i was at a soccer tournament and had a group of moms come up and say, senator, we saw those pictures. they are horrific.

we can't imagine the devastation those parents must feel about their children, but why us? why us? and so i ask you, would you tell them that we would be more secure or less secure by the actions that are being considered for which the president has asked for the authorization of the use of force? >> senator, i would say unequivocally that the president in the actions will make us more secure that the absence of taking the action the president has asked for, will be far more threatening and dangerous and potentially ultimately cost lives. >> and do you consider the consequences of inaction greater than the consequences of action? >> i do. >> general dempsey, what do we

envision in broad terms this potential military campaign to be in terms of its effect? what do we expect at the end of any authorized action to see the results look like? what is our expectation? >> yes, thank you, chairman. the task i've been given is to develop military actions to deter, that is to say, change the regime's cal cue lous and degrade his ability to do so, that is to say both activities directly related to chemical weapons themselves but also potentially the means of employing them and anything further than that, i would prefer to speak about in a classified setting. >> i understand that. let me ask you this, in the process of achieving those two goals you just outlined, would there not be a collateral consequence to the regime of

further degrading its overall capabilities? >> yes. >> mr. secretary, we received from the administration a proposed resolution for the authorization of force. and of course, that is a negotiation between the congress and the administration. would you tell us whether you believe that a prohibition for having american boots on the ground, is that something that the administration would accept as part of a resolution? >> mr. chairman, it would be preferable not to -- not because there was any intention or any plan or any desire whatsoever to have boots on the ground, i think the president will give you every assurance in the world as am i and the secretary of

defense and chairman, but in the event syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us, the british and french and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, i don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of united states to secure our country. that was the only kind of example -- that's the only thing i can think of that would immediately leap to mind to say, you know -- if we said. >> if we said there would be no troops on ground for combat purposes, that clearly would

assume -- >> assuming that in the going to protect the weapons whether or not they had to answer a shot in order to be secure, i don't want to speak to that. bottom line is this -- >> we're going to have to work -- >> i'm absolutely confident, mr. chairman, that it is easy, not that complicated to work out language that will satisfy the congress and the american people that there's no door open here through which someone can march in ways that the congress doesn't want it to while still protecting the national security interests of the country. i'm confident that can be work the out. the bottom line is the president has no intention and will not and do not want to put american troops on the ground to fight this or be involved in the fighting of this civil war, period. >> i appreciate that. and i appreciate the response about chemical weapons and possibility of securing them in

our national security interests as well as our allies, but i do think we'll have to work on language that makes it clear that this is an overriding issue, that i think that members as well as american people want to know. let me ask you, what -- you mentioned it in your remarks. what do you think is the calculus of iran or north korea if we fail to act and of our allies if we fail to act? >> if we fail to act, we'll have fewer allies and fewer people who count on us in the region. we have huge doubts right now, i hear them. i mean, i have the privilege of talking with many of the leaders of these countries with respect to what they may or may not be inclined to do. i've heard their warnings very

clearly about what is at stake, not just for them but for us in the region. and i think that it's fair to say that our interests would be seriously set back in many respects if we are viewed as not capable or willing, most important, to follow through on the things that we say matter to us. as i said earlier in my testimony, this really is not president obama's red line. the president drew a line that anyone should draw with respect to this convention that we have signed up to and which has been in place since the horrors of world war i and the truth is through all of world war ii and vietnam and korea, and both gulf wars and through afghanistan, through iraq, that the

combatants in those efforts have never resorted to this use. so, i think that it's clear with those two prior usages that i referred to, that we would be opening pan dora's box with respect to a whole set of dangerous consequences as a result of the united states not keeping its word. and it would be make our life very, very difficult with respect to north korea and iran. there's no question in my mind, that those countries are watching the mulas and many others are watching what we're doing now with great interest. and that's why even the quality of this debate and nature of this debate are very important. >> thank you. senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony, again. i want to first thank you for bringing this to congress. i think our foreign policy through the years has been far

too focused on the administration. i don't think congress has played the role that it should play in foreign poll i want to thank you for bringing it here and giving us the opportunity to have the debate in advance. i want to focus a little bit on our strategy with the vetted opposition. i don't know how anybody -- as a matter of fact, i know of no one who's been to the area and spent time with opposition that isn't incredibly dismayed at the lack of progress that is occurring there. i know there's a lot of capacity that has to be built. i know there are interagency discussions about whether we should move to industrial strength training, more away from the kind of activities that are taking place now to build capacity more quickly. i would like for which ever one wants to respond, to talk with us, those of us who have been to the region and do believe that

syria is important. who are watching what is happening in iraq as this seck tar yan issues moves into there and into lebanon and destabilized in jordan, why have we been so slow, so inept in so many ways at helping build capacity of this opposition that we have said publicly that we support? >> well, senator, it's a worthy and important question. i've had a number of different meetings with the opposition over the course of the months now since i came in in february. beginning with a meeting in room and subsequently in instan bull and amman, jordan. the opposition one has to remember, as little as a year ago, there was no great clarity to the structure of that

opposition or to who they were, and they certainly had had no experience in this kind of an endeavor. over the course of that yee, they have evolved, i would say significantly, are they where they need to be? not completely but they have changed markedly over the last couple of months. at our insistence, insistence of all supporters, the so-called london 11, they reached out and expanded significantly their base within syria. they elected new leadership and brought in a much broader base of syria representation, including women and minorities and christians and others. they've built up a much more competent leadership -- >> i've only got a few minutes. i'm very aware of those things. what i'm unaware of is why it is

so slow and helping them with lethal support, why has that been so slow? >> i think, senator, we need to have that discussion tomorrow in classified session. we can talk about some components of that. suffice it to say, i want general dempsey to speak to this, maybe secretary hagel. that is increasing significantly and i think it's made leaps and bounds over the course of the last few months. secretary hagel, do you -- or yen? >> i would only add that it was june of this year that the president made a decision to support lethal assistance to the opposition. as you all know, we have been very supportive with hundreds of millions of dollars of nonlethal assistance, the vetting process as secretary kerry has noted has been significant. but i'll ask general dempsey if he wants to add anything.

but we, department of defense, have not been directly involved in this. this is as you know, covert action. and as secretary kerry noted, to go into much more detail would require a closed or classified hearing. >> as he's answering that, if you could be fairly brief. is there anything about the authorization that you're asking that any any way takes away from our stated strategy of empowering the vetted opposition to have the capacity over time to join in with a transition government as we have stated from the beginning? there anything that supplements that? >> to your question about the opposition, the path to the resolution of the syrian conflict is through a developed capable, moderate opposition and we know how to do that.

secondly, there's nothing in this resolution that would limit what we're doing now but we're very focused on the response to the chemical weapons. i think that subsequent to that, we would probably return to have a discussion about what we might do with the moderate opposition in a more overt way. >> i'm very sympathetic to the situation of wear warfare and what this means to the u.s. credibility and the fact that people are watching in the region and this will have an impact. i want to say, i'm not sympathetic regarding the lack of effort that is taking place in my opinion on the ground as it relates to the vetted opposition. i hope the end state that you imagine here is something that while we'll be surgical, is something that enhances the strategy that we've already laid in place. i hope you'll answer that yes or

no at this time. >> the answer to whether i support additional support for the moderate opposition is yes. >> and this authorization will support those activities in addition to responding to the weapons of mass destruction. >> i don't know how the resolution will evolve, but i support -- >> what you're seeking. what is it you're seek sng. >> i can't answer that. the action -- if it is authorized, the answer is as i said in my opening comments, that a consequence of degrading his chemical capacity, inhe havestably will have downstream impact on his military capacity. >> is this authorization is only about weapons of mass destruction? >> that's correct. this authorization is a limited targeted effort to focus on deterring and degrading the

chemical weapons capacity of the assad regime. >> is that against any other enemies other than the assad regime? >> no, senator. >> is it to be utilized in any other country except inside syria? >> no, senator. >> i will say in response to your answer to senator menendez, i didn't find that a very appropriate response regarding boots on the ground. i do want to say, that that's an important element to me and i hope that as we together work through this, we work through something that's much clearer than the answer that you gave. i don't think while we're all -- we all feel the actions by the assad regime are reprehencible, i don't think there are any of us willing to support the possibility of having combat boots on the ground. i hope as we move through this the administration will be very clear. >> let me be very clear now. i don't want anything coming out

of this hearing that leaves any door open to any possibility. let's shut that down now as tight as we can. all i did was raise a hypothetical question about some possibility and i'm thinking out loud how to protect america's interest. but if you want to know whether there's any -- the answer is, whatever prohibition clarifies it to congress and american people, there will not be american boots on the ground with respect to the civil war. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, and senator corker, thank you so much for holding this hearing on a vote of conscience. i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be entered. >> without objection. >> i'll make a brief statement because a lot of people have been asking me on how i view this and then i'll ask questions about the intel, if i can. mr. chairman, thank you for showing us those images of

children because even though it's really hard to look at, we have to look at it. children gasping for air and young bodies lined up in a row should shock the world. the failure to act, i think, gives license to the syrian president to use these weapons again. and it sends a terrible signal to other brutal regimes like north korea. and can i thank you, secretary hagel, for bringing up the issue of north korea and mr. kerry for your bringing it up. how many of us have been there to the line where we see thousands of our troops standing there just a stone's throw away from north korea? we need to think about it. maybe it's because i'm from california i tend to look at asia. but this is very serious. we've seen that danger up close when we go to that line. now, since i came to the senate,

i voted against the iraq war but i did vote for the use of force against osama bin laden. i voted to support air strikes against serbia but vocally opposed the military surge in afghanistan. i approached this issue in the same way i approach those, with a very heavy heart and very independent mind. i've heard some of my colleagues compare president obama's position on syria to the decision to invade iraq in 2003. i thank senator kerry for discussing this because i believe it's a totally false comparison. and i know it's been mentioned before. you drew that line again. in iraq the bush administration prepared to invade an occupied country with well over 100,000 troops. in this case the president has been clear, no ground invasion, no occupation. we'll have that in our resolution. why should we take any targeted action against syria?

not only is it important to keep north korea in mind, but also allowing the continued use of chemical weapons to go unanswered makes it much more likely that we'll see it used again in syria and we'll see it used maybe elsewhere and terrorists could obtain those and use them on america or our allies or troops, use them, for example, against israel and other friends. it makes it more likely, and this is key, that iran will view us as a paper tiger when it comes to their nuclear program and that is dangerous, not only for us and our friends but for the world. now, in 1997, the senate supported a ban on chemical weapons by a vote of 74-26. shouldn't an overwhelming vote like that mean something?

shouldn't the senate stand behind its words and actions? and then in '03, we passed the syria accountability act by a vote of 89-4. i wrote that bill with senator santorum. we had a huge vote in favor of it. this is what it says, acquisitions of weapons of mass destruction threaten the security of the middle east and the national security of the united states. shouldn't an overwhelming vote like that mean something? shouldn't the senate stand behind its words and its actions? >> so i believe as secretary kerry said and so i'll reiterate it, not only has our president drawn a line, a red line, on the use of chemical weapons and not only has the world done so, but we in the senate, we did so. now, i know there's tremendous reluctance to get involved in

another military effort. and sometimes the easiest thing to do is to walk away. well, i believe we cannot close our eyes to this clear violation of longstanding international norms. i believe america's morality and reputation and america's credibility are on the line. i applaud this administration and our president for coming to congress. i applaud those who asked him to come to congress. it's the right thing to do. and i will support a targeted effort but not a blank check respond to syria's unspeakable deeds to gas its own people to death. now, my question involves the intel here. i don't know how much you can give us. i'm going to try to make this pretty broad so you can answer it. whoever feels more comfortable. a lot of people are fearful because of what happened in

iraq. that there might be disagreement between the intel agencies. and we have a lot of intelligence agencies, 17 in all, all over the place. i don't know how many were involved, whether it was 4 or 6 or 8. i don't know whether you can disclose that. my question is, was there any argument about this fact that they agree that there's high confidence that these weapons were used by the assad regime? was there any debate -- there was debate. was there any dissension between the various agencies? >> the intelligence community represents by dni clapper has released a public document, unclassified. available for all to see in which they make their judgment with high confidence that the facts are as they have set

forth. you know, i think that speaks for itself. >> i'm going to press just a little bit harder here, john, mr. secretary, if i can. out of all of the different agencies, because i remember in iraq, sure, eventually the word came down and everyone agreed. but then we found out there was disagreement. to your knowledge, did they all come to the same conclusion, the various intelligence agencies? >> to my knowledge i have no knowledge of any agency that was a dissenter or any -- who had anan al tear yor theory. they had a whole scenario to test the theory to see if they could come up with an alternative view and the answer was they cannot. >> last question on intel and russia. i don't know if it is true or false but i read in a

publication opportunity

to hear first and i'm confident they'll have a discussion about it. >> can i just say, i want to add, though, our russian, you know, the russians, i think it's important for us not to get into an unnecessary, struggle over some of this, for a lot of reasons. the russians are working with us and cooperating on this effort to try to make is negotiated process this work. and i think they're serious about trying to find a way forward with that, number one. number two, on major issues, like start, north korea, iran, the russians aren't cooperating. so i think, you know, we have to

sort of deal with this thoughtfully and let's hope that the summit might produce some change of heart, as the president makes the evidence available to president putin. >> mr. chairman, first of all, let me say that, i've seen the pictures of what happened and i've been seeing pictures for 14 months or more, two years, i guess, of what's going on over there, and you can't have an ounce of compassion in you and not be moved tremendously by what's happening there. it's awful, it's horrendous. there's been almost 100,000 people killed there. and we all know, i guess in an unclassified setting, we can say that these people have used gas on multiple occasions. but the deaths have only been in the hundreds and not in the thousands. but all of this is moving and there's no question about it. i do -- nonetheless, i am reluctant. if there was one american -- if

this was an attack against any american, against any american interest, this would be a no-brainer for me. but i'm reluctant, at this point, and a part of it stems from where this is going to go, as to the limit that we're going to put on it. secretary kerry, you said you've met with your -- with the -- your counterpart, from russian. and first of all, you say they're cooperating with us on all major issues. i view this as a major issue. and i don't view them as cooperating with us. they're printing their currency, they're providing them with information, they're providing them with technology, they've provided them with a tremendous amount of military power. and so the question i have is, what's your counterpart telling you as to what they're going to do when and if america pulls the trigger? >> senator, look, i understand anybody's reluctance about this,

but, again, i would ask you the confront the greater reality about this if we don't do something. if you think it's bad today, what they're doing. just think about what happens if they confirm their suspicion, that the united states isn't going to do anything. one of the reasons assad has been using these materials is because they have, up until now, made the calculation that the west, writ large and the united states particularly, are not going to do anything about it. impunity is already working to kill a lot of people and to make things more dangerous. now, i guarantee you, that is in their assessment. so, if we make it worse by not being willing to do something, those terrible images you see are going to be -- worse than that. our interests with will be set back. israel will be at greater risk. jordan will be at greater risk. the longer that this conflict goes on and particularly with

assad's ability to be able to use chemical weapons, the more you will see the humanitarian crisis grow. we are already the largest contributor, thanks to the, you know, generosity to have the american people and the willingness of congress to move. we're already the largest contributor to refugee camps and the borders. many of you have been to them. you want to see jordan, which is already fragile -- many of you have met with the king. you know king abdullah's judgment is that he's at risk because of what is happening. so i believe the best way to curb that and reduce the threat is by acting. >> and i don't disagree -- i don't disagree with anything you've said, but let's take that and try to expand on that. we need the credibility. there is no question about it. but are we really going to be giving them credibility if we go in with a limited strike, and the day after or the week after or the month after, assad crawls out of his rat hole and says,

look, i stood up to the strongest power on the face of this earth and i won. so now it's business as usual here. and he may say, by the way, i'm not going to use chemical weapons anymore, because i don't like what just happened, but i'm going to continue to use conventional weapons, and we're going to go on with business as usual and the refugees are going to continue and thousands are going to be killed. and our allies are going to say, what's the matter with the united states. you said you'd do something about this. you did a limited strike, but you didn't finish assad off. and the problem is just as bad as it was. what does that do to our credibility? you know, that concerns me. >> well, senator, let me speak to that. it's a good question. first of all, i think general dempsey will tell you, assad may be able to crawl out of the hole and say, look, i survived, but there's no way that with reality and other assessments, he's going to be able to say he's better off.

there is no question that whatever choices are made by the president, that he and his military effort will not be better off, number one. and the opposition will know that and the people in syria will know that. already today, just with the threat that action may be taken, defections have gone up and people in syria are reconsidering whether assad is a long-term bet. moreover, general dempsey has made it clear and secretary hagel has made it clear and the president's made it clear that there will be additional support to the opposition, which is only now in its third month of receiving the overt support or about to receive, in fairness, senator mccain and others know that there are other things that haven't gotten there yet, but that process the in place and that will increase. so i believe -- >> my time's almost up, senator kerry. let me -- i really want to get a handle on this.

i think all of us feel strongly about this. and i need my -- i need to be reassured on this. the other thing that really troubles me about this is what happens if this things gets away from us? i mean, what happens -- you've been on the border between israel and lebanon, as i have. and since the last war, i mean, they have really -- hezbollah has really beefed that up. what happens if they get into it with israel? what's our response to that going to be? >> well, i talked with prime minister netanyahu just yesterday, and he made it pretty clear to me that israel feels very confident about israel's ability to be able to deal, as they have previously, with a miscalculation by assad. and the rest of the community. turks, the jordanians, the saudis, the united states, france, others all have a capacity. so as i said in my statement,

y'all have to make a kind of calculation here. just as assad does. if he's foolish enough to respond to the world's enforcement against his criminal activity, if he does, he will invite something far worse and, i believe, something absolutely unsustainable for him. that doesn't mean the united states of america is going to war. as i said in my comments, there are plenty of options here. let me finish one other comment, because it's important to the earlier question. russian does not have an ideological commitment here. this is a geopolitical, transactional commitment. and our indications are that in many regards, that's the way we view it. there may be more weapons to sell as a result of weapons sold, but it's not going to illicit some type of major confrontation. now, let me go further. they have condemned the use of chemical weapons, the russians

have. the iranians have. and as the proof of the use becomes even more clear in the course of this debate, i think it is going to be very difficult for iran or russian to decide against all that evidence that there's something worth defending here. so this is the kind of calculation you have to make, but i'd measure that against the calculation of what happens if we don't respond. if we don't respond, we're going to be back here, asking you to respond to some greater confrontation, with greater potential for damage and danger, because somebody miscalculated as a result of believing the united states isn't good for what it says. and that will invite much greater danger for the american people, much greater risk for our armed forces, and conceivably much greater chances of a general kind of conflagration that we don't want to see. >> thank u,