here's what the president told wolf blitzer. >> it is a potentially positive development. i have to say it's unlikely we would have arrived at that point where there were even public statements like that without a credible military threat to deal with the chemical weapons use inside of syria. >> the president told abc news that strikes would be, quote, absolutely, end quote, on pause if assad gives up the chemical weapons. i've heard of leading from behind, but did you ever think you would see putin bailing out president obama? >> newt, i don't know where you've been over the past two years, but we couldn't even get putin to acknowledge syria was a risk. he vetoed three u.n. resolutions. syria wouldn't even negotiate with es over the last two years. i don't think this is leading from behind. i think the only reason the russians are coming forward is because the president put the use of force on the table.

>> i think that the russians look at the vote count and thought why wait, let's go ahead and help him out now? i want i think that putin looked at what the president was credibly threatening to do, to hold assad to kem k58 weapons, which doesn't just threaten people on the ground, but threatens our own troops on the battlefield, and putin didn't want to have that fight, so this is a great development. we could avert a military action. >> it will be interesting to watch. you think that maybe kerry's unbelievably small strike comment thork was the final breaking point? >> well, something worked. here on "the crossfire" two members the chairman robert menendez supports a strike. and senator rand paul opposes a military strike. senator paul, the first question to you. why do you think the russians came forward today, after being so obstructive for so long?

>> i think anytime diplomacy is possible, it's preferable. i think it's a great development. there have been discussions with the russians for months, really i they on to a year now, there have been discussions -- >> with no movements. >> by apparently they've been in fair of some negotiated settlement. how did they get there, is the threat of force bringing them there, i think is unknown. the president needs to take credit to move forward and avoid an all-out war, i say the more the better. i think war or bombing assad will lead to more instability and more likely kem dale weapons in the hands of terrorists if we destabilize assad. >> i have to say that i'm cautiously looking at what the russians are suggesting. we'll see. you know, after two years in which the russians have vetoed every effort at the united nations, including simply recognizing that the use of chemicals weapons in general is

a violation of international law, without even ascribing blame at that point in time, they voted against that. they voted against a simple press release, saying xwsh employ to send inspectors in. so i'm somewhat cautiously looking at the set of circumstances, but look, the only reason -- if this is true, if the russians are serious in their proposal, and more importantly, if the syrians are actually going to give it up, and they can do that right away at the security council in the next day or two, go right in there, with a resolution that's very specific that says all of the sites, unfettered access to the weapons, but access throughout the country to determine the sites and be able to secure them? the only reason we might get there is because of the threat of a credible military force. >> given that threat, senator reid has apparently announced he will postpone the vote in the senate. the whip count we have seen in the house is like 5 to 1

against. do you think it would be wiser to slow thing down and hold off to those kinds of votes until we see whether or not in fact we can get the united nations and the russians to do something that's real and not just public relations? illustrates i'm going to defer to the majority leader in the senate context to determine what's the best way to move forward, working in concert with the administration. if the administration believes this is a serious effort by the russians that will in fact be embraced by the syrians, and we can move forward. we can see that in very short order. then that is obviously a welcomed effort, but i truly believe that the only reason we are at this point is because the president said he had made a decision that in fact this was necessary, because the senate foreign relations committee moved forward in a bipartisan fashion, in a targeted fashion. i think the russians said, you know, this is a real potential consequence to our own interests. >> i agree with you.

senator paul, what do you think about the delay in vote? i want i think it's a great way out for the president, because i think he would have been handed a rebuke. i think it's a good chance that the house would vote against going into syria. would he even obey the constitution and say i've been told i don't have authority, therefore i can't do it? that's been an open question, because he hasn't admitted he would abide by it. whether it's a good idea or bad idea, i think it allows diplomacy more time to see if it can work this out. it won't get to what the president said hess was going to do, which is punish assad. >> getting rid of the chemical weapons i think was the ultimate goal. >> but he was going to punish assad, but not attacking -- >> and send a message to iran and north korea that there are consequences. the consequence here is you're going to give your chemical weapons over. >> right. i think it's a good idea to have them turned over to an international authority. i'm not going to complain about a good thing.

even though it's supposed to be crossfire i think we could all agree it would be a good idea for the to bomb syria. i think at the adds to the instability. more likely that israel or turkey will be attacked, more likely refugees will go into jordan. >> i think the resolution pretty much says that, this in essence would be a win. we say in the resolution, this is to detier and degrade assad's ability to be able to continue to deliver chemical weapons against innocent civilians. in the last instance he killed over 400 children. to me i look at these pictures and it shakes my conscience. i notice the speaker is a great admirer of history. i'm reminded of what happens when we do not act in circumstances such as this. i think in essence, that's what the resolution called for. if they give it up in this way,

we will have plird to a large degree in a better sense, because you can't deliver chemicals weapons that you don't have access to. >> exactly. >> now you can continue to go ahead against assad in war crimes, which i certainly this i that we should through the united nations, pursue assad in terms of a war crimes criminal, which i believe he is for what he's done to the u.s. citizens. >> i don't think anybody do you see that he's probably a war criminal, but on the other side we've sees priests beheaded by rebels, we've seen a rebel eating the heart of a soldier. it's not like there's no atrocity on the other side, and al qaeda is on the other side. i can't conceive how we could be allies with al qaeda. >> i don't suggest we would be allies with al qaeda. there are vetted elements of the syrian opposition that we believe that are largely. >> no, they're not allies.

>> -- that share our values. if at the end of the day you sit back and say there's no consequences. go kill another 1400, go kill another 14,000, at what point does the consequences of those actions not only send a message in syria, but globally. we want the ayatollah in iran to heed our message, do not cross that line towards nuclear weapons. we want the dictator of north korea to understand, do not cross a line as well. this is i think even beyond assad. if we can get the united nations quickly to go ahead and intervene and actually obtain all these chemical weapons, secure them and destroy them, i think we would have made a good statement. >> but there's a real distinction between whatever happens in terms of the chemical weapons and the syrian civil war. all the evidence we're getting is the country by enorm on you weapons is deeply opposed to the united states picking sites in

the syrian civil war, partly because, as senator paul said, there's this deep keeling that there's the bad guys and the bad guys. >> that's exactly why working with senator corker, the ranks republican on the committee, and getting a universe that went from john mccain, who is very hawkish on these issues to dib durbin, who's very dovish, to find the balance, and what did we say? no american troops on the ground. we don't want to be engaged in that civil war -- >> unless the chemical weapons break free. >> and in fact to have a time limit of 60 days, which many would argue the president has under the war powers act anyhow, to be able to proceed. it seems to me what we have done here is not get involved. no one wants to get involved in syria's civil war, but we may very well have stopped a slaughter. >> i agree, senator paul, i want to go back to -- >> the big exception to ground took place that secretary kerry

admitted that, we would need 75,000 troops to secure the weapons. that would be boots on the ground. the question is, is it more likely for that to happen if we destabilize assad or less likely? >> i would like to talk about -- >> at the committee hearing, i must say, when he was pressed on this issue, he said, look, let's close that door. no american troops on the ground. i think the world understands if chemical weps caches are open and subjected to the possibility of terrorists, hopefully there would be international effort to secure those weapons. so they don't go against us, our interests. >> i think they would. >> if we destabilize assad, it more likely the chemical weapons would be free roaming? i think it's more liable likely that the chemical weapons may fall into the hands of al qaeda. >> well, okay. let's hold on a minute. in his interview with wolf, president obama also made a strong case for one thing, that

is keeping our troops safe. you'll hear him make his case next, and i'll ask senator paul, if he agrees. just by talking to a helmet. it grabbed the patient's record before we even picked him up. it found out the doctor we needed was at st. anne's. wiggle your toes. [ driver ] and it got his okay on treatment from miles away. it even pulled strings with the stoplights. my ambulance talks with smoke alarms and pilots and stadiums. but, of course, it's a good listener too. [ female announcer ] today cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everything works like never before.

jim, i adore the pool at your hotel.ver had to make.ting the internet of everything. anna, your hotels have wondrous waffle bars.

ryan, your hotels' robes are fabulous. i have twelve of them. twelve? shhhh, i'm worth it& what i'm trying to say is, it's so hard to pick just one of you, so i'm choosing all of you with hotels.com. a loyalty program that requires no loyalty. plus members can win a free night every day only at hotels.com humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer.

call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? welcome back. in the crossfire tonight, breaking news. president obama told cnn's wolf blitzer the u.s. is seriously considering russia's offer to

remove chemical weapons from syria. the president also made a strong case for enforces the chemical weapons treaty. >> it is important for assad to understand that, you know, the chemical weapons ban, which has been in place, is one that the entire civilizeside world just about respects and observing. it's something that protects our troops, even when we're in the toughest war theaters, from being threatened by these chemical weapons. it's something that protects women and children and civilians. joining us again, senate foreign relations commit aye chairman bob menendez and committee member rand paul. senator paul, again to you, do you think that the united states should be a party to the chemical weapons ban treaty? >> yes. i think one of the problems we've had and senator menendez talks about this. we've had all these votes in the security council, to me i consider them to be show votes.

we know in advance i want so how would you divorce it? >> what i would say, instead we -- republicans and democrats, we do a show vote on our side, and nothing every happens. instead of trying to figure out the areas, we have two show votes, and then we're done with the issue and nothing gets accomplished. the security council is somewhat the same. what i would say is, and in general, we need more dialogue with russian and china. i think, for example, the answer to north korea is with china and through our diplomatic relations with china. >> how do you specifically enforce the chemical weapons treaty. if the security council won't act, because russia is blockic us, how do you enforce -- >> we have to convince. >> we only act when russia acts? >> no, no, in order to have diplomacy, if i give you money for bread, you think you have something more than what i've got, and i think i got more than what i gave. both parties to a transaction

feel like you had a victory. that's why we trade. russia has to feel like they had a victory, and that's when diplomacy works. i don't think we've had to try very much. what we need is the diplomacy where we saw to russia and china, we're big trading partners, we want to do thing that will enrich your people. >> so when russia refuses to engage with us, our hands are tied? the only reason they came forward is -- returna is coming forward now, because actually the president started to enforce this treaty. >> maybe, but they've been coming forward for a year. we've been talking to russia -- >> it go to the point where assad killed 1400 of his own people. >> the administration have admitted that the russians have already agreed to sene steps with regard to a transition. they've been saying that all along. they say we're halfway there. >> but with the treaty, it's a whole different situation. >>ed russians for two years, two

years, and i don't think they're show votes, with all due respect to my colleague. i don't think there were show votes saying you cannot use chemical weapons isn't a show vote. saying that seeking to get u.n. inspectors is not a show vote. the russians for two years have stopped -- and yet they supposedly agreed to geneva too, but they haven't moved towards geneva 2. for so long as they believe assad can stay in power, think -- even though he's a brutal killer of his people. so the only reason that the russians are now engaged is for two reasons. number one, they saw the possibility of these strikes as degrating assad in a way that they could not only deliver, but might undermine his ability to stay in power. they say and that's not in our interests, we have to change our dynam

dynamic, we have an interest, this is the russians speaking. secondly, because they're getting beat up, including in the arab world, for taking the side of someone -- >> let me challenge one of your points, you know, the secretary of state today talked about having an unbelievably small strike, and in fact got john mccain, who ended up tweeting that it was unbelievably unhelpful to have an unbelievably small strike. i mean, the fact is the russians didn't think that we were going to degrade assad that dramatically. i think one of the challenges senator, that you've had with your colleagues, and i know you worked hard with bob corker to have a bipartisan effort, but if you look at this one poll, the country was asked, we have a national interest in syria? by 69 to 29, they say no. now, you had made the case on the floor today that there's a national security interest that's genuine, but the president had the following to say when he was asked, is assad

actually capable of threatening us directly? >> the nothing that mr. assad could significantly threaten the united states is just not the case. >> so isn't part of the problem with the country -- >> the inference, knute, to how you describe threat. i think the in that respect, i'm not worried. i am worried, i am worried about what assad will continue to do to destabilize the region. i visited the region earlier this year. i had the king of jordan who said at this rate, i don't know how long the kingdom can sustain the overflow of the refugees. i can see the challenges to our ally in turkey. i can see the consequences beyond that. the national security threat which is in fact that you have a situation in iran where the eye

tola is looking at what the americans are saying and saying do not march towards nuclear weapons. if in fact he believes, hey, assad used chemical weapons with impuni impunity, no consequences, i can march toward nuclear weapons. i think this is also a national security interest. >> so you think the president was wrong to say today to wolf blitzer that assad can't threaten us. >> country to country, i don't think that is the president's children. all of our concern is what the security threat is greater, both for the region as well as for our allies. >> assad was bullying this country in an interview this morning. he went on cbs to try to bully the american people and threatening strikes. so i think the president's right to say -- >> here's the point. even if we talk about indirect threats to american interest or national security, threat to israel, i ask the question, more

less likely that israel gets attacked if we bomb assad. i think more likely. if you look at the refugee question in jordan, it is destabilizing to jordan. more or less likely that there will be more refugees if we bomb assad. i think there will be more. more or less likely that turkey gets attacked crun. i think it's more likely. crunch the ayatollah in iran says all this bluster about me not getting nuclear weapons, for us, in that region, to let turkey and saudi arabia and others say if iran has nuclear weapon, we need to have num clear weapons too. >> this is an argument for why the president shouldn't be willy-nilly be drawing red lines. the more red lines you draw --

the president has lost face. he's lost credibility. but the united states has a great and ferocious ability to defend ourselves. i don't think there is all of a sudden american credibility going out the window. the president's credibility's on the line, but the -- >> the red line was an international red line. it's not just that we said. >> and you said you were for the creme cal weapons band ban treaty. >> in addition, i think that when we talk about iran, that is a national security concern of the united states, not only because of our ally israel, but because of the consequences in that entire region of a nuclear armed iran. so i don't think it's about the president losing face.

it's about whether or not the united states has the credibility in the world to ultimately back up what it says it intends to do and hopefully never have to pull the trigger as a result. >> if they go ahead with votes in the house, and if in fact the president loses decisively, is he then con strained crunch having come to the congress, is he bound by the congress crunch. >> i think the president -- that's a decision the commander in chief has to make. we don't have 535 commanders in chief this this country, numbers of members of the house and the senate. there's only one. in the last election, they elected barack obama. he'll have to determine that question. >> let me answer your question also. because the constitution's very explicit. the initi the initiation of war is

congressional authority. >> i want to thank senator rand paul and chairman hernandez. we are going to cease-fire. we have actually something we agree on about what the president needs to do. >> believe it or not.

thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: for teaching us that you can't create the future... by clinging to the past. and with that: you're history. instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. 80 thousand of us investing billions... in everything from the best experiences below... to the finest comforts above. we're not simply saluting history... we're making it. like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up.

yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪

tonight on crossfire, we've been debating whether the u.s.

should attack syria now let's call a cease-fire. we both agree that today's developments with russia is a gre great development. we also agree that the president has a big mountain to climb. look at these polls showing overwhelming public support just before the iraq war and afghan war. >> this is one of the most tumultuous periods of change. the last 48 hours, so many things are happening. it will be interesting to see what his speech is like tomorrow night because it's in a very different setting than anyone expected tomorrhis morning. >> those poll numbers are not reflective of where the american public is. this is a war-weary nation. they were duped into war for

weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. and. >> i love your confidence in the intelligence agency. >> fortunately, we're double checking, and we have it on tape. >> here's another thing we do agree on. your opinion matters. you can weigh in on our fire back question via facebook or twitter. if you are are congress, would you authorize a vote to strike syria? right now only 19% say yes. 81% say no. >> the debate continues online. from the left i'm stephanie cutter. >> on the right, i'm newt gingrich. erin burnett out front starts right now. out front, will america lead a military strike against syria. president obama spoke with wolf blitzer today. and we're