chemical agents they have available? >> our assessment, very closely, matches the french assessment. >> i guess my question to you, mr. secretary, secretary kerry, is in light of the vulnerability of these countries, what has been the response of the arab and muslim world to this? you've listed four or five who have stepped forward to say they support our efforts. it would seem that if this danger in the region is so profound, that we would have even greater support. >> senator, i think this is something i'd be happier discussing in greater detail with you in the closed session. there are obviously some countries for whom public statements are more complicated than others. and i think we should talk about that at the other session. >> fair enough. general dempsey, we saw these photographs earlier, these heartbreaking photographs. page 3 of "the washington post" this morning, an ad by a group

supporting the president's effort has a photograph that's riveted this my mind as a father and grandfather of the children on the floor in shrouds, victims of this chemical agent and gas attack. what the administration is asking for is military authority to launch additional attacks. what have you been charged with in terms of the issue of collateral damage, from those attacks, as it would effect innocent people and civilians in the nation of syria? >> senator, the guidance that we've received on targeting is to maintain a collateral damage estimate of low. and just briefly on how we come up with our assessments of collateral damage, it's based on how much we know about a target through intelligence. it's proximity to civilian structures and weapons' effects, as we decide what weapon against

it, and a collateral damage estimate of low means just that, that we will keep collateral damage lower than a certain number, which i would rather share with you in a classified setting. that doesn't mean, by the way, that we would have the same constant in what damage could be done to personnel. that's a separate issue. i could tell you more in a classified setting. >> thank you, whether chairperson. may i say, john, it's very good to see teresa here with you in good health and good spirits. and thank you, and i apologize for what i'm about to do to joh john. >> there's a setup. >> john, when you tell the enemy you're going to attack them, you tell the enemy they're going to

attack them, they're obviously going to disperse and try to make it harder. i'm looking right here at an ap story report, syria's said to be hiding weapons and moving troops. there's even open source reporting that they may be moving some of their assets into the russian naval base. but let's not get -- it's ridiculous to think that it's not wise from a pure military estimate to not to warn the enemy that you're going to attack. secretary hagel, in the "wall street journal" today, we read the following. pentagon planners were instructed not to offer strike options that could help drive mr. assad from power. the big concern is the wrong groups in the opposition would be able to take advantage of it. a senior military officer said, is there any truth to that, senator hagel? >> senator, as i said, the president asks us for a range of options and we provided him -- >> i'm asking if there's any truth to the "wall street journal" -- >> our options were not limited to -- >> i'm just asking if there's

any truth to the story -- >> no. >> secretary kerry, in the same "wall street journal" article, quote, the delay reflects a broader u.s. approach rarely discussed publicly, but it underpins its decision making, according to u.s. officials, the current administration doesn't want to tip balance in favor of the epopposition, for fear the outcome may be worse than the current stalemate. is that story accurate? >> no. >> by the way, can i add something, senator? on the warning issue, i don't disagree with you. about warning. in fact, the general wouldn't disagree with you either. and we are all -- >> but the general said it would be just as easy -- >> no, no, we're deeply -- >> let's not get into that. >> john, all i want to say to you, there were leaks, which are the bane of everybody's existence, and the fact is the newspapers began to carry stories about a strike and targeting well before any decisions were made, and that

began a process of of moving. so now there is at least -- >> i got it. i really would like to move on to some more-important questions, if you don't mind. >> i thought all your questions were important, john. >> thank you, john, that's good. i'll try to remember that. the president said today that the purpose of the military action in syria is not just to respond to assad's use of chemical weapons, but part of a broader strategy to change his momentum on the ground and allow syria ultimately to free itself. do you agree with that assessment, john? >> i said up-front, i've said several times here, they will automatically but as a result of degrading his ability for chemical weapons, there'll be downstream impact which will have an impact on his military capacity. i agree with the president. >> thank you. general dempsey. do you agree with that statement of the president's? >> i agree -- i have never been told to change the momentum.

i have been told to degrade capability. >> do you think, general, that without a change in momentum, that syria ultimately could free itself, secretary hagel? >> senator, i think they all are connected. degrading a military capability, as you know, is a pretty significant part of momentum shifts. >> secretary hagel, john, over the weekend, "the wall street journal" ran an important op-ed. a syria analyst at the institute for the study of war spent a great deal of time inside syria, including just this month, and i want to read her statement of the situation on the ground. and i quote the story. the conventional wisdom holds that the extremist elements are kplaelt mixed in with the more moderate rebel groups. this isn't the case. moderates and extremists wield control over distinct territory.

contrary to many media accounts, the war in syria is not being waged entirely or even predominantly by dangerous islamists and al qaeda die-hards. the jihadists poring into syria from countries like iraq and lebanon are not flocking to the front lines. instead, they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern rebel-held areas of the country. moderate opposition forces, a collection of groups known as the free syrian army continue to lead the fight against the syrian regime. while traveling with some of these free armies, syrian army battalions, i've watched them defend allawi and christian vilgages from government forces and extremist groups. they've demonstrated willingness to submit to civilian authorities, working closely with local and mrnti counsels and they've struggled to ensure that their fight against assad will pave the way for a flourishing civil society. john, do you agree with dr.

obegi's assessment of the opposition? >> i agree with most of that. they've changed significantly, they've improved, and as i said earlier, the fundamentals of syria are secular and i believe will stay that way. >> and i think it's very important to point out again, as you just said, it's a secular state. they would reject radical islamists, and they in some cases, in the areas in which they have control, the people have demonstrating against them, is the information i have. so when we see these commentators say, well, we don't know which side would win, we don't know who the bad guys are, if you agree with this assessment, we certainly know who the bad guys are. is that correct? >> i believe we do, for the most part. there are some worse than al nusra, and they tend to be in the northern area and the east. >> i thank you. and again, i would like to ask again, can you share with the

committee that the administration does not see a protracted stalemate and conflict in syria as somehow a good thing or a goal of u.s. policy? >> the goal of u.s. policy is not a stalemate, the goal is a negotiated solution, which results if the departure of assad and the free choice of the syrian people for their future. >> and finally, i would like to ask again, if, if we reject this resolution doesn't it send a seriously bad message to our friends and allies alike? encourages our allies -- our enemies and would dispirit our friends, particularly those fighting in syria, but also around the world? >> senator mccain, i have gotten

to know my counterparts in the mideast particularly well because of the number of crises and initiatives we've had to deal with in that region. and i cannot emphasize enough how much they are looking to us now, making judgments about us for the long-term, and how critical the choice we make here will be, not just to this question of syria, but to the support we may or may not antidepressant in the mideast peace process, to the future of egypt, to the transformation of the middle east, to the stability of the region and other interests that we have. there's no way to separate one thing from all of the rest. relationships are relationships. and they are integrates and that's why this is so important. >> but i would also emphasize, if it's the wrong kind of resolution, it can do just as much damage in my view.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator udall? >> thank you very much. and i thank all the witnesses for their testimony and for their service here today. and i also want to thank chairman menendez for the way he has conducted this hearing. like everyone here, i deplore what bashar al assad has done to his own people, by attacking them with chemical weapons. assad as committed an atrocious crime, so heinous that international law singles it out as an assault deserving of international action. but let there be no mistake, i fully agree his horrific acts deserve an international response. but what should that response be? that is why we are here today, to ask that question and many others. and i hope this hearing will do more than just rubber stamp a decision that has already been made by this administration.

i have grave concerns of what this administration is asking of us, of our military, and of the american people. here's the situation as i see it. with limited international support, we are being told the united states must retaliate for the use of chemical weapons with a surgical bombing campaign of our own. we're being told we're bombing in order to send a message. but what message are we sending? to the international community, we're saying once again, the united states will be the world's policeman. you break a law and the united states will step in. we are on shaky international legal foundations with this potential strike and we need to know whether we exhausted all diplomatic and economic sanction options to effect this behavior. we need to increase our attention on the source of

assad's ability to continue to ruthlessly kill his own people and that is support from nations including russia and china, who are cynically trying to hold the moral high ground. assad would not be able to maintain his grip on power if he were not being supported from outside. the full force of international outrage should come down on those nations that are refusing to allow the u.n. to act and find a solution. and finally i see this potential bombing campaign as a potential next step towards full-fledge war. we've been here before. the iraq war began as an international effort to kick saddam hussein out of kuwait and then years of a no-fly zone and air strikes to prevent saddam from threatening his neighbors or reconstituting his arsenal of

chemical weapons. and as we all know, this limited military action eventually led to what is one of the biggest blunders in u.s. foreign policy, a war that i voted against. many who voted for it came to regret that vote. americans are understandably weary after the fiasco of iraq and over a decade of war, how can this administration make a guarantee that our military actions will be limited? how can we guarantee that one surgical strike will have any impact other than to tighten the vice grip assad has on his power or allow rebels allied with al qaeda to gain a stronger foothold in syria. i take our role very seriously here, like many of the other senators have said, and i will hear the president and his team out. the president made the right decision to pursue an authorization for the use of military force. i hope these hearings will give

the american people the answers they deserve. but there are troubling questions that need to be answered, and secretary kerry, i want to start with you. you've assured the american people, i watched your national television performances, that the u.s. action will not include, and i think you've said this here today, will not include the use of ground troops, that it will be limited in nature to deter assad and others from using weapons of mass destruction. yet the draft authorization of force proposed by the administration states that it would allow the president to use the armed forces, and i quote here, as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict with syria. now, this is a very open-ended proposal, with no specific limits on types of forces that would be used, with no limit on

their duration. why was it proposed in a way that it conflicts with these statements of no ground troops and what kind of language, secretary kerry, or the precise language are you willing to back in terms of showing the american people that we really mean what we say in terms of no boots on the ground? >> senator, all good questions, and i will respond to all of them. but i want to address, sort of the suspicion and concern that you have, which is appropriate. i think everybody understands that iraq left a lot of folks reeling for some period of time. so it's appropriate to ask the questions that you've asked, but please let me try to emphasize. this is not sending a message,

per se. this is having an effect, an impact. this is taking action to chief something more than just a message. it is to degrade his current capacity. it will make it harder for him to do that in the future, and it will also facilitate our ability to hold him accountable in the future if he does. and he will know that. this will affect his calculation, number one. that's not just a message. >> secretary kerry, by degrading his capacity, don't you, in fact, make him weaker and make the people out there like al nusra and al qaeda and these other extremist forces stronger. and this is what i want secretary -- general dempsey to talk about in a little bit too. but could you answer that? by degrading him, you make these extremist forces stronger. do you not? >> no, i don't believe you do.

as a matter of fact, i think you actually make the opposition stronger, and the opposition is get stronger by the day now, and i think the general would tell you that, that he is not sitting around and his daily concern is not the opposition, it's assad. and what assad is doing with his scuds, with his airplanes, with his tanks, with his artillery, to the people of syria. but i think it's important also to look at this, because you raised the question, doesn't this make the united states the policeman of the world? no, it makes the united states a multilateral partner in an effort that the world, 184 nations strong, as accepted the responsibility for. and if the united states, which has the greatest capacity to do that, doesn't help lead that effort, then shame on us. than we're not standing up to our multilateral and humanitarian and strategic

interests. now, that said -- >> can i stop you, secretary kerry, just -- >> anytime. >> just on that one. because if you're talking about multi-lateral efforts, what we're talking about is the world being able -- this is a breach of a treaty. and the world put within the united nations that enforcement mechanism. and what we have done here with russia and china, holding up the ability of the u.n. to act, we've just turned aside -- >> well, senator, with all do respect -- >> we should be standing up. we should be standing up and making sure that they are condemned, those countries that are not allowing us to move forward, to find a solution where the solution should reside. >> senator, i don't disagree that we should be finding a solution where it resides, but the fact is, just a few weeks ago, just a few weeks ago, at the u.n., we saw a condemnation

of a chemical attack, without blame, without citing assad, without saying who's responsible, simply a condemnation of a chemical attack and the russians blocked it. >> right. >> so we have no illusions. yes, is the u.n. security council having difficulties at this moment performing its functions? yes. does that mean the united states of america and the rest of the world that things we ought to act should shrink from it? no. that's really what's at test here. i would urge you. you say, how do we know it won't result in x or y or z from happening if we don't do it. let me ask you, it's not a question of what will happen if we don't do it, it's a certainty. are you going to be comfortable if assad, as a result of the united states not doing anything, then gases his people yet again and the world says, why didn't the united states act? history is full of opportunity

of moments where someone didn't stand up and act when it made a difference. and whether you go back to world war ii or look at a ship that was turned away from the coast of florida and everybody on it lost their lives subsequently to german gas, those are the things that make a difference. and that's what's at stake here. and i would say to you, these are troubling questions, it's a guarantee if the united states doesn't act together with other countries, we know what assad will do. that's a guarantee. i can't tell you what's guaranteed that some country will do if we do act, but i know what will happen if we don't. and i'm pretty darned clear that a lot of things that people think will happen won't happen if the united states acts, it will in fact have enforced in international standard with respect to the chemical weapons. and if the multilateral institution set up to do it, the security council is being blocked and won't do it, that

doesn't mean we should turn ou s backs and say there's nothing we can do. that's not the case. we did it in bosnia and it made a difference. we saved countless number of lives. and i believe, and the president of the united states believes that we can do that now. >> well, i don't believe that we should -- i don't believe that we should have given up so easily on using the united nations -- >> we haven't given up -- >> yes, we have. we haven't -- we haven't taken russia to task, we haven't taken china to task and that's what we should be pointing out at this point. >> time of the senator has expired. >> i want to respectfully disagree with you and say also i very much appreciate your service. i know that you're trying very, very hard to find, on the diplomatic side, as secretary of state, a peaceful resolution. thank you for your courage and sorry for going over. >> senator barrasso? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. over labor day weekend in wyoming, i heard from people all across the state. all believe what is happening in syria is awful, despicable. do have concerns about the

administration and what the plan really is, what the strategy really is. they want to know what the core national security interests of the united states are, that are at stake in syria. what is our ultimate goal of proposed military strikes and what happens if the strikes are not effective. and to that end, mr. chairman, i would ask you, what exactly it is that we're going to be voting on? is it what the white house has set forward and when are we going to see the specifics. senator durbin also asked about the snareness or expanse of what we would be voting -- and would we be voting within the next 24 hours? >> the chair is working with the ranking member and others to come to an agreed upon text that we believe would meet the goals of achieving the ability for the administration to pursue the military action, they have sought the congress' support for, in a way that would allow

them to have the maximum ability to succeed in that action. by the same token, tailor it sufficiently so that this is not an open of ended engagement and specifically, not with boots on the ground, american troops on the ground. we're not there yet. it is our aspiration to try to get there. before the end of the day and then to look forward to the possibility of a markup tomorrow. we'll see if we can get there and if we do, we'll give all members ample notice of that time. we start off in the morning, as i said, with a classified briefing and we will move from there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i appreciate you coming to congress to seek legislative authorization for the military action. president obama specifically asserted on saturday that he already had the authority. now, when the british parliament rejected a notion supporting uk participation, the prime minister specifically said that he would respect the will of the

british people and there would be no british military intervention. where does president obama stand with that, now that he has come to congress? >> he intends to win the passage of the resolution. >> and on the case that he does not, is the plan -- >> well, year not contemplating not, because it's too dire. >> we talked a little bit about the risks of days. there are already reports that by delaying military action, that assad is moving military assets, hardware, troops to civilian neighborhoods. reports are that russia plans to send a submarine in the next few days. what does this mean to our contingency planning and what this is going to impact? >> the movement of the russian -- there's already four russian warships in the eastern med, and they are staying a

respectful difference, i don't see that as a factor. >> as the administration created, conducted, perhaps, a threat assessment of how russia, how iran, how hezbollah is going to respond to a u.s.-led attack and what response do we expect from syria's allies, including russia, iran, hezbollah, to military action? >> we all agree that that would be best handled in a classified session. >> the -- in terms of what success looks like, senator udall specifically, you know, said what happens if gases are used again. i'm wondering if we do a limited strike, as proposed, and still assad depogoes back and uses chemical weapons on his people, then that engenders an entire new set of hearings and how does this end? where are we a month from now? >> well, as i said, senator,

there's -- we're preparing several target sets, the first of which would set the conditions for fall-on assessments and the others would be used if necessary, and we haven't gotten to that point yet. what we do know is that we can degrade and disrupt his capabilities and that that should put us in a better position to make the kind of assessment you're talking about. >> let me add to that, if i can, john. senator feinstein brought this up today at the meeting, at the white house. it would be really -- it would not be sensible to pass this resolution with a view to degrading and and preventing him from doing it again. if he were foolish enough to do it again, the general does have

follow-on possibilities. and since the objective would remain the same, it would be important for assad himself to know that you have not limited this to one specific moment respect to chemical weapons. you can still have a limited authorization, but with respect to chemical weapons, it would be a huge mistake to deprive general dempsey and company of their options to enforce what we're trying to achieve. >> trying to achieve, mr. secretary, the negotiated departure of assad. you keep mentioning trying to get him to do this from the negotiating table. it seems to me, as somebody who will go to any lengths to stay in power, to the point of even using chemical weapons against his people, that instead wouldn't he be just driven to a more serious level of derpgs to

keep power rather than the negotiating table? >> it's a very appropriate question. the answer is, i don't believe, and there are a number of different reasons why i don't believe so. and most of them are best discussed and i look forward to it with you in the private session, but, there are very strong indications from a number of discussions that have taken place between countries and individuals over last months that assad would not necessarily avoid making a different decision under certain circumstances. i think we ought to leave it at that, but in the private session, i think we ought to dig into it. >> i was going to ask about the chemical weapons stockpiles and maybe you want to reserve this for the discussion tomorrow as well, in terms of steps that we could take, in terms of command and control of the regime's chemical weapons stockpiles, to

make sure that these things are protected in a way that could not potentially be used. >> absolutely. and i want you to know, and this is something that ought to be done in the other session, but general dempsey and his team have taken great pains a to the instruction of the president of the united states to make surgeon that whatever we do doesn't make people less safe or potentially more exposed to weapons or that those weapons would have less control and so forth. all of these thing have entered into the calculation. >> thank you, will chairman. >> thank you, barrasso. just one add-on to my original response to you. the resolution as sent to us by the administration will not be the resolution that we will be working on, but it is a good opening as to what the desires are and intentions are, but it will not be the specific resolution we'll be working on. senator murphy? >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman, secretary kerry, secretary hagel, general, thank you very much for being with us and for taking so much time with us. we all are referencing the conversations we've had over the last week. i've never, frankly seen a greater level of public engagement on an issue since the health care reform debate of 2009. and while there are certainly hardliners that have come to me with a resolution that we should go in or many more with a resolution that we should stay out, most people see both sides of this issue. and they, frankly, appreciate the fact that they have an american president who has taken so much time and put in so much thought into arriving at this decision. even if they disagree. and they frankly appreciate even more the fact that this president trusts them and trusts their elected representatives enough to bring this conversation to the united states congress. albeit the fact that it may be a little messy to get from point "a" to point "b."

so given all of the expositicom that we will hear from our constituents. that maybe more than anything else comes out to me loud and clear. when i look at this question, i see two questions inherent in the one. one, we have to ask ourselves, is there a moral or national security imperative? and i think you've very plainly made the case, as has the president, that there is. atrocities committed that we cannot let stand and a country that has very vital security interests to the united states. but there's a second question. and that's the one that i have trouble with and i think some of my colleagues have trouble with. and that's this. will our action lessen the acuity of that moral atrocity or advance our national security interest? there both has to be a problem that needs to be solve and a way to solve it. and that's why i struggle with

this. and frankly, i don't think the fact that i and many others struggle with that question means that we lack courage or that we are frankly enabling the syrian regime. i just think that it's we wonder whether there is a limit to the ability of american military power to influence the politics on the ground in the middle east. and clearly, though, there is not some direct linkage between what happened in iraq and what happened in syria, it does chill the ability of people to believe that american military might influence politics on the ground and in syria, after they have watched the last ten years. the second problem people have is the problem of escalation. and one of the most important things, secretary kerry, you said in your remarks was this. you said that we would be prepared to respond to, i think as you stated, a miscalculation of assad, whether it would be in reprisals of his own people or attacks in the region.

that we would be prepared to respond without going to war. now, some people will find that statement a little incongruence. how do you respond without going to war? let me ask the question this way. there are a variety of responses from assad. he could launch another chemical weapons attack against his own people. he could launch a ferocious conventional weapons attack against his own people. he could, of course, he or his allies could launch attacks against our allays in the region. i don't expect you to explain exactly what the response will be today, but does this resolution that we're debating today give you the ability to respond to those reprisals, or any of the situations i just outlined, responses within syria against his own people, or responses outside of syrian against our own allies, would you have to come back to congress for a new authorization of force?

>> well, excuse me, i'm sorry. i think as the president has made clear and as we've seen in many of these crisis over the course, certainly, of my career here in the senate, i saw presidents do both. and i supported some and i opposed others. and on a number of occasions, presidents acted without the authorization of congress. so there is no question, but that the president would have the authority and the right and conceivably the imperative to respond without any other authorization if assad were to attack again. and so i can't speak for the president in terms of what decision he would make, but he has the authority and that right would be available to him. now, if i can just say quickly with respect to, you know, it's absolutely appropriate to ask

the question, will this make a difference? totally appropriate. and to think about this question of escalation. but let me say something quickly about both of those. if the congress decides not to do this, it is a guarantee, whether it is with assad in syria or nuclear weapons in iran or nuclear weapons in north korea, we will have invited a for-certain confrontation at some point in time that will require you to make a choice that will be even worse, with the potential of even greater conflict. that i guarantee you. because that's the message that will be sent. now, there's a distinction between this and iraq. i understand all the iraq, you know, we lived through that here. in iraq, intelligence purported

to suggest that weapons of mass destruction existed. but we didn't know if they existed. so we had a massive invasion in order to try to find out if they existed and we found out they didn't. here we have weapons of mass destruction that we not only know do exist, they have been used. not once, not twice, not three times, but multiple times. we estimate in the teens and the opposition estimates more than that. and now we have this most recent use of weapons of mass destruction and contravention of nearly a hundred years of a prohibition against their use. >> yeah, but that's -- i don't think that's the dispute. the dispute is not the correlation -- >> the dispute is, what are you going to do about it? the dispute is, what are you prepared to do about it? that's the dispute. if you believe that by doing nothing, you are going to stand up for the norm and somehow

reduce the threat of the use at some future time, that's your right to believe that, but i think, and the president believes deeply and everybody at this table believes that flies against all common sense and all human behavior. >> mr. secretary, let me ask you a question about iran, because i think it's very important and a compelling narrative here. let me just ask you this. the circumstances are very different. not to trivialize what has happened in syria, but the stakes of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which could kill millions, is different than syria killing thousands with chemical weapons. and i wonder whether or not it lessens our moral authority to make a different decision with respect to iran, just because on syria, we decide not to act. and second, i worry about this weariness that we've talked about within the american public, that it may ultimately make it harder to rally the american public with respect to

a response to iran, having gone through what could be at least a slightly protracted engagement with syria. and so, i guess i want to challenge you for a second on the automatic nature of a failure to step in in syria, with respect to compromising our ability to respond in iran. >> well, let me just make it very, very, very clear. the world decided after world war i and the horrors of gas in the trenches and the loss of an entire generation in europe, that we are never again to allow gas to be used in warfare. so if all of a sudden, at this moment, where the third instance was used by adolf hitler to gas millions of jews. it was used by saddam hussein in order to gas iranians and his own people, and now it has been used by bashar al assad.

three people in all of history. and the united states knowing it, and knowing that we've drawn a line that the world has drawn with us, is unwilling to step up and confront that, it is an absolute certainty that gas will proliferate. we've had sarin gas in the tokyo subway. do you really want a situation that that gas may be available to these groups if it continues to proliferate, because assad can use this gas to continue to subjugate his population, because they're looking for a government that is respectful of their rights? i don't know how we could live with that. is there a difference between gas and a nuclear weapon? i suppose it would depend on the scale, to be honest with you. it would depend on the scale. but the world decided that chemical, biological, and

nuclear are the prohibited entities of warfare and we, as a nation and we as a global community have struggled to try to enforce that through the years. it's hard for me to imagine that the united states would not stand with the world against that. now, is it going to be effective? i'm convinced that what we can do will reduce the possibilities of more use of gas and degrade his capacity to use this weapon. and i think it's imperative for us, as i've said again and again, we all have, to take that st step, but it's significantly different from what took place in iraq originally with respect to weapons that we didn't know exi existed and the two just are not similar. >> senator paul? >> thank you for coming today.

it's not often that i get to compliment the president. i can probably count the number of times probably on one hand. but when i first heard that the president was going to come to congress, boy, was i pleasantly surprised. i was proud that he was my president. i didn't vote for him and i still am opposed to him for quite a few times, but i was proud that he did this and i was just about to stand on my feet and clap and give him a standing ovation, and then i heard, well, if i lose the vote, i'll probably go ahead and do the bombing anyway. so that does concern me. i want to be proud of the president, but every time i'm just about there, then i get word that really he doesn't mean it. that he's going to sort of obey the constitution if he wins. i heard secretary kerry say, if we win, sure, but if we lose, what? make me proud, secretary kerry. stand up for us and say, you're going to obey the constitution, and if we vote you down, which is unlike, by the way, but if we do, you'll go through what the

people say through your congress, and you won't go through with a war that your congress prevents. can you give me a better answer, secretary kerry? >> i can't give you a better answer than what i give you. i don't know what the president's answer is. but he still have the constitutional authority and he would be in keeping with the constitution. >> i disagree with you there. i don't think he has the constitutional authority. i think congress has this. madison was very explicit. when he wrote the federalist papers, he wrote that history supposes or the constitution supposes what history demonstrates. that the executive is the branch most likely to go to war and therefore the constitution vested that power in the congress. it's explicit and runs throughout all of madison's writings. this power is a congressional power and it is not an executive power. they didn't say big war, small war, they didn't say boots on the ground, not boots on the ground, they said, "declare war." ask the people on the ships launching the missiles whether they're involved with war or

not. if we do not say that the constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you're making a joke of us, you're making us into theater. so we play constitutional theater for the president. if this is real, you will aedbi by the verdict of congress. you're probably going to win. let's go ahead and say it's real. let's have a real debate in this country, not a meaningless debate that if you lose, well, we had the authority anyway, we're going to go to war anyway. a couple of items -- >> senator, i assure you, there is nothing meaningless and everything is real -- >> only if you adhere to what we vote on. only if our vote is binding. >> and i will leave to the man who was elected to be president of the united states the responsibility for telling you what his decision is, if and when that moment came. but the president intends to win this vote and he's not going to make prior announcements. >> we've had a lot of discussion

about, you know, whether or not we're going to make the world safer with this. somehow we're going to have less chemical weapons. but i think that's an open question, and i think it's conjecture at best. oh, we think assad will be less likely to launch chemical weapons after this. we may be able to degrade his capacity somewhat, he's got a thousand tons. are we going to wipe it out? most reports i hearsay we're not even going to directly bomb chemical weapons, because of what might happen to the surrounding population. so my guess is he still will have the capability. why would he release chemical weapons on his own people when it brought the anger and elm anity of the entire world. now he's going to act in a rational manner. i think it's equally likely that he either does it again or he doesn't do it. i don't think you can say for sure which is better. i don't know that we can say that by attacking them, he's not going to launch another chemical attack. will the region -- i've got a

few and then i'll stop. will the region be more stable or less stable? we all say we want stability in the middle east and stability in the middle east is a national interest for our country. will it be more stable or less stable? i, frankry, think already equal arguments on both sides of that. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack on them, a gas attack or otherwise, or less likely? i think there's a valid argument for saying there'll be more likely to suffer an attack if we do this. will russia be more likely or less likely to supply more arms that get more heavily involved in this. i think there's a valid argument that they may become more likely to be involved. iran, more likely or less likely to be involved with this. if iran gets involved, more likely or less likely that israel launches an apprisal attack on iran. there are all kinds of unknowns that i can't tell you absolutely the answer and neither can you, but i think there's a reasonable argument, but the world may be less stable because of this and

that it may not deter any chemical weapons attack. so what i would ask is, how are we to know? how are we to go home? i haven't had one person come up to me and say they're for this war. not one person. we get calls by the thousands, nobody's calling in favor of this war when i was home all month, i went to 40 cities, i didn't have one person come out and say, do they all agree it's a horrendous thing? yes, we all agree chemical attacks are a horrendous thing, but people aren't excited about getting involved and they don't think it's going to work and they're skeptical of what will occur with this. but i would appreciate your response and try to reassure the rest of us, one, that the vote is meaningful and valid, that you'ded adhere to it, and you'r convinced all of these different items will be better, not worse by this attack. >> senator, i would very happy to do that? will israel be more likely to suffer an attack, will they be safer, will they be less safe? i can make it crystal clear to

you that israel will be less safe, unless the united states takes this action. iran and hezbollah are two of the three biggest allies of assad. and iran and hezbollah are the two single biggest enemies of israel. so if iran and hezbollah are advantaged by the united states not kicurbing assad's use of chemical weapons, there is a much greater likelihood that at some point down the road, hezbollah, who has been one of the principle reasons for change in the situation on the ground, will have access to these weapons of mass destruction. and israel will for certain be less secure. >> but i would also argue it would be more likely that hezbollah will attack because of this attack in response. >> and israel feels quite

confident of its ability to deal with hezbollah if they were to do so. you will notice that israel has on several occasions in the last year seen fit to deal with threats to its security because of what's in syria and not once has assad responded to that to date. i think there are a bunch of things we should talk about in a classified session. but let me just make it very clear to you that, you know, you ask these questions. will this or that be more likely to happen or not likely to happen. if the united states of america doesn't do this, senator, is it more or less likely that assad does it again. you want to answer that question? >> i don't think it's -- no. >> more or less likely that he does it again? >> i think it's unknown. >> it's unknown? senator, it's not unknown. if the united states of america doesn't hold them accountable on this, with our allays aies and friends, it's a guarantee that assad will do it again. a guarantee.

and i urge you to go to the classified briefing and learn that. secondly, let me just point out to you that with respect to this question of americans wanting to go to war, you know, you've got three people who have have been to war. you've got john mccain who's been to and we don't want to go to war. we don't believe we are going to war in the classic sense of taking american troops and america to war. the president is asking for the authority to do a limited action. that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. >> i think by doing so, you announce in advance that your goal is not winning, and i think the last 50 years of secretaries of defense would say the goal -- >> do we want to go to war in syria? of course not.

100% of americans will say no. we say no. we don't want to go to war in syria either. it's not what we're here to ask. the president is not asking you to go to war or declare war. he's not asking you to send one american troop to war. he's simply saying that we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who's been willing to break a prohibition. and will we will accountable to stand up and say we are against that? i don't consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad. and putting young americans in harm's way. that's not what the president is asking for here. general, do you want to speak at all to that? >> not really, secretary. thank you for offering.

>> great. thank you to all of you. this has been a good discussion. i want to echo what senator paul, durbin, and others have said. i very much appreciate and celebrate the president's decision to bring this matter to congress. i also believe with others that the constitution reserves the power to initiate military action to congress. 535 people get a vote on that. there's only one commander in chief. after the vote is taken, after we do that searching inquiry, it's the commander in chief to decide. but i applaud the president for doing it. i view it not only as a matter of constitutional law, i view it as a reflecting a very important underlying value. and the value is this. we shouldn't put service members into initiating battle, putting people into harm's way. if they don't have the consensus behind them, the american public political leadership is behind them. to send young men and women into war or into a military action

where they are exercising military options with a divided political leadership class is the worst thing we can do. and so we need to come to a consensus and execute on that consensus whatever it is. and it would be my hope that congress' consensus would be what the president would do and not otherwise. there's a basic principle at stake. i think you stated it well. it's a principle of international law and american law. no use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians. i don't know of a higher principle of the relations of states, of the law of nations, of sort of international legal morality than no use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians. and that is the principle that is at stake as we wrestle with this request of the president on this committee. as you said secretary kerry, it's not about the weapon of mass destruction ts exist. they exist. it's not just whether or not they exist. they've been used against

civilians. they've been used against civilians on a massive scale including women and children. so it's a principle that is squarely at stake. we know that bashar al assad does not care about the principle. contrary to things you said, we know that vladimir putin until he shows otherwise does not care about the principle. i hope congress still cares about the principle. it is a principle of long-standing origin. syria signed onto it. the soviet union signed onto the geneva convention and then again in the 1990s era, chemical weapons convention as russia under the leadership of the previous president, president yeltsin. i hope the congress shows we do care by our action. couple of questions. first, russia. i want to associate with something that senator udall said earlier. the fact that we have not done enough to demonstrate that russia has essentially become a

pariah nation with chemical weapons. it is hard to read their actions and come up with any conclusion other than the current government of russia is pro use of chemical weapons against civilians. we should make them aware that being that country in every instance we can so at some point they'll ask themselves do we really want to be the nation that is pro use of chemical weapons against a civilian population? if we make that as painfully possible every day at the u.n., we should make it painful every day so at some point they'll ask themselves the question why do we want to carry this water for a dictator who's using chemical weapons against his own civilians. the fact they're going to block us shouldn't dissuade us. we should do more and more and more. i think that will ultimately contribute to a political negotiation. when i asked you the question about the syrian opposition's

position on chemical weapons, i was unclear about their position on chemical weapons. but i understand that the opposition may have made some commitments in compacts that have been negotiated, mr. secretary, that they are anti-chemical weapons. that they would commit to turn over chemical weapons to the international community either if they take control of those weapons during the course of this civil war. or whether they are in the lead. can you talk about their commitment to get rid of the stockpile of chemical weapons that is currently being used. >> we've had some discussions about that. i hope that when the president comes here that he will make that position clear to all of you. >> that would be very helpful. i think that would be one of the best things the opposition could do is make that point. there is a little bit of a confusion. i think we can talk shorthand here in ways that might make it hard for senators and certainly

the public to follow. we are here talking about military action on the same time we're saying there's no solution to the civil war that's not a negotiated political solution. those seem to be at odds. i want to state my understanding of how they fit together and you tell me if i'm right or wrong. if we take action, action to degrade the ability of syria to use chemical weapons, action to degrade their ability to violate international law, it would take away a significant asset they have in their battle against the opposition. it will level the playing field by removing the ability to use chemical weapons. and it will therefore increase the odds that the parties will then come to the table to try to figure out that political solution. is that the connection between the military option you are proposing and the stated end goal of a solution to the civil war only being achieved through a political end? >> it's the collateral

connection to it. it's not the purpose of it. but it is a collateral connection. >> i don't have any other questions, mr. chair. i'll save them for tomorrow. >> thank you. senator marquis. >> thank you very much. with all question, there is great horror and disgust at the use of chemical weapons and great sympathy. for the people of syria. that their leader would use chemical weapons upon his own people. and that his murderous regime is so dedicated to retaining power that they would use those weapons. at the same time in our own country, there is great concern. that we could be invoking the law of unintended consequences. as we talk about using our own military in syria.

back in 2001 and 2002, the threat obviously was that the next attack at the united states could come in the form of a mushroom cloud from iraq and although there were inspectors on the ground for 100 days in iraq who could not find it before the war started, nonetheless, that war began. and i think people are understandably apprehensive about what we're talking about right now. because of what did precipitate that war in iraq. so i continue to look forward to additional evidence being presented. and my hope is that we can act in a way that does not bog us down into the middle of a syrian civil war. i think there are many people who want us in the middle of the syrian civil war. many people. but i don't think that the

american people do. i think they are very wary of having our country once again drawn into a civil war in another country. the concern that i think many people have is that we don't fully understand as well what the reaction of the russians will be to this action. i thank you secretary general and secretary hagel and kerry. this is a tough job. we appreciate the sensitivity and professionalism you are handling this. you talked about the russians now having four vessels in the eastern mediterranean, but you did not seem to be that concerned about it. syria is a proxy state of russia. they provide the military assistance, the training to syria. are you concerned in any way that a strike by the united states could increase the amount of military assistance that

russia sends into the syrian regime? >> it could, senator. they have assured the regime if we destroy something they can replace it. but that's not a reason for me to hesitate to act. and to your point, there's always unintended consequences of conflict. but as the secretary has mentioned, we know what the consequences could be, probably would be if we do not act. >> thank you. mr. secretary, it's my understanding that the u.n. chemical inspection team left syria on saturday. and that pan-ki moon has went to expedite the samples it has obtained. when do we expect to obtain that data and the analysis made by

the u.n. and when do we expect that information to be made public? >> i'm sorry, which information? >> the united nations inspection team. >> senator, by the way, i'm looking over here at my successor in the united states senate, and i don't know if there's a new initiation process here on the committee, but i notice he doesn't even get a name plate. oh. i was worried about you. >> in the house they put it up for you. i'm learning what the protocol is over here. >> we're dealing with sequester, so you have to do it yourself. >> i thought massachusetts was on uneven keel there for a minute. senator, first of all, welcome to the committee and welcome to the senate. good to see you here. with respect to the u.n. process, we're hearing somewhere

three to four weeks in the range. i think three weeks is what we been told. >> so in order to ensure that there is a signal sent to the international community as to the voracity of the analysis that chemical weapons had been used. >> well, let me speak to that. it's a very important and legitimate question. first of all, the mandate of the united nations inspection team which we have great respect for and we're grateful to them and to secretary general pan-ki moon for their courageous effort to go in under difficult circumstances. and we have obviously pushed for inspections in other circumstances. the distinction here is that

their mandate will only allow them to say that a chemical weapons attack took place. they have no mandate to assign blame. who did it. and pan-ki moon has reaffirmed that this is what they won't do. they won't confirm what happened. can they provide additional information in terms of details and some additional evidence? the answer is yes. but will they tell us anything we do not know today beyond a reasonable doubt? the answer is no. they don't have the technical means or the capacity to put together what we have released to the world in an unclassified

document. and what you have in classified form, obviously can't go into here, we have an even more persuasive case about what has happened here. let me add to that if i can just one more thing. iran and syria itself have both admitted that a chemical weapons attack took place. so iran and syria are already telling us an attack took place, but they've chosen the improbable and illogical notion that the opposition did it. not the regime. >> my only suggestion would be that the united states declassified a high percentage of what we have so that the international community can see it. and i think that will be helpful in this whole situation. if we declassified, i think it would give more assurance. >> senator, i understand. and i have to tell you, the

unprecedented level of declassification already according to the intel community could possibly put at risk some sources and methods. now, one of the reasons that it was chosen to release one is somehow it leaked from some place in the world and it was already in several newspapers. so as a result of that, it was further declassified. but that itself is an intercept, an actual conversation now out in public that shows the regime acknowledging its own culpability and expressing fear about the u.n. discovering it. so there's already, it seems to me, a sufficient level without tempting fate on sources and methods. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and secretary hagel, if i may, just quickly on the administration's draft resolution, would that draft authorization allow the u.s. military to conduct military

operations outside of syria? >> no. it would not. >> and would it allow military operations against foreign governments other than syria? >> no. >> and would it authorize military operations against non-state actors? >> no. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator markey. let me on behalf of the committee thank all of our distinguishes witnesses. they have been testifying for an excess of three and a half hours. and i appreciate their information they've imparted with the committee. let me say that i appreciate the thoughtfulness with which each member has come to this issue at this hearing. and express their concerns and their views. and i have listened closely and understand some of those concerns.

i've listened to my colleagues particularly express concern as to whether the actions we conceive would in fact deter or degrade the ability of assad to pursue chemical weapons attacks in the future. and i'm reminded in a much different context of an experience i had in my own life. general dempsey is actually originally from my area. jersey city. and i grew up in a tough neighborhood. and we had a bully in the neighborhood. and i was walking along the street one day and he just slapped me in the face and i went away and told my mom and she said avoid him. avoid him. just avoid him. and a week later i saw the bully again and i did all my best to avoid him, and this time he punched me in the nose. and it was bloody. and i went back to her and said you know, ma, i tried to avoid

him. she says just avoid him. and it wasn't until the third time when we were by a construction site that i got a piece of wood and whacked the bully and that was the end of it. i never got whacked again. it's not quite this, but there is a lesson to be learned. assad has made a calculation now through inching up several times that he can use chemical weapons or he believes he can use chemical weapons without consequence. and in doing so, there is a global message that, in fact, other state actors and other non-state actors may believe they can do so as well. that's a critical challenge for the national security of the united states. and i hope members will consider that as we move towards final action. i want to advise members. i think we're close to a tech on a resolution. so they should consider that it is likely that we may very well

be in a business meeting some time after the classified hearing tomorrow morning. and we look forward to working with all of the members of the committee. >> i think you said it. i want to thank the witnesses for spending this much time in the hearing and in advance of the hearing. i want to thank all the members for credible thoughtfulness throughout all of this. and i appreciate everybody coming back to be a part of this and taking it so seriously. thank you. >> the thank bs of the committee, this hearing is adjourned. >> all right. so there it is. as senator menendez, the chairman of the committee, more than three and a half hours of nonstop testimony. the secretary of state john kerry clearly dominating the response. the general dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, playing a relatively

minor supporting role. it was really john kerry defending the president's decision to go before congress, seek authorization for military force in syria and then strongly defending some sort of military force promising it would not be another iraq. promising it would not be another afghanistan. promising no u.s. troops would be on the ground although in response to one question, he seemed albeit slightly, to leave that possibility open. but later he sought to shut that door. let's bring in fareed zakaria. as the others leave this committee room, fareed, what did you think? by my estimate, it looks like there's the votes in the committee to pass the resolution that the president seeks. i saw at least three or four democrat who is were likely to vote nay. and at least four republicans

who were likely to vote nay. but it looks like they have a majority when the roll call takes place. >> i think you're right, come wolf. i think this will probably pass. it was always likely to pass in the senate and in this committee. and i was struck by the fact that as you said, this was john kerry's moment. he dominated the proceedings. he was completely at home, comfortable. at one point he welcomed ed markey to the senate which i thought was a symbol of just how comfortable he felt. he is of course no longer in the senate himself. and it should have been markey welcoming him to the senate. but he handled himself very smoothly, very comfortably, very assured. i thought the senators didn't do as good a job as they could have in asking tough questions. i was struck by how for the most part the questions were either softballs or very detailed, precise questions that dealt with a technical issue.

as markey's when will we get the report from the u.n. inspectors? we didn't get a lot of questions asking about the nature of this conflict that the united states is now getting closer and closer to being actively and militarily involved in. >> senator rand paul asked some tough questions. senator john mccain did, but you're right. most of the questions were fairly predictable. most of the members clearly on board, although there were several who expressed deep skepticism of what the president planned to do. gloria, what did you think? what stuck out in your mind? >> i think when there was skepticism, it was more about the mission. we didn't hear a lot of skepticism about the quality of intelligence, about the chain of custody leading to assad. i think the toughest questions in a way were from rand paul, potential presidential candidate. there's a whole back story going on here, of course. >> that exchange with kerry was lively. >> very lively. he said look, are you going to listen to us? because you're finally bringing it to congress and i like that because that's what he believes the constitution requires. now that you're bringing it to

us, he said, will you listen to us? meaning if we were to vote against you and paul also said by the way i don't think it's likely we will, but if we were to vote against you, i need a guarantee from you that you will listen to us and not go in and kerry could not give him that assurance. said the president hasn't told him what he's decided. but it seems very clear from listening to kerry and to the president that this is a president who believes he's got to do what he's got to do. and john mccain, of course, was also asking some pretty direct questions about the mission itself. as you know, mccain wants a much more robust mission. >> right. he wants to see this mission expand into an effort to remove bashar al assad from power in damascus. although he also says no boots on the ground, no troops -- u.s. troops in syria. dana bash is our chief congressional correspondent. you watched all three and a half hours like we did. it looks to me like the president will have the votes at least in this committee which was totally predictable.

>> reporter: that's right. this is a committee that it tends to be full of more hawkish senators and others. but i'm here with one of the republican senators who definitely asked some of the more critical questions. thank you very much. sold or not sold? >> not sold at this point. but we've got another day of this. and in the morning we have some more classified hearings. i want to give the administration the ability to make their case. i'm going to listen carefully to that. >> reporter: i know your questioning was more about russia. but what makes this such a heavy lift for you? >> the number one concern for me is it's going to get away from us. it isn't just syria. syria probably has very little ability to do much harm to us. it could to our allies. hezbollah is another concern. when and if that happens, this becomes a problem that it's going to be very hard to get the genie back in the bottle. so i'm really concerned about that. the other thing that really worries me about this is

everybody's talking about if we don't do something, that it's going to undermine our credibility in the region. well, what happens if we do do something and we don't finish assad? what are our allies going to say? what kind of assad will crawl out and beat his chest and say i won and here i am. how will allies respond to that? >> reporter: the other part of that argument is that if the united states doesn't stand up even on a moral level, then what's the point? what's the point of standing for the kind of morality that the u.s. tends to stand for? >> i think you have to make decisions on a case by case basis. there's no question what this man did was terrible, awful. remember this wasn't the first time he's used gas on his people. this was classified until a few minutes ago as secretary kerry said. that it's been in the teens the number of times he used gas on his people.

this has been going on for some time. >> reporter: isn't that more of a reason to stop him in his tracks now that the genie is out of its bottle? >> if you're going to do that you should do it rather than a limited action. i think that's going to undermine what people think about us in the region. i come back to we all know what day one's go i think to look like. what about day two, three, four five? what does success look like here? that's one of the things we're having a troubling time to paint the picture for me. >> what are you hearing from your constituents? >> well, i think the constituents are largely against this. some people are adamantly against it. most people are more moderately against it.i'm certainly not ge the thought to pull the trigger on it at home. >> reporter: i know you can't tell us details, maybe you can tell us our position. thanks for stopping. back to you. >> we're going to continue our special coverage.

still ahead, a high-powered debate. should the united states strike syria or not? bill krystle, robin wright, they are both standing by. also what are the syrian rebels doing? could they get out of an attack against the bashar al assad regime? stay with us. you're watching a special "situation room" report. crisis in syria. [ male announcer] surprise -- you're having triplets. [ babies crying ] surprise -- your house was built on an ancient burial ground.

[ ghosts moaning ] surprise -- your car needs a new transmission. [ coyote howls ] how about no more surprises? now you can get all the online trading tools you need without any surprise fees. ♪ it's not rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

the secretary of state john kerry says there is no doubt the syrian regime is responsible for the chemical weapon massacre. but years ago he sat down with assad. we'll have that and more coming up in our special report.

if we reject this resolution, doesn't it send a serious -- as you already said -- a seriously bad message to our friends and allies alike. encourages our enemies and would dispirit our friends particularly those fighting in syria. but not only there but around the world. >> i cannot emphasize enough how much they are looking to us now making judgments about us for the long-term and how critical the choice we make here will be not just to discretion of syria,

but to the support we may or may not anticipate in the mid-east peace process, to the future of egypt, to the transformation of the middle east. >> i would also emphasize if it's the wrong resolution, it can do just as much damage in my view. >> welcome back to our continuing special "situation room" report. crisis in syria. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. once again we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. joining us now bill kristol and robin wright. bill, what did you think? did the secretary of state -- because hagel and dempsey were supporting actors in this testimony today. did the secretary of state make a convinces case that there should be a vote in favor of military action in syria? >> i'm not sure he actually convinced people one way or the other, but i think the dynamics of the situation are now that more people on the hill look at it, i think the harder it is to

justify a no vote. >> to justify a no vote. >> yes. i think he will get a big vote out of the foreign relations committee. and that will build up to the house. >> once it passes in the senate, then it's got to go to the house. but with the speaker of john boehner now in favor and eric cantor the majority leader in favor, what do you think? >> there are democrat who is are against and some distressful of president obama's confidence in executing this and wavering back and forth over the last weeks and months. when the rubber hits the road, a lot of republicans would like to say a yes vote is difficult, unpleasant, and reluctant vote. but a no vote would be disastrous. >> what do you think robin? >> what was striking was how he tried to sell both sides on the different strategies. one he tried to say, look, this is going to be a targeting,

limited operation. then this is going to degrade their ability to carry out attacks at all. and one side limits the u.s. involvement, looks like it's a one-time thing. and the other opens it up for if we don't degrade enough, we'll go back. the other thing that was striking was when secretary kerry talked about something that's going to be talked about more tomorrow. and that was that the u.s. has a sense that assad might take different kinds of actions if the u.s. strikes militarily. that they have indications that he's fought through what some other operations might be. and that was intriguing. >> stand by for a moment. i want to continue this conversation. we'll take a quick break. a lot more to discuss including this dual-pronged strategy that the secretary of state discussed today. one strategy just sort of to punish bashar al assad for allegedly using chemical weapons. but a second strategy to make sure he loses power. much more on that when we come back.

♪ ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] the all-new 2014 lexus is. this is your move. [ chainsaw buzzing ]

humans. sometimes, life trips us up. sometimes, we trip ourselves up. and although the mistakes may seem to just keep coming at you, so do the solutions. like multi-policy discounts from liberty mutual insurance. save up to 10% just for combining your auto and home insurance. call liberty mutual insurance at... to speak with an insurance expert and ask about all the personalized savings available for when you get married, move into a new house, or add a car to your policy. personalized coverage and savings -- all the things humans need to make our world a little less imperfect. call... and ask about all the ways you could save. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

u.s. officials once thought they could deal with bashar al assad, but no more. our special report crisis in syria continues in a moment. like this samsung 60" led. savings event is here! on rollback: you save over 150 bucks. and this vizio 60" smart led. on rollback: you save 100 bucks! get more for your money at walmart's super savings event.

it was a historic and dramatic day three and a half hours of testimony today before the senate foreign relations committee. dana bash is our chief correspondent. she's got a special guest who's just emerged. >> reporter: we have senator bob corker. first of all, i just spoke with one of your colleagues senator risch of idaho who is not sold. based on your conversations, do you feel this is now? this authorization will now pass? >> well, we'll see. we're going to -- you know, i think we'll have a written document in about 30 minutes.

and we'll move that around to committee members. and we plan to have an intelligence briefing again tomorrow at length. and then i think it's possible that we have a markup tomorrow at noon. and that's possible. we'll see. but, look. i got a sense today of where people are in the committee. you can tell by questions that were asked. i think there's a reasonably good chance it will make it based on the types of questions and responses we heard today. >> reporter: now, just observing you and the chair senator menendez, it looked like you were almost working on the draft while this was going on. i know you want to wait to show your other committee members, but my understanding is that you will have an expiration date and will make clear that there will be no boots on the ground. is that accurate? and anything else you can tell how you're going to narrow this broad legislation? >> so, again, out of respect for the people i serve with on the committee, i think it's best that they look the draft first.

and time too digest before we start talking to the media. on the other hand, i do think that very explicitly we would want to address the boots on the ground issue. and i think we've done that. >> reporter: just real quick, you asked the question about boots on the ground. he seemed to fumble a little bit saying he was thinking out loud. what did you like of his response? >> obviously i didn't want like his thinking out loud response at all. he did come back and close the door on that. it was useful and i appreciated him doing it. >> reporter: thank you. i appreciate it. wolf, back to you. >> thanks. it's fascinating the division that has emerged. you noticed that within the republican party on these international issues, you have marco rubio, you have senator corker, john mccain. very tough and forceful. they want the u.s. to take

action. but you have rand paul who's very popular among potential 2016 candidate taking the very opposite position. who's got the upper hand among the republicans? >> i think the internationalists do if -- >> and you're one of them. >> yeah, but if we had a president who we could trust out more to carry out the agenda which i do not believe this president has done. rand paul does not have that much support. if you really break down, there are five senators that agree with rand paul. the wavering republicans -- he's wavering. why is he wavering? because the administration is so fumbled everything over the last weeks or last couple of years that he's deeply doubtful this administration will competently carry out this mission and achieve a real purpose. having said that, i think a lot of republicans will decide for all their doubts with the

administration, it would be more disastrous to vote no. >> listening to the three and a half hours of mostly john kerry talking, this was clearly his day. i couldn't help come away -- i wonder if you did as well -- if it's that important to punish him, why didn't the president just do it and it would have been over with by now and they could have moved on without formal congressional authorization. >> well, this is a issue that history is likely to debate. they certainly bumbled the process. what they should have done first they did last and vice versa. it's very interesting the timing of it, however. because the president leaves tonight for the g 20 summit of the world's 20 industrialized countries and russia. and for him to get the momentum beginning to shift in his direction in washington, very skeptical washington, despite strong polls indicating the american public is not there yet. gives him a bit of a head wind going into these talks and could make an important difference in

the kind of negotiations and the international flavor of what happens next as well. >> if i were the president and his supporters, i wouldn't get carried away yet. we always knew the senate foreign relations committee is not always reflective of the entire senate. certainly not reflective of the house of representatives. let's see what happens because there's still a question mark hovering over this entire initiative. thanks very much. a special interview with senator john mccain. he's standing by live. we'll speak with the senator from arizona right after this. ingeniously uses radar to alert you to possible collision threats. and in certain situations it can apply the brakes. introducing the all-new 2014 chevrolet impala with available crash imminent braking. always looking forward. while watching your back. that's american ingenuity to find new roads. and recently the 2013 chevrolet impala received the j.d. power award for highest ranked

large car in initial quality. woman: everyone in the nicu -- all the nurses wanted to watch him when he was there 118 days. everything that you thought was important to you changes in light of having a child that needs you every moment. i wouldn't trade him for the world. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. if you're caring for a child with special needs, our innovative special care program

offers strategies that can help. ugh! actually progresso's soup has pretty bold flavor. i love bold flavors! i'd love it if you'd open the chute! [ male announcer ] progresso. surprisingly bold flavor for a heart healthy soup. surprisingly bold flavor i had pain in my abdomen... it just wouldn't go away.thing. i was spotting, but i had already gone through menopause. these symptoms may be nothing... but they could be early warning signs of a gynecologic cancer,

such as cervical, ovarian, or uterine cancer. feeling bloated for no reason. that's what i remember. seeing my doctor probably saved my life. warning signs are not the same for everyone. if you think something's wrong... see your doctor. ask about gynecologic cancer. and get the inside knowledge.

let's get right to the senator from arizona, john mccain. the former presidential candidate is joining us. senator, you think john kerry your old friend there from the senate foreign relations committee helped or hurt your cause today? >> i think he helped the cause of a resolution. i think he was very spirited. not too surprisingly, he did about 98% of the talking. and i don't mean that in a derogatory fashion. he really i think as secretary of state was the key spokesperson. so i think he did a good job. i'm not sure he was totally convincing, but he responded to the questions pretty well. some of his answers, i didn't think much of. but he did get the message out that the mission is -- the

resolutions say we are to degrade the air defenses of bashar assad and most importantly to bolster the opposition providing them with the equipment and the training that they need in order to be effective against bashar assad. >> when you say degrade the air defenses, is that a specific commitment as part of the military operation? that they would go after serious air defense system? >> let me put it this way. i'm sorry. let me put it in more precise fashion. degrade their chemical weapons capability. >> that's what i thought. >> you degrade the chemical weapons capability delivery systems. you don't attack the weapons themselves. then you're attacking the surface to surface missile capabilities. so by inference in my view, if you're taking out his capability to deliver chemical weapons, you're also taking out his

capability to deliver non-chemical weapons. you see my point. >> i understand what you're saying. you also made the point that by advertising all of this that the tomahawk cruise missiles would go after these specific sites. do you believe that the syrians have the capability of moving some of that stuff around to avoid some serious punishment? >> well, there's many reports that they're already moving a lot of them. but they can't move their airfields which their aircraft operate on. which are one of the delivery vehicles for these chemical weapons. but certainly the scud missiles can move them all around into populated areas. that was the one area where the secretary and i, my old friend, got into a spirited difference of opinion. the israelis don't give many warning, and they've struck many times. it's common sense you don't warn them and give them plenty of time to disperse. and you put more civilians in

danger. of course obviously. there are open reports saying that they're moving some of their stuff into the russian naval base. >> the israelis by my count have done at least four air strikes over the past year when they felt there was a potential threat. they didn't announce it in advance. they just did it. they didn't even confirm afterwards they did it although the secretary of state today confirmed they did that. i was surprised by his confirmation. >> i suppose the israelis are probably not happy he announced it. >> everyone know they did it, but they never publicly talked about it before or after. here's the mission you have from your perspective, from the administration's perspective. getting the american public on board. a new abc news/washington post poll out today, should the u.s. launch military strikes against the syrian government? 36% support it. 59% oppose it. you've got a lot of work ahead of you, senator.

>> i agree, wolf. and it's obviously got to do with iraq and afghanistan and the war weariness. i think that really what the president needs to do and i recommended this to him in our meeting, that he sit there in the oval office at his desk and speak to the american people. meanwhile showing the pictures of these dead children stacked up like wood and the terrible atrocities that this guy is committing. but also explain to the american people that this is turning into a regional conflict. it can't be confined to just syria. it's spreading as you know to jordan, to lebanon, iraq is unraveling. and the effect that success would have as far as iran is concerned who is the chief sponsor. so i think the president needs to sit there at his desk in the oval office and say my fellow americans, and i think that that is one of the only things that could have a significant effect. >> there's a greater lopsided

majority opposing the u.s. supplying weapons to the syrian rebels. should the u.s. apply weapons to the syrian rebels? only 27% support it. 70% oppose it. the president made a commitment to start doing it a few months ago, but that hasn't even started yet. did you get a hard date from the president of the united states when you met with him yesterday when the u.s. would start delivering lethal arms to those syrian rebels? >> i have been told indirectly that it's now. that it's happening now. but we're having classified briefing tomorrow by the same people. and we'll have more specific information then. and i hope that the president can unclassify that information. wolf, americans are not well informed on this issue. they haven't been told by the president and our leadership exactly what's happening.

they read references to it, but they don't want us to get into another conflict and lose more brave young americans. that's why there has to be a much better explanation. i'm going to go back to arizona and do a bunch of town halls. but i understand why my constituents really don't really understand this and are confused because they never got some real, hard facts. and the danger and threat that this guy poses to the whole region and therefore the world. >> we heard a strong different view from your republican colleague rand paul. we're going to get into that a little bit. we've got some other issues to talk about involving syria. senator mccain, if you can stand by for a moment we'll continue this conversation after this short break. >> sure. sfx: oil gushing out of pipe. sfx: birds chirping.

♪ [ 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. the all-new 2014 lexus is. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in.

with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. hihing, helicopters buzzing, and truck engine humming. sfx: birds chirping sfx: birds chirping at humana, our medicare agents sit down with you and ask. being active. and being with this guy. [ male announcer ] getting to know you is how we help you choose the humana medicare plan that works best for you. mi familia. ♪

[ male announcer ] we want to help you achieve your best health, so you can keep doing the things that are important to you. taking care of our customers. taking care of her. and the next thing on our list is bungee jumping. [ male announcer ] helping you -- now that's what's important to us.

we're back with senator john mccain who is joining us live now from capitol hill. 3 1/2 hour hearing today before the senate foreign relations committee. we heard your republican colleague senator rand paul suggest if there is a vote and the vote is clearly against

president, that president should make a commitment that he'll not use military force. it's likely to pass but we're not sure. do you think rand paul is right? >> well, i think he's right in a perfect world. but i also understand why the president would not want to commit at this time because, one, we haven't even taken up the resolution and finished it so he doesn't know exactly what the resolution is. so, it would be hard for him to make that commitment. but i don't think that the president should be required to telegraph what he's going to do. it would depend on the vote, depend on what the house does. there are so many variables that i don't think the president should have to commit at this moment, but rand has a point. he's a very smart guy. >> he has a point on that specific issue, but you totally disagree with him. he doesn't want to get involved

at all in syria and he does reflect a pretty significant point of view not only among republicans but a lot of democrats as well, why does the united states always have to do it? why can't the arab league, the europeans, the nato allies, why is it, senator, that it is always the u.s. that is called upon to deal with these issues? >> well, first of all, as i said, the issue has not been explained with enough clarity and enough urgency by the president and even people like me who are deeply concerned about this issue and they must be. but second of all, and they are war weary. but second of all, what we're seeing and a lot of it has to do with the nation's economy is a rise in the, quote, noninterventionists, some call them isolationists, i will call them noninterventionists, but they have to understand and the american people have to understand that the united states of america is a unique nation throughout the 20th

century, it was called the american century because we led and we sacrificed but we made the world a much better place. and no one else can lead. and when we don't lead, there's a vacuum and we are seeing, in my view, what the results of that vacuum and, quote, leading from behind is in the middle east. it's in a state of chaos not just -- not just syria which is erupting into a regional conflict but egypt and other parts of it, we're seeing the return of al qaeda in iraq and movement across the iraq and syrian border. the killings in iraq are higher than they've been since 2008. so, i think we're seeing the effects of the absence of american leadership in the middle east as we speak. >> and on a much lighter note, you were caught today, you know what i'm talking about, senator, there you are. there's the picture, during the 3 1/2-hour hearing, you were playing a little poker our

iphone, what was that all about? >> as much as i always listen in rapt attention constantly with remarks of my colleagues over a 3 1/2-hour period, occasionally i get a little bored and so i resorted. but the worst thing about it is i lost thousands of dollars on this game. >> you what? >> i lost thousands of dollars. >> what do you mean? >> well, you know, it was a poker game and, you know, you play with play money, you know, the -- >> but you were playing for real money? >> no, no! no. >> just wanted to clarify that, senator. i hear you say you lost thousands of dollars. >> thousands of fake dollars. >> thousands of fake dollars. okay, i'm sorry, it's much better. hey, senator mccain, thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. just ahead would a u.s. attack be punishing enough to prevent another poison gas massacre? hihing, helicopters buzzing, and truck engine humming. sfx: birds chirping

sfx: birds chirping to help protect your eye health as you age... would you take it? well, there is. [ male announcer ] it's called ocuvite. a vitamin dedicated to your eyes, from bausch + lomb. as you age, eyes can lose vital nutrients. ocuvite helps replenish key eye nutrients. ocuvite is uniquely formulated to help protect your eye health. now that's a pill worth taking. [ male announcer ] ocuvite. help protect your eye health. and now there's ocuvite eye + multi. an eye vitamin and multivitamin in one. we've always been on the forefront of innovation. when the world called for speed... ♪ ...when the world called for stealth... ♪ ...intelligence... endurance... affordability... adaptability... and when the world asked for the future.

staying ahead in a constantly evolving world. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman. sfx: oil gushing out of pipe. sfx: birds chirping. ♪

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

tom foreman is in our virtual studio with the retired air force lieutenant colonel rick francona taking a closer look at how effective some sort of military action against syria

would be. what are you guys seeing? >> we are looking specifically at this notion that senator mccain raised about attacking the air assets there and you think a half dozen targets truly could make a difference. >> the six air bases constitute the bulk of the combat power of the syrian air force. >> and those air bases if we zoom in on some of them here, some are very important because they have the most advanced aircraft and support there, what would cruise missiles hit if they targeted this? >> you want to go after things that make a difference, the fueling supplies and points. you also want to hit the mains nance areas, limit their ability to generate sorties and the command and control resident on the base and, of course, if you can take out the runways. >> so in effect what you are doing is attacking the repair stations and the fuel stations that's how you shut down the traffic. >> exactly. >> and this would have a real impact because the advantage the government has had over the rebels in many cases is they have air cover, so what are the political ramifications of this

and why would it possibly work? this sort of plan would allow the white house to say, yes, it punished the weapons capability in a limited way and opponents would say at least it was a limited attack on truly military targets and it would allow john mccain to say it was diminishening the basic capacity of the assad regime. >> absolutely. >> and whether or not it will overcome the public doubts, wolf, we'll have to see. >> obviously lots of questions out there. lots more happening tomorrow as well. tomorrow morning the president, u.s. time, will be in sweden for a joint news conference. we'll have live coverage of that coming up at around 8 :30 a.m. pern. later tomorrow more congressional hearings, we'll have special coverage here on cnn throughout the day as the president continues to try to make the case for some sort of military action against targets in syria. critical floor debate in the house and the senate. that's scheduled for next week.

lots at stake right now. i'll be back later tonight. 9:00 p.m. eastern, i'm filling in for piers morgan only here on cnn. thanks very much for watching. i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room." erin burnett "outfront" starts right now. "outfront" next the president scores a big political win today. does that put america closer to launching a strike on syria? then the drug nicknames mali being glamorized in songs and pop culture. also being blamed for deaths. tonight we speak to an addict who tells us why that high is unlike any he's ever had. and a judge is ruling on a taboo subject. is there ever a time it would be okay to say the n-word at work? the judge ruled on this. let's go "outfront." good evening, ev