it's called crossover capital. is not dedicated capital, but crossover capital, where investors do not fundamental interest and the risks they are underwriting. the minute something goes wrong, even if it is temporary and reversible, the temptation is to bring the money out. that is what you're seeing going on right now in the emerging world. that is destabilizing to countries that have been pursuing a pretty good policies so far. >> we have just a couple of minutes left. i will go ahead and open up the far too many journalists and members of the press -- open up the floor to journalists and members of the press who have questions. >> you mentioned entire reform and one of things that came up with health care. healthcare has been deemed the biggest threat to the government in terms of paying for things. that being said, what can we do

about that? should we continue with the affordable care act? should we adopt a single payer system? obviously, doing nothing will not work. what would you recommend? >> the programs already existing for a long time, like medicare, for which the projections of spending are just growing and growing -- and we also of social security as well. but in the case of medicare, there is a bipartisan agreement that we need to control the growth. the president a couple of years ago said it should not grow much more than gdp. the house republicans have also agreed. there's a difference on how to do that. house republicans wanted to decentralize, as you know. and the president wanted to centralize it. it seems to me that is something we could come to agreement on. it is really not about current retirees. it is about future retirees.

people know it has to be addressed. i would try to go after the medicare issue. and of course, the affordable care act is even more difficult now because it has become so partisan. but it is also something that could be improved. but in the meantime, focus on entitlements that are clear the expenses right now, like medicare. >> one more question. >> i want to get your reaction, specifically on the story in the wall street journal with it to the financial crisis and when you were prosecuting banks. attorney-general holder announced he's getting ready to bring a bunch of new cases and i wanted to get your reaction to that. is this because we are five years into the crisis and these cases were to complicated to get to them quickly?

it is tied to the anniversary of the crisis? are there cases out there that are still prosecutable? what about the statute of limitations? >> there is a five-year statute of limitations. that may be part of it. i think philemon university -- anniversary, scrutiny, a lot -- the lehman brothers anniversary, scrutiny, a lot of that. you want enforcement actions and the accountability for people who break the law. it helps our markets. having the accountability and the certainty of enforcement actions helps to make sure there is full compliance and generates the kind of behavior is that we want to see in our financial system. when you have enforcement, that is because there's political pressure to do it. that troubles me, too. i wish we would have had earlier energy on this and more

consistency about the kinds of cases we are bringing, the kind of the years we are targeting. -- of behavior's we are targeting. why isn't there consistency in the enforcement? i do worry when enforcement actions become a response to political pressure, or perhaps other reasons, that you lose the benefit of enforcement, which is accountability and changing the bears. i should not be so negative. maybe the positive is that good enforcement action will be consistent and their archives of the bears that need to be addressed, but we just don't know yet. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know. i did see the article. i don't know. the enforcement priorities of this department have confused me. it is not myspace, so i don't talk with them regularly.

i do wish there had been a more robust policy. but again, when it is consistent and send clear signals about unacceptable behavior, looking into more -- rather than looking into discretionary type things or responding to political pressure. >> that is all the time we have. thank you for your excellent insight. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> on monday, a conversation with former vice president dick cheney and his daughter, liz cheney, who has said she's running for u.s. senate in wyoming. they spoke at the freedom conference dinner. that was hosted by the steamboat institute in colorado. we will have that tomorrow at 7:30 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. , outgoing homeland security secretary janet napolitano will say farewell from the press club. she was the first woman to head the department and was head of the department for four years. her remarks are at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> c-span -- we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in

the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and conferences and offering complete apple to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable and satellite provider. .ow, you can watch us in hd >> turning to serious health -- the u.s. has confirmed it has reached an agreement with the syrian government to allow inspectors to visit the site of an alleged emma: attack a suite near damascus. the date and times still need to be worked out. opposition groups and doctors without borders say more than 300 people were killed. u.s. lawmakers talked about those attacks on the sunday news shows. on fox news sunday, corker and eliot talk more about the issue. i think we will respond in a

surgical way and i hope the president, as soon as we get back to washington, will ask for authorization from congress to do something in a very surgical and proportional way, something that gets their attention and causes them to understand we are not going to put up with this kind of activity. at the same time, i hope it's the kind of action that does not move us away from the policy we have right now where we want to see the syrian opposition group taking the lead on the ground. i hope we will lose our training up. i know we are doing it covertly now. i think we need to move to more industrial strength training on the ground. we need to tilt the balance a little more as it relates to the opposition groups on the ground. i don't want our actions in response to this chemical warfare two off -- to alter that. inwe have to respond conjunction with our nato allies and we have to respond much as we have done in libya with the nato allies.

i think we cannot afford to sit back and wait. we cannot wait for the united nations. the russians are ready to block it with their veto. this is analogous to the 1999 situation pose of oh where there population -- situation in coast of oh. . -- situation inkosovo i think you can do that without boots on the ground and having americans in harms way. you can destroy the runways, you can destroy his munitions could destroy his fuel. there are lots and lots of things we could do. we could even destroy this. air force if we wanted to. i sent a letter to joint chiefs of staff, general dempsey, to ask what kinds of options can we do? we have to move and we have to move quickly. i do agree with senator corker effect congress needs to be involved. but perhaps not initially.

perhaps the president could tort and congress needs resolve it and assent to it, but we cannot sit still. we have to move and we have to move quickly. hear more from those lawmakers and others. c-span radio re-airs the talk shows throughout the afternoon and again at around midnight. now, more challenges for u.s. war in policy, including serious, from this morning's "washington journal." on your screen is by taylor, a senior policy correspondent for the "washington times." we also have the christian science monitor's diplomatic reporter, joining us for a discussion about u.s. foreign- policy challenges, particularly focusing on syria and egypt and the middle east in general. we will start with a look at a headline this morning -- obama reviews response options in attack to syria -- this is the

"washington post" headline. the president met yesterday with his national security team. what are they trying to figure out? they're trying to figure out how they could respond to this redline issue with. . the president has come out and said the use of chemical weapons would be the crossing of the red line and that would suggest or that was red in the media here in washington as a warning from president obama that the use of chemical weapons would trigger some kind of surgical military strike by the united states. they are debating, i think, what to do. is it time for the united states to do some kind of military strike or how could they talk their way out of not doing that and telling the international community we can move forward with our syria policy even if chemical weapons are being used. host: given the definition of

this red line, what are the options for the administration at this point in conjunction with our allies or through the u.n.? guest: we president obama friday morning in a kind of rare out some, and he laid or some of the challenges going forward on this . he did not lay out what might happen, but i think we are hearing in the white house, discussions talking about perhaps starting with cruise missiles that would be launched syrianfshore and hitting military installations. also that in talk earlier meetings in the white

house that there was some talk vo model,he koso referring back to that in the 90s when president clinton misevic regime.kes against the maybe where the comparison is that is a step that was taken without you and -- without you and approval. there is not going to be u.n. approval for anything the u.s. and other western powers might do. russia would stand in the way. that is where kosovo might be a model. but i don't think in the sense went on for three months and it was really designed to turn milosevic away from the ethnic cleansing and things that were going on.

but in this case, the first up would probably be cruise missiles, warning shots, don't do that again and then maybe ratchet it up if for some reason the asad regime continued with chemical weapons. but first, it would be kind of a warning or retaliation for a specific attack, but not aimed at a full military intervention aimed at bringing down assad. let's bring our viewers and listeners into the conversation. you can join us via facebook or twitter and here are the phone --bers let's look at egypt as part of

this conversation. reports this morning in egypt that they are moving forward with the trial of hosni mubarak or the retrial of hosni mubarak. what is at play in egypt at this point? he has been released from his military hospital or the prism, what is next there? i think what is that play is the extent to which they have taken control of the government in cairo can control the situation in the streets. if there are not massive protest and the next two or five weeks with clashes resulting in the deaths of citizens regardless of who they are and what everyone else thinks about the muslim brotherhood, how can the government that is now holding power in cairo create a peaceful situation? the question of mubarak being released from prison in calling for a new trial is certainly disconcerting from the washington perspective regardless of who is in power. that is the big question.

how does this government shore up the reputation? it is cracking down in a way that hundreds of egyptian citizens were killed. creating a situation where a dialogue can be created. host: howard wrote about the administration's careful efforts to preserve a decade old regional strategy based on egypt. they can proceed knowing that the u.s. needs egypt more than the -- then egypt needs the u.s.. they cut up $1.6 million in military assistance. it reminds us of a scene from "brokeback mountain" where one cowboy says "i cannot quit you." guest: i think he was saying

that we are seeing the administration being very careful about egypt. they do not even want to determine whether or not what happened was a military coup, because by doing that we would have to say it is a to and cut off aid -- coup and cut off aid according to law. the administration looks at the national security interest that they see in play here. there is islamist militants that are ever more active in the siani. we have seen that more recently. we saw oil prices go up in the aftermath of events in egypt. i think the administration is showing that they are very reluctant to cut off aid, to cut bridges with egyptian military. the u.s. and egyptian military

have a very long, close relationship. in the view of many, the generals see this and they feel like they know it and they can go pretty far without risking a closed door and washington. host: several countries are just fine with the generals in power. they would rather see that. guest: sure. when at the big questions is what is, better for the united states and its allies to have the muslim brotherhood in power

for a few years in cairo or a military junta that is very secular and interested in controlling volatile elements right there is such as hamas in gaza. the united states is trying to pursue greater peace. in the last month or so, the narrative is that the state department is going to want to pursue israeli/palestinian peace. a muslim brotherhood in cairo with hamas which has disavowed the peace process. there are lots of different strains to this. host: i want to get to a broader look. you wrote about a couple of weeks after the crackdown in egypt following wednesday, you rode the middle east democracy movement is hailed as the arab spring and was transformed wednesday. --

do you think that will cause a reset? both what is happening in egypt and syria, do you think it will cause the administration to look at a reset of the foreign- policy? guest: i think what they do is a big question. with regard to the lofty goals, it is not a reference to the last five years of the obama administration with the eight years or when the neoconservative push was to spread democracy to the middle east. seeing a democratically elected government in cairo getting knocked back down by a military coup essentially, even though that is the dirty word in washington, dc that happen does raise the question of how are we going to proceed here.

guest: i think what we need to look at is, a reset i do not know, but the administration would like to keep the middle east to the background. that is not what it wanted. obama came in. he wanted his administration to be the one that turned away from the middle east or pivoted from the middle east in u.s. foreign- policy and focus to asia. secretary defense hagel is in asia right now. he is having to talk about syria and the middle east. president obama, and this is coloring their decisions, knows that to get involved directly in the war in syria that is it for the rest of his administration. i think that is one they are being careful about. he still has lofty hopes for the middle east.

he wants to pivot away from this region and put american foreign- policy attention elsewhere, primarily in asia. host: we want to go to a middle east correspondent to his joining us from syria. good morning to you. i think we may have lost him. all right. we will go with our caller. caller: it is concerning to me that regarding the chemical use in syria is slanted to one.

america has concluded that facade has artie use chemical weapons. do we already have any evidence? we have concluded that assad used it. what is the evidence? i would like to know. host: what is the latest? guest: we do not have evidence that was standup. we we have video of people testifying to reporters, locally on the ground, footage that suggests pretty seriously that missiles landed in a couple of towns. it is a great question. i applaud the viewer for bringing it up. this is something the obama administration will want to strategically hide behind. we have had a time in the united

states of about six or seven years of a very militarized foreign-policy where we responded to these threats around the world and even going back to the former u.s. lobby where we responded with military strikes. there is a knee-jerk sense that we have to respond with a military strike. the obama administration's mantra has been we are going to be the administration that does not do that. that is what is playing out here. this slow resistance to jumping to conclusions. guest: organizations such as yesterday, doctors without borders said that three of their hospitals that they work with in the damascus area reported thousands of, or within hours, victims coming in with symptoms

of some sort of neurotoxic attack. you go back prior to that and both, not just u.s. intelligence but the israelis, have been saying that the assad regime has been keeping very careful control on their stockpiles of chemical weapons. that does not mean that there is proof that it was his regime. there are all sorts of possibilities. is he losing control of some of his commanders may be? might it have been someone separate who decided to test the limits?

we do not know. the caller is correct in saying the administration, we also do not know what evidence has come in. there is video. there are photos. as of thursday and friday, we do know the rebel opposition representatives working very hard to smuggle out what would be more conclusive evidence, blood and hair samples and things like that. host: let's see if we can get some update on the ground. we are joined by sam dagher he was in syria. he is the middle east correspondent. thank you for joining us. we have our first question regarding the gas attacks. what are you hearing from damascus?

>> absolutely. we're still dealing with the allegations and the accusations of the opposition made on wednesday about these chemical weapons attacks in the suburbs, mainly be eastern suburbs of damascus in a couple of various areas southwest of the city. i am in the capital. we have had some statement made yesterday by the syrian minister of information. he was speaking to a news camera. he was basically saying that it is most likely that the rebels themselves were the ones that used the chemical weapons. he also said, repeated, his government denial that they would use such weapons against

the government basically had a set of moral values that prevented them from doing such a thing. host: there are reports this morning that the un representative is on the ground in syria. what is the united nations hoping for? >> [indiscernible] as you may know already, this team has been on the ground for the past week. they arrived last sunday in damascus. they are here to investigate accusations of chemical weapon use in public heart of syria. this broke out while they were here.

definitely the top priority is to hammer out some sort of a deal to be able to visit these areas. host: sam dagher joining us this morning. thank you for your update. we have been following into your comments. the washington post reports the doctors without borders group and their receiving all these people coming in. three hospitals were saying about 3600 patients -- the group itself was not able to confirm that this was an attack. they came up short of describing it as an attack.

guest: as they pointed out, these are hospitals that they work with. they were going on the information they were getting from the hospitals. i think this sort of thing obviously is more evidence that something happened. that is the point of the un team there and ban ki-moon sending in his representative, to reinforce with the syrian government. if you have nothing to hide, what better than to completely open up the area? apparently, the opposition forces have given the obama administration assurances that any un team coming into the area, which is a disputed area

with pockets of rebel held territory, that any un representatives would be safe. i think there is an effort. where i would disagree with the caller is that there is any rush to judgment. we saw with the attacks that were the original attacks back in march, it took until april and june for the administration to conclude that there had been attacks at that time. i think it is incorrect to say there is a rush to judgment. i think there is a pretty close conclusion that it was the syrian government.

host: that perpetrated the attacks. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. the first comment i have is a question to try to understand. i have been trying to follow this from the beginning. why do you guys think that al jazeera is not available on any cable stations in the u.s.? i do not know why anyone doesn't say anything would it be possible that cia agent are trying to get us into the war the way we got into the conflict with libya.

it is obvious that obama did not want to get involved. that is not an open question. host: thanks for your call. guest: these are great questions. one of the hardest things as a serious journalist as you do not want to get sucked into the realm of conspiracy theories. howard wrapped up the possibility that there could be generals in syria that are not aligned with the assad government. to sit back and say possibly cia agents are doing that, that is a valid question. you have to step back and say when you're talking to the cia and policymakers on the hill who have have talked to the cia and

monitor it, you get into the realm of conspiracy very quickly. you have got to realize what is happening in syria. we just heard from sam on this. it is basically an all out civil war. there are large pockets of the country where there is serious fighting. the first casualty is going to be the troops. figuring out who did this is not going to be easy. sitting back on our laurels would be the easy way out. the administration has a heavy task to push through the truth. host: the caller talked about al jazeera. a couple of reports, they reported on the trial in egypt of muslim brotherhood leaders begins. members were arrested after the army took control of the country. --

also this morning, a report from iran saying -- myrtle beach south carolina on our independent line. caller: i have relatives in syria and lebanon. the american administrations, say egypt was wrong. they are not keen about --

[indiscernible] the discussion is maybe nobody knows it. we got the information from our relatives inside syria that said this attack. we have relatives in egypt also. this will be affecting the new elections.

host: thanks for joining us. he mentioned both syria and egypt. let's go to egypt next. joining us from cairo. good morning. we are reading about military trials underway. what can you tell us about those? >> it has been a symbolic day in terms of everything that is happening in egypt. all morning you had lawyers or president mubarak and the former interior minister accused of killing protesters in 2011. you had that trial on the egyptian television all morning with their lawyers arguing that they should go free. mubarak has been released to a military hospital earlier last week. this afternoon be will have top

leaders of the muslim brotherhood making their first appearances in court since they were arrested in the past month. the time is changing back to the way they were. we do not expect anything concrete. you have both of these cases visible on the same day. host: i was reading yesterday about the military making a strong presence in particular in front of the court in cairo. what is the situation on the street? >> since the initial days after the bid crackdown on the muslim brotherhood, we saw hundreds killed. several days of ongoing instability and clashes. those have largely calmed down. there were supposed to be protests on friday.

they mostly fizzled. they did not get any turnout. it seems like things are calming down here partially because the muslim brotherhood is unable or decided not to continue challenging in the streets to the same degree in the size of the protests and partially because the crackdown has been effective. host: on the retrial ahead of hosni mubarak, were people surprise? >> people were stunned. it seemed like such a crude move especially after the ousting of morsi, which most were calling a coup. egypt was saying it was a corrective to the revolution that had gone awry.

hundreds were killed and announced by much of the world. the egyptian army was trying to justify this seemingly out of nowhere move toward releasing president mubarak. even if that was the intentions of the military or old regime type that the timing was just extremely poorly chosen. host: what have you seen in the presence of the u.s. ambassador and other military officials in the day since the crackdown a couple of weeks ago? >> i got in here relatively recently. i have not been in to see the american ambassador. the americans are keeping a relatively low profile here. some embassy officials have been doing some off the record briefings with press in recent days but certainly not taking a

very high profile. the whole outcome of this clash right now, the americans have found themselves blamed on both sides. the muslim brotherhood is convinced the americans are conspired against it. all the other side are absolutely convinced that this is with the brotherhood. the americans are caught in a lose/lose situation. there's little leverage over the course of events. host: an update from charles levinson. thank you for your reporting. about the trials that he is saying that are on television and egypt, what do you think the purpose of that is? they are putting them on television. guest: i think we are seeing the

media are government controlled. the media are blanketed with confronting the terrorists and bringing them down. i see it in that context that ringing these leaders, these were the full who were taking egypt in the wrong direction. they were juxtaposing it then with blanketed coverage of the military's perspective that we acted against the terrorist who were taking egypt in the wrong direction.

host: what are the risks they run putting hosni mubarak back? what are the risks therefore the military leadership? guest: the risk is that they will undercut their own legitimacy with the brother and then the secular young democracy movement will see them as backing down and not upholding what the revolution was all about. the question of mubarak's release from prison, we have to look at the greater air of spring movement. let's start with tunisia and ben ali who fled. gaddafi was essentially assassinated in a battlefield situation. we could go before and that saddam hussein and other

military leaders who was ultimately hung. this is very symbolic. this is big in a subconscious sense of what happens. host: ousting the old and bringing in the new. guest: does mubarak into executed or walking free in cairo? what what happens to his family? his son was being groomed to take over the dictatorship in egypt. what happens is very important. host: is his son in captivity? guest: no. i think he got out of the country. host: let's go back to the calls. republican caller. think you for your comments. caller: good morning. i appreciate them acknowledging that we do not really know what has happened in syria in regards to these chemical attacks. i think you have got to look at the fact that why would syria even use chemical weapons?

the last month the rebels used terrorist tactics. they engage in assassinations. they are killing christians and desecrating churches. they are the ones that have the most interesting getting getting the united states to intervene. they are getting beat of the battlefield. that is where i think that is where they should be looking at. it is the rebels that have the most to gain from using chemical weapons to create a situation where the u.s. can say what we have to go in. this is a disastrous foreign- policy, this whole syrian episode. we are supporting terrorists. that is what they are using,

terrorist tactics. one of the reasons obama does not want to go in there is 70% of the american people are against going into syria. that is from a wall street journal poll. guest: the caller brings up a number of very good points. some of the rebels are listed as a terrorist organizations by the united states. it is nowhere near a homogeneous group. the chairman of the joint chiefs the other day in a letter to a member of congress said if we get involved in syria it is not a matter of choosing a side, we have to choose among sides within the rebels and the opposition.

the point about it being only in the u.s. interest, in the interest of u.s. intervention that there be a chemical weapons attack, i think that is a little murkier. we did see an earlier attack and president obama spoke forcefully about cap and nothing happens. there's also the theory that assad is testing the limits, pushing things. there have been things from the damascus suburbs.

this is a threat to the government. there had been fierce fighting going on. they are continuing afterward. it is not as though what happened there was not reflective of a grave threat. it has rebel strongholds. you cannot afford to lose damascus. host: how much is russia calling the shots for syria? guest: at this point i think it is limited. in the global stage in terms of international rhetoric and geopolitical rhetoric, we hear moscow come up a lot in washington as being the fly in the ointment of the obama

administration's attempt to bring peace in syria. when it comes to rubber meeting the road, the russians have acknowledged that their military presence which had been a navy base in syria is the only one outside of the former soviet union and they are pulling out of it. i do not think there's evidence to suggest they are telling the assad government what to do. host: herb is on the democratic line. caller: shades of iraq. a few years ago we did not give the inspection team on the ground enough time. the cia chief at the time walked into the oval office just before the invasion and said "mr. president, it is a slamdunk. there are weapons of mass destruction." we know how that played out.

it is very important that we allowed the un inspectors on the ground to do a thorough investigation. frankly, i am fearful that the iraq scene could reemerge. six weeks ago president obama was quoted as saying they have used chemical weapons and i have proof of that. the president never indicated what his proof was. that the warships that are now moving in closer to serious may use their missiles to take out government airfields and government installations without waiting for the u.n. do their full

investigation, which may well show that the rebels are the ones complicit. >> thank you for your call. i wanted to jump to an e-mail question. this theory heard even from some in egypt that move eric -- that move eric -- mubarak may continue to pull the strings from his jail cell. we have seen pro-move eric --

k demonstrations. so the military taking steps and following sort of a pattern although in a more brutal way , butegypt had ever seen following a pattern of the long military rule. so i think that is where that comes from. -- i don't think there's any we don't know that that is the case, but there are certainly egyptians a feel that way. callerto go back to the with the reference to her rack. at president obama on friday, he alluded to her -- heithout mentioning alluded to iraq without mentioning iraq by name.

that we have paid the price in the past for rushing into things. and it's true that, yes, the destroyers inips, the mediterranean. i don't know that any additional military hardware is moving in. i think we learned yesterday that a destroyer that was scheduled to pull out was attained, was told to -- basically ordered to stay in the region. in terms of the president's approach of looking of weapons, how do you think it differs from the bush administration? to consider the powell doctrine that will be more important to this administration.

host: which means? guest: we are not going to do anything if you don't have a clear exit strategy. pull it outto 50,000 feet, what they are talking about at the white house right now is what would our exit strategy be? we are not talking about putting a lot of american troops on the ground, but even if there was a commitment of surgical strength or any kind of military involvement, how would we get out of this situation? is i don'tnswer that anticipate a major u.s. commitment or engagement going forward. this is very different from the previous administration, which pursued a much more neoconservative approach, which strategyve an exit that will evolve after we use military force. go back to our caller, princeton, new jersey, keith, independent line. caller: as far as the nerve gas

come up whether it is use, yes think you don't have to have a whole are training. the videos are pretty grim. you see children dying in front of your eyes. .o it is fairly obvious am a former u.s. military me -- u.s. military marine corps artillery corps officer. their artillery is accurate within 30 meters. shellsn launch nerve gas like a high explosive shell. you have binary components. gasthrowing your nerve components and you fire five or six rounds.

there is the french intervention in africa. the french haven't gone to the united nation's security council and asked for a resolution when they have seen things that they can affect. , throwne gone in there out paratroopers from the backend of a c-130 and they have intervened. considerdon't themselves in a longer a big power. what is the united states do? we asked permission of the general security council and we know both russia and china [indiscernible] quandary that

we are in. so not just an exit strategy, but making official declarations about red lines that syria cannot cross. you better be careful what you say because you have to back it up here and -- back it up. host: lots to consider. guest: first of all, i would note that, in the case of mali and the friends, it was different in that certainly the governor -- and the french, it was different in that certainly the government of mali welcomed the intervention by the french. they certainly paved the way for them to be there. host: other than it being a former colony, a former territory -- more thethink it was al qaeda affiliated group was

threatening the government. they were in the north but were proceeding south and it was a threat to the government. of anon't know how much economic interest is there. that i thinksay that with the caller said about not backing up your words, i think that is a concern in the white house. -- if it getstes to the point -- i mean, read line or no, the use of chemical weapons, i mean, it is banned. most countries have signed the international ban. it is a taboo. is a taboo that the united states and other countries say should not be crossed.

it, but you don't do anything and then it happens again and it looks like a larger scale, how long can you go? what happens to your influence in the world, as president obama said -- america remains the indispensable nation, the country that can still sort of intervened in the sort of situation. just relyng can you on rhetoric. i think that the other point that the caller made about other countries like france and mali not waiting for you in approval, the colors actually correct. as we were saying earlier, there will not be a human resolution opening the door to military and invention in syria. there iss why i think

this talk about, well, let's look back to kosovo. operationegime change with how we can intervene some semblance of international backing, international law on our side, even if it is just cruise missiles to say enough is enough. a few attacks on military installations and it stops there. >> on the next "washington journal," we will see how businesses do the economy and there opportunity for investment. of kaiserancock health news continues our series on the health care law with a discussion on some employers are adjusting to the law while also trying to control healthcare costs. after that, a conversation on the latest air-traffic technology with the