obstructing us for two years. newt, sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. this is progress. the president's use of force worked and you should admit that. i know you're a critic -- >> or this is a very clever maneuver by putin to guarantee that assad survives. time will tell which of those two versions is accurate. but at the moment we have two members of the house in the crossfire tonight. new york democrat steve israel supports president obama's syria plan. tennessee republican marsha blackburn is against it. we're dlited both of you are here. let me start with you, congressman israel. how much do you trust the russians to take the leadership in finding a path when it's their ally who's in the middle of this? >> you will be happy to know, newt, that i agree with ronald reagan's assessment, trust but verify. and we need to spend the next several days verifying. that's exactly what's happening. secretary kerry is en route to geneva to meet with lavrov.

they need to put this in a pressure cooker. if it withstands pressure, we should take it. i believe putin's calculated that it is in his interest to do a deal. we have to ascertain whether it's in our interest to do this deal. >> here's my question, when you look at david kay and other united nations inspectors, they say that this is virtually impossible to do. you have huge amount of chemical weapons scattered around the country in the middle of a civil war. and the process of going in there and taking care of those would be enormously complex. doesn't it worry that it's an interesting ploy but that in reality, the complexity of doing it is going to make it very hard? we won't know whether it's a ploy or a play, whether it's real or not until we vet it out. that's our responsibility right now. we have a couple of benchmarks. one is what happens in geneva. and the second is that the u.n. will produce its report some time next week and congress will take a look at these report. those two benchmarks give us a time frame for assessing whether

we should proceed through a diplomatic route or through other means. i'm hoping more than i've ever hoped in public policy that diplomacy works. but if it doesn't, i believe we have an obligation for our own security not to enable and empower regimes to use chemical weapons against us or their own people. >> david kay and others didn't say this was impossible. they said it was difficult. but the united states does difficult things. so now we have to try to work this out. i think the president has done an excellent job of bringing an ally who's not been very much of an ally -- >> bringing an ally. >> to the table to help us figure out a process. russia's blocked us every step of the way. now they're coming to the table. >> this was all a clever design -- >> it's been our ultimate goal to have -- use of force was a last of resort. over the last two years, the president is working through a political process to topple assad and prevent him from doing what he's done, gassing his own people. >> my question to steve was there's a chance this is going

to solidify assad because in order to get to the weapons, you have to have safety. in order to have safety, you're going to be reinforcing assad's regime. >> the only way this would work is if you call a cease-fire. and a cease-fire means the syrian people are no longer getting killed by assad. and the president's plan can continue to work. now, congresswoman blackburn, i have a question for you. you've been very much a critic against the president. you've been against the targeted strike and critical of the president's plan. i'm not sure what your plan is. could you outline your plan for me of what you would do to get rid of assad? >> yeah. i think there are several things that do need to be done. number one, russia needs -- this is an opportunity for them to prove that they are an honest broker. and we don't know that yet. so this is an opportunity for them to step up and to say, you know, we're going to be an honest broker in this. the second thing is one of the things we hear from people is where is the u.n.? and what is the u.n. going to do

through this process? what are they willing -- why is the international community not a part of this? so these are items that need to happen. another thing that i hear from my constituents who have been very much opposed to this -- and by the way, i have a major military post in my district. i have a lot of military retirees. they are very frustrated that the president has not been able to clearly define the situation, define a strategy, define an execution and he is not talking about iran. >> right. let me just -- to that point about not defining a strategy. obviously we heard him define a strategy last night about deterring and degrading assad from using chemical weapons and there's an opportunity there clearly for russia. but he has outlined a plan for stabilizing the region and toppling assad. and he's been actually exercising it for the last two years. $1 billion in humanitarian aid.

crippling sanctions and supplying weapons to the vetted opposition, the moderate opposition so that they can fight assad's forces -- >> stephanie, he still -- >> that's the plan. >> he still wavers between having a military or a political solution. >> why can't you do both? >> i disagree with you. >> yes, he is. >> he said he's going too far too fast and he should do something other than military. >> your caucus is doing the same thing. >> correct. and now there's the potential to satisfy them, those in your caucus and my caucus who don't support a military strike. now you're criticizing him for trying to satisfy that possibility. i think we've got to keep reasonably all the options on the table and make decisions based on what is in our best interest. and remember what the strategic objective is, my final point on this. the strategic objective has always been to deter and degrade

the syrian regime's chemical weapons capability. not just to protect the citizens of syria but because of iran, because we don't want to send a message to iran that when you use weapons of mass destruction our policy is, don't worry -- >> steve, deter and degrade changed the momentum on the battlefield. are we or are we not going to get rid of assad? when you talk to those in the region, you faubt the humanitarian aid there, talk to some of those in kurdistan. they've not been able to get any help. >> what would you do differently than the president. it's a very difficult. specifically what would you do differently? how would you get the humanitarian aid to those people faster in the middle of a civil war? >> yes. and beginning to work with our allies, working with jordan and turkey and kurdistan. kurdistan, you can talk to the individuals up there. >> which the president is doing -- >> no.

baghdad has not made certain that those in kurdistan have the supplies that they need. they are flooded with refugees. >> let me make a point that reinforces how complicated this is. if it's hard to get aid to refugees, imagine how hard it's going to be for u.n. inspectors to get to chemical sites in the middle of a civil war. the question i have for you, steve, if you're faced with this choice -- and, yes, we can get rid of the chemicals but in a process that actually keeps assad in power. i think this is putin's goal. are you comfortable living with the outcome? a cease-fire ultimately would allow the regime to reorganize and restructure and the rebels would lose. are you comfortable that that is a better -- an outcome better than we were going towards in terms of degrading? clearly the people wanted more stuff -- >> let me tell you where we were headed and why i'm comfortable with a strategic objective of deterring and degrading the use of chemical weapons. we were headed to an amplified

use of chemical weapons, a more unstable syria, the possibility that nusra could access those weapons. empowering north korea, iran and hezbollah is the worst scenario for our own national security. incrementally i think we've got to start with, stop the chemical weapons capability from expanding and then go to other options. but the strategic objective is stop the chemical weapons capability from expanding. >> which is what the president said last night. >> along that line, if the russians and the americans and the syrians agree, the united nations will agree. at that point, would you be comfortable if american troops are back to boots on the ground? if american troops were part of the force that protected the inspectors? >> we are not even close to that. i want to see the is dotted and the ts crossed on this. we don't know how many facilities they have. you're asking me to do the house closing before i've even closed the house.

i want to know exactly what the capability is -- that's all part of -- >> there's a bigger question here. if we are able to get a deal that is satisfactory to us, that protects our interests with with russia, it goes back to the security council. if the resolution passes the security council requiring syria to turn over its chemical weapons, backed up by use of force, would you support a use of force solution in the congress? >> we'll wait and see what they come forward with. >> doesn't that satisfy your requirements? >> well, not totally. i think there's more to this. where do they get those weapons and have they moved some of those out of the country? >> lots of questions. assuming all those get answers -- >> you're making a lot of assumptions on that. >> so are you. you're making assumptions that it's not going to work. >> i'm really confused now. if you got an agreement in the security council, why do you need to pass a resolution -- >> it needs to be backed up by force. the force by the united states

is a big part of that. >> you want to be able to use force even if the syrians basically surrender -- >> no. newt, do you think the syrians are going to surrender their chemical weapons -- >> i'm with -- >> easily, if it's backed up -- if it's not backed up -- >> i don't think we should be that naive. >> if putin says to them privately, you have to do this or we will abandon you, i think assad has a big problem. >> you think we should agree to something without use of force on the table? >> you surrender, you're allowed to say yes. >> where's the "trust but verify"? that's a lot of trust in putin. >> i don't know if that's good or bad for -- >> if it's not verifiable, you have to do something else. >> that's very true. next, we'll ask our guests if this u.s. senator is right -- >> the president just seems to

be very uncomfortable being commander in chief of this nation. [ male announcer ] this store knows how to handle a saturday crowd. ♪ [ male announcer ] the parking lot helps by letting us know who's coming. the carts keep everyone on the right track. the power tools introduce themselves. all the bits and bulbs keep themselves stocked. and the doors even handle the checkout so we can work on that thing that's stuck in the thing. [ female announcer ] today, cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everyone goes home happy.

like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend? no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪ at&♪ hooking up the countryess. whelping business run ♪ ♪ trains! they haul everything, safely and on time. ♪ tracks! they connect the factories built along the lines. and that means jobs, lots of people, making lots and lots of things.

let's get your business rolling now, everybody sing. ♪ norfolk southern what's your function? ♪ ♪ helping this big country move ahead as one ♪ ♪ norfolk southern how's that function? ♪ humans. even when we cross our "ts" and dot our "i's", we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness with our auto policies. if you qualify, your rates won't go up due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human, and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car,

we'll give you the money for a new one. call liberty mutual insurance at... and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life. so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy? welcome back. secretary kerry leaves for geneva in a few hours to negotiate a syria peace deal with the russians. meanwhile, president obama's apparent strategy of ultimately

talking tough, then acting weak is hurting his credibility and driving some people nuts. listen to what republican senator bob corker told cnn. >> the president just seems to be very uncomfortable being xamder xamd commander in chief of this nation. >> let me ask you, when you have senator corker who's the ranking republican on foreign relations and who carried the resolution with senator menendez, when you have that kind of very direct language, essentially expressing despair, doesn't that concern you about the president's ability to work with the congress? >> look, i think the american people are just tired of that kind of hyperbole. i would also remind senator cork earn when he questions the comfort level of this president that this president was very comfortable killing osama bin laden. >> and ending the iraq war and

bringing to an end the afghanistan war. and congresswoman blackburn, i have a question for you. do you think senator corker is worried about his politics at home with that statement? >> no, i don't. i think senator corker is expressing the frustration of the vast majority of the american people. this is an issue of leadership. and whether you're talking about the syria situation, the lack of attention of a president who was a u.s. senator and state senator voted present, he began by voting present. secretary kraer went out and made a speech and the president -- >> so bringing assad to his knees and russia to the table is acting weak? that's not a strong act. >> i think the president's been very weak on the national stage and the one who have gotten attention on both sides of the aisle for standing firm has been the members of the u.s. house of representatives that -- >> with their critique -- >> or the conservatives have

said -- >> i still cannot understand what you would do differently than the president with the plan that i outlined. >> i have told you what i would do differently. first of all, a president has to be the commander in chief and the decisive leader. and what the president did was to take this issue and then he fumbled it. he said, here you go to the congress. >> you don't want to vote on it? >> i would vote no. >> you already did vote. i respect your view but you and 400 other members of congress voted for the syria accountability act which specifically states that we should not allow syria to obtain weapons of mass destruction. >> and everyone agrees on that. >> you may agree on the passage of the bill but how do you hold that regime accountable for the syria accountability act? >> we have continued to talk about that. >> there's only one way to do it. that's to put the use of force on the table, which as a result

brought russia to the table to help us negotiate a peace process. if our allies are coming to the table -- >> this whole line starts with the s.e.a.l.s having killed bin laden -- >> authorized by the commander in chief. >> i think it was -- >> but here's my question. when you have the secretary of state describe, quote, an unbelievably small attack, that was london just before the russians bailed us out. >> you know who listened to that? assad. and assad finally admitted that it has chemical weapons and will turn it over to the international community. putin heard it and finally admitted to take part in this peace process. >> i don't think assad heard it at all. >> it was pretty loud over there. >> newt, you're making a process argument, the process that went into where we are now. you're a historian.

you endorsed my book on military history and doubled its sales from six to 12. you know who's interested in presidential process and who said what? the people who are interested in the process that lead to a policy are presidential historians. but the american people care about the outcome. >> right. >> we want this outcome to be the degradation and the deterrence of syria's chemical weapons stockpiles. >> i don't disagree with this but you're doing something very specific here. we've had the president and many other people say over two years' time, assad has to go. the president talked even last night about degrading and about getting rid of assad, et cetera. the fact is, if putin pulls this off, assad will be strengthened and stabilized. we will have -- are you

comfortable as a person who's pretty expert in the region, are you comfortable with assad in effect winning on the survival -- giving up chemical weapons but winning in terms of the survival of the regime? >> i'm more comfortable than that we've got a bunch of u.s. troops on the border. >> i think your statement that this guarantees assad stays in power is absolutely wrong. because the only way -- absolutely wrong. the only way, i only speak in absolutes. >> okay. the only way that we're going to remove chemical weapons from syria is if there is some sort of a cease fire on the ground which means that syrian people are no longer getting killed by their own dictate ompl which means we can focus a political solution which is what the

president is pregnant the world together to do. the u.n., nato, jordan, turkey, all of our ally come together and send a message and isolate him. the other thing is putin is saying, look, buddy, i can save from you going to the criminal court. i can save you from getting the death penalty because you violated a world standard and killed your own people with gas. we're going to work out a solution and you can come to russia. >> the question i've got is, putin, i think what he is saying, you agree to this. we will reenfor you during the cease fire. we will make sure you have plenty of conventional equipment. between us and the iranians, you will survive. i don't think it was the kerry speech. it it was the putin phone call who changed assad's view. >> and one of the things that would cause us concern is russia trying to do this. re. >> reporter: they not being honest, they're trying to do this just so they can sell

weapons to syria. >> we have to say no to that. >> exactly right. and that's, that would have to be part of the deal. if there is a cease fire, you have to stop studying weapons to years why. >> that mean everybody else has to stop supplying the rebels. >> we need to see how that work out. you can't have a cease fire with weapons coming over the board. and you want to know what russia's motive is this. >> you know what russia' motive is. >> we want to make certain that is trust and verify. >> if we, part of this is exp e exposing russia's motive. and hopefully their motor jif in good faith, trying to rid syria of chemical weapons. if it is not in good faith, then it only strengthens our hands. at the united nations. >> the stronger position if this president had the ability to act with more authority. and i think that that is something that is frustrating to the american people.

he does seem very uncomfortable when it come to foreign policy issues. and i had one of may retired military retirees that worked in intel, who was looking at this and said, why does everything end up in a crisis situation with him? why does he seem to make decisions that strengthen al qaeda? and there are plenty of time. >> let's talk about crisis. let's talk about crisis. we have a situation in iraq. we were enmeshed in iraq. we are now out of iraq without crisis. we went into afghanistan. the crisis was that we did not go into afghanistan with proper force. president obama decided to authorize a surge. that was a pretty significant decisive act. and we're winding down in afghanistan. osama bin laden was alive. now he's dead. tell me what part of that means

he is not willing to use authority. >> paying our men and women in uniform a $400 billion cut followed by a sequestration of $500,000 before we go into, before he says he wants to go do something with syria. the president chose to cut that 1.6% pay raise that our men and women in uniform were going to get down to 1%. so they're going to get -- >> we can tray to turn it off. i'll tell you how you can do it. >> that filled those dollars for the u.s. military. >> it was just getting good. you can do it again. >> next we cease fire. here one thing we can agree on. crossfire is getting noticed. even at the white house.

i'm on expert on softball.

and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for, because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. ready to plan for your future? we'll help you get there.

>> tonight on cross fire we've been debating syria. now let's have a cease fire. i know i have been a real skeptic but i think we can agree, it would be really great if the syrian peace process worked. >> yes. i think we both agree on that. i wish we had started our show there. >> we can all be hopeful that it works out. >> i think it probably will. before we go, we noticed a very interesting exchange at today'

white house briefing. >> hey, ed? we can debate on "crossfire" one day when we're out of our current jobs. >> we can arrange that. >> set us up. we'll talk to stephanie and avenue. >> we want jay to know we're quite willing and ready to talk with him any time he wanls to come by. he has an open invitation to come be in the cross fire with us. >> i for one would love to have him on the show. >> and you can join the debate right now. weigh in on our question. should congress force a dead lane for years why to turn over its chemical weapons? 68% of you say yes. 32% say no. the debate continues online at cnn.com/crossfire as well as facebook and twitter. from the left. i'm stephanie cutter. >> on the right, i'm newt gingrich. join us tomorrow for another edition of "crossfire."

erin burnett starts right now. >> on this 12th anniversary of september 11th, america faced with another security crisis. the chairman of the house homeland security committee is out front. plus the tsa screener accused of making threats against an american airport. and then a man go over a cliff. police say his wife of only eight days pushed him to his death. tonight the man's friends come out front saying they saw it coming. let go "outfront." a good evening to all of you. "outfront," a nation at risk. as we remember the lives lost in the terror attacks 12 years ago today, and all of us remember where we were at that moment when though planes struck, this country is faying another national security