congress is more conservative is not because the chamber has failed. that is just the consequence of how politics and demographics has worked out. they become involved in a way that changes that dynamic some way. in 2012 they were only involved in two primaries. one was a senate race in missouri. i think you will see more of that. they are trying to get voices. they will listen to them. get more moderate voices. you saw his argument on the debt ceiling. it is an incredible threat to american business. it is a threat to his institution if the country goes into default. whether the country will go into default is mainly a threat right now. it will more than likely get resolved.

a lengthy talk of one creates economic hardships for his membership. that is what he is going to be doing. >> could you read between the lines? >> he clearly would like to see the old fed chairman. he said he had taken a number of hits. i do not think he gave us much in terms of larry summers and janet yellen. i do think it is interesting that in terms of how we get through the fall he thinks despite the ungovernable nature of the house right now that there are people led by paul ryan trying to find a commonsense path forward. they're trying to shape the house by getting more involved in the primaries to show who we are and what we believe. it is really interesting. it seems a lot of people are getting frustrated by washington's inability to work.

>> i think that is absolutely right. he is putting some hope that there is movement on immigration. i think that is a very optimistic view. i think congress will be totally overwhelmed. if they can move something in the house, more power to them. >> thank you for being with us on "newsmakers." >> on the next "washington journal" jeremy mayer will join us to discuss the world -- the war powers act and how it grants the president limited authority to enter into a military conflict without the

consent of congress. after that, look at the 20 states that have right to work laws. we will have the president of the right to work organization discussing the labor force. laborrvice employees union will talk about the troubles they -- talk about what they represent. we will also share the days headlines on "washington >> one of the most fun times i had was 2006 looked like the rats were going to take over and it looked pretty bad for republicans. called andfice wondered if i could have accessed. we went to the vice president residence and that breakfast with him. i had met him before -- first of all it was unbelievable how much he knew -- yet been to summary

of these districts over the years as the republican leader of the house come up and he was asking us how bad is this? we were saying it's pretty bad. but it's fun when you get to do that or talk to various caucuses. of the insidepse players. >> with more than 30 years as a political analyst, charlie cook has covered the trends while tracking every congressional race since 1984. see the rest of the interview tonight at 8:00 on c-span. >> yesterday, president obama announced he would seek congress' approval before taking action in syria. today, members received an in person classified briefing about syria and that chemical weapons allegedly used in that country. here's what some of the members had to say after the briefing.

>> identify who you are. >> and congresswoman janet hohn from california. congressost members of have said that it is pretty obvious that chemical weapons were used. certainly that is important -- that is a bore in to the entire international community. i think members of congress were divided in terms of what does that mean? is this a reason to go to war? what's the object is of going to war? what authorization are we giving our president? i think there was a lot of concern in the room and there were a lot of good questions. members of congress that came back today taking this very seriously and are asking a lot of hard questions. probably some questions that were not asked 10 years ago when

we invaded iraq. i took the redeye last night from los angeles. i left lunch -- i left los angeles at 10:40 p.m. and i'm taking this very seriously. we have read classified documents and that a classified briefing. the case is trying to be made that this use of chemical weapons puts our national security at risk and it is worth acting. ofon't know if every member congress's area. >> are you there? >> i am not area. >> how would you describe where you are? >> i feel terrible about that chemical weapons. however, we know chemical weapons have been used in other instances and we did not take military action. i am hoping to find an answer to is there another way to hold assad accountable?

we want to hold him accountable, we want there to be some consequences. what is that? is it just going to war, bombing, killing more people? i'm not there yet. the vote world today, do you think it would pass? >> that's a good question. there were a limited number of congress in here. -- i would notw vote for it today. -- i'm hoping the president can get more international support. i think a lot of us are concerned, where is the international community. if this is such an outrage, where is the outrage if this is so a more and. americahe people of will pray for the leaders that we will have the kind of wisdom. this is a curious that that has consequences either way and i

think we need to be prepared for that and i'm taking it very seriously and i hope you will ask god to give us the wisdom we need. >> there was a great deal of skepticism and the room about the utility, effectiveness and support we would have for the kind of strike the president has proposed trade there is not a lot of skepticism about whether or not this was an attack carried out i the syrian regime. while no one would say it has been proven, the best bet of the evidence shows this was an attack carried out by the asad regime.

>> [inaudible] >> i can't comment on that. >> which way are you leading question >> i'm very skeptical about the president's proposal. it's not clear we know what the results will be. it's not clear what response might be undertaken by iran or the syrians against israel or against us. it's also not at all clear we got any international support. i think most of us agree in limited circumstances, military responses are ok. but we should have international support. >> how about the fact that this is a big, important legacy vote for the president weighing on you? >> that is a consideration, but in that room today, there was a lot of memories over another time when a president came and said this was a slamdunk intelligence and that was an episode most members would never want to repeat area i think most

members are thinking more about the merits of the proposal rather than political consequences. >> if you were to vote today, how would you vote? >> i would vote no. fax do you want to hear directly from the president? does he need to come and brief congress in a classified setting? >> i think no. we have a lot of people who spent the last 10 days involved and i think the president's preference is not relevant to us understanding what happened. what we need to know more about is what the experts say is the likely result of an attack. we need to dove we have any support internationally. serving in congress watched what they house of commons did with some trepidation. the u.k. has always been on our side and this time they are not. so there is a lot of questions about that. >> enqueue. -- thank you.

>> i'm elijah cummings from maryland. pleased all, i am very the president decided to ask the congress for its approval here. i think we are at a very only in ourent, not nations history, but in world history. i think the case we are looking at is going to be probably one complex for members of congress to resolve. there are a lot of questions. i will not talk about what went on in that room, but a number of questions have to be resolved

grade i think secretary kerry this morning talked about chemical weapons being used. i expect the administration will be able to show that. but beyond that, the question is ithink a lot of people -- attended church of 10,000 and most of these people i say their average education is about four years of college. i don't think many of our constituents understand the full significance of chemical and biological warfare. the presidenting has got to spend some time explaining the significance of that and why it is off limits with regards to 98% of the world.

i think we have to be careful that the administration is not talking above people's heads when they don't understand the basics. another thing i think we want to know and my constituents have what iser and over is the relationship to the united states? a lot of this? comes with the background of being a war of war weary. people are concerned as i am. there's another issue we are concerned about, what are the possible unintended consequences. paid -- congress was was placed in a very interesting position because if we don't vote for the resolution, the question is whether assad is strengthening. >> [inaudible]

>> i honestly cannot say. i have to have a lot of questions answered. some of them were answered today but there are a lot more questions that have to be answered. >> are you comfortable with the draft authorization legislation? >> not yet. i think the draft resolution is very broad. one of the concerns in the past has been whether these types of resolutions were too broad. when it comes to these issues, the president has said this effort would be limited in scope and duration. whether the resolution is that limited. >> what is it you still need to

know? know exactly what the game plan is after this. in other words, let's assume we do a limited strike. strike lead to, to aesolution says, diplomatic resolution to this issue? another thing i'm concerned about is what happens if we don't approve it? a lot of people are concentrating on approving it. but happens if we don't? is asad's hand strengthened? it, and he approve does something else, do we come back and rehash this all over again? iose are the kinds of issues

want to have some answers to and i think the administration is going to work hard over the next week. >> are you satisfied that if congress voted down that the administration will respect the wishes of congress? >> i don't know. i'm pretty sure they will. it's a good question. >> what did we know before the chemical weapons attack? >> i'm not going to talk about anything that went over there. i can say generally it was helpful, but there are a lot more questions i have to have answered. >> with regards to the language, you wanted to be narrow, do you want the mission to be narrow? >> let me put it like this. once we get all the information that we need and this was a good and important start grade once we get all that information,

then we can determine how narrow it should be very when i look at it now, it is pretty violent. much.you very >> where are you right now? are you a yes or no question are >> i'm a yes. let me read from the unclassified briefly. assessesgovernment with high confidence the syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the domestic -- in the domestic this -- in the damascus suburb. it comes from multiple sources. essentially, the syrian government crossed a red line. it was a red line that began to be drawn 100 years ago. it's not only a red line the president has drawn, but more or less our human society has drawn

and there has to be a focused response if we don't respond, it will be an incentive for him to nationsain or for other to cross that line. >> do you think enough of your colleagues agree with you? >> i think it will pass. i think it was wise the president called us and said we should vote. ofave confidence numbers congress will step up to the plate. nothing, i think it sends a very wrong message area -- very wrong message area >> [inaudible] >> i think the president has said he is confident we in to thes will respond crossing of this red line. n he drew it, but so has our society.

a chemical attack and now there is new evidence that it was n.rah and -- that it was sari i read the intelligence report and obviously i am constrained, but it makes clear there are multiple sources of this assessment by the administration. it was different than some previous reports which did not have multiple sources as is true here. >> are you comfortable with the way the authorization language is written? some of your colleagues say it is too broad. >> we will see. the administration has indicated they are willing to work with us. if there is a will, we can find a way and i think there has to be a will. if we fail to step up to the plate here, i think it's an invitation to the syrian government and to others to essentially cross a line that i think should not be crossed. >> did you get a sense from the

briefing what the end goal is? whatever happened next would not require follow-up action? >> i don't think anybody is quite sure, but i think we know where we need to start. of your colleagues said it seemed like members were split 50/50 on this vote. was that your impression? >> first of all, there aren't that many of us here. secondly, i don't think based on the questions anybody can draw that conclusion, really. i just left a few minutes ago. look, we have to face up to this. asked.re questions to be we're not quite sure what will be the ultimate result, but when the syrian government essentially utilized chemical warfare on august 21 in a

and there is now unclassified information, they knew where it came from, the missiles were shot, and they know from where. we we simply going to say will do nothing? i have confidence numbers will go beyond politics. i think there is a waters edge when it comes to this kind of issue. i think national security is very much involved. syria, but i think beyond because if we essentially say to the world we are not going to take any action, don't not only tossage the syrian government, but to others? i think the answer is yes. i have been here over 30 years.

i think now and then we can go beyond politics and this is one time we need to do that. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> congressman -- everybody does . you were skeptical going in.

at this point, would you be a yes or no based on what you heard? ask i was not skeptical with respect to the evidence or that the syrian regime committed atrocities. my belief on that was reinforced . sad regimee as committed these atrocities. what i'm continuing to wrestle with is how do we define success and a fullective understanding and consideration of the ramifications because if an attack from the united states on the assad regime is going to take place, after that first cruise missile leaves one of our submarines or one of our ships, there will be a series of events that unfold. not one person who can accurately predict with specificity what is going to happen.

is scenario i am troubled by if after a limited strike, the assad regime is still there, he has an troll of his military, he has control of chemical weapons, that troubles me. tomahawk strike with cruise missiles, let's say for example we attacked two air force bases, certainly that would result in a loss of life with young syrian conscripts that have nothing to do with the attack, yet the assad regime is still in place. >> do you think the goal should be toppling assad? >> i'm wrestling with this question. how does our prohibition against a targeted strike on assad -- he is the culpable one -- our policy is not targeting someone. does that make wherever he is present a safe zone? we are taking the lives of

syrians he is protecting. i think the ideal solution here is he and that being tried as a war criminal in the hague. thatuld prefer, but scenario is very unlikely. these are the things i'm wrestling with and others are as well. you asked for a vote on authorization. where are you on that based on what you just heard? >> i am in no based on the information i have now, not with respect to the evidence the right -- the assad regime committed the atrocity. i know because the clarity of where all of this goes, the definition we have accomplished the mission, that is still unclear to me. i fully acknowledge the president is faced with a series of imperfect alternatives. i know he is wrestling with this. we each will, 435 members of the

house and 100 senators. he was right to bring this decision to congress. i am convinced and many others are that this was the only right constitutionally correct path he could have or should have taken. i respect his decision. it did not show weakness in my view. thank you. you for stopping. >> congressman? >> who am i talking to? >> michael burgess. ira present 26th to strict in the state of. >> what did you think of that meeting? >> we heard a lot of information. there are a lot of rose and cons, i have to tell you. in my mind, it is far from settled. it's not something that should be undertaken lightly. certainly the mood in the district i represent is do not do this.

i honestly did not hear anything that told me i out to have a different position. if they hold off for another week or two weeks, is that too late? >> that's part of the question. if this is important to do, is it important to do today or before the year ends? i can tell you i'm convinced that the timeline outlined by the president yesterday is a valid one. intelligence the they were presenting that it is at least valid? >> yes is the short answer to that. whathe larger question is are you trying to accomplish with this? if the intelligence is correct and mr. assad launched an attack on his own people, did he do it because he felt he was backed

into a corner? how much more of a corner is he backed into if we send something over there that doesn't great harm? functioninge who is in his own self-interest and i don't see how that's going to change. as a consequence, i don't see how anything changes. you can't go and bomb the storehouses of chemical weapons, even if you know where they all are because then you disbursed them out into the general environment. there are a lot of risks here, the downsides are great, and back to what general eisenhower said in 1954, that was a pretty rough year. he said you should not go to war for emotional reasons. right now, i think it would be an emotional response and that's probably not a good enough reason. >> to be clear, that sounds like you are saying you are a no? >> there is no vote right now. my understanding is there's a resolution the white house has delivered to the congress great

i'm going to try to download that and read it on the plane back home. we get into the whole business of authorization and use of military force and what are the parameters and exit strategy and all of those questions you all asked for i conflicts. other >> you are on the rules committee and inevitably this would come through the rules committee. has there been a discussion on having multiple resolutions or amendments? >> no. >> would you like to see a multiple tier strategy? it has to come to the floor if that's thea intention of the president, it would be wrong to lock it in the committee. >> no discussions about multiple resolutions or amendments? the authorization or

iraq was before i got here but it was ready well laid out. it was an indictment of what saddam hussein had done over time. at the same time, no one would have 10 years later we would have still been here. notestimates were inaccurate. it was just the length of time was misjudged. thank you. >> are you a partner today? >> they have got a lot more explaining to do. for example. is areally stumps me which theresked, to was no answer. why does he use massive amounts of chemical weapons now?

he has been using small amounts up until now. all of a sudden, you get this terrible amount that the regime is weakened and on its last legs, or, winning the war, and they are about to wipe the opposition out. absolutely do not know anything from inside the regime. why did he invite in the chemical weapon inspectors? he is going to do irrational things. then, to top it all off, has blog, and iran, his two major allies, using chemical weapons. what am i to make of that? >> are you concerned about the quality of intelligence here? you said they have a lot of

explaining to do. >> only concerned about the quality of intelligence from within syria. i am not concerned about the use of chemical weapons. that has not been completely nailed down. i think they are almost there on that. i am not concerned about the legal basis for action. you said they have a lot of explaining to do. >> treaty does not say if somebody uses itthe, go in and b them. it is an old treaty and i am convinced chemical weapons are different from even the worst kind of warfare. with that, they satisfied me. a lot more intelligence they will have to give to the congress before you get the kind of majority they need to press ahead. the sales pitch from the administration? >> pretty much from -- what you are hearing all along. that we cannot act. there no use of chemical

weapons. of course, saddam used it. for the whole notion this had to be used now or the end of the world would come, it was not entirely credible. -- theynk some response did not convince me yet that the is forsponse available us to go in. tons ofe 100 metric this stuff. we cannot bomb it because they are banking on the fact we go in and that has a deterrent effect. that is a lot of hope. if it does not, they have been unable to answer -- they do have before the congress a very broad authorization.

. would be concerned about that they give the executive the broadest authorization. you would not have a vote on the floor on the actual resolution hit. of columbia has sent people to iraq, afghanistan, without a vote, and they have come home without a vote. --ill make sure i have can questions. my own constituents have been asking me, even though i cannot vote for them. i will do so. by thank you.

>> go-ahead. a few more. >> -- hearing what you have said, have you had an answer? >> i have made a -- i still have to read the intelligence brief downstairs. i still have to talk to mike to join their it i would still be leaning no. >> we have heard a lot of concern about the scope of the way this has been written. >> that is not the core of my concern. the core of my concern is it is a civil war. a religious war. i am not sure it directly impacts the national security of the united states. most of my constituents from what they have heard though far, they are willing to listen. i think they would expect me to listen. i do not think they would expect a knee-jerk reaction. but my judgment would be they

would be very skeptical at this point. >> thank you. i appreciate it. >> what do you think? is really important we are having an opportunity, as the representative hottie of the american people, to listen to each other, to hear the insights from members across the country reflecting the concerns and western their constituents have. is going to help us make a better informed decision. ultimately, if congress chooses to authorize the president's use of a limited military strike, that we would the more united. a stronger response. , as i am going through the process of making my decision, accountability has to be certain swift, and severe. for thebe important

strength of our response to have an impact on syria for the unity a congressional authorization would provide. >> this is ongoing for several weeks? x the definition of swiftness -- there is a lot of criticism. >> is is not from people who have had the benefit of the intelligence we have had. >> any way to go on -- .> i am really looking at this as a mom of babies wind as a mother, i would want, god forbid, in the suburbs iraq resent, a tyrant that ater our babies,

nation as strong as the united states would stand up for my children. that is what i cannot get out of my mind right now. >> with your role, how important forhis for the president, his legacy to get things done in congress in the future and get things done and the international stage. how much power will he happen the future if if congress does not support him? >> is has nothing to do with politics. it has everything to do with making sure international norms violated i the syrian cannot and should not go unanswered. that is the only consideration, that we have to come together.

politics should be set completely aside for this. in terms of the impact on president obama's effectiveness, this is important for america and the world. to deliver the process we will go to -- through, it will help strengthen our response. >> thank you. [indiscernible] i am from the great state of maryland. those closer to home have been following the issue very carefully. this was an important meeting. every member of congress has a very special obligation to collect all of the facts about what happened in syria. that is true any time. especially true given the fact the united states went to war in

iraq based on the false claim that saddam hussein had weapons of mass distraction, including chemical weapons. this is an important reefing. tohave had an opportunity review the classified information separately. it is very clear the asad regime used chemical weapons against civilians on august 21. i have long believed the united states and the international community have an obligation to enforce the well-established ban on the use of poison gas. i happen to be on the staff of the senate foreign relations committee back in the 1980's. we visited the turkish -- iraq border and determined saddam hussein had used chemical weapons.

we urge the united states government to take action then. the united states senate passed sanctions. the house did not act and the sanction was opposed. i believe the failure of the international community to not take action then emboldened the assad regime later. we went to war in iraq in 2003 when there were no longer any chemical weapons in iraq. it is important the united states and the international community's port this. while i would not support a blank check to go to war in iraq or even a partial blank check, i would support a very narrowly tailored, narrowly crafted resolution that made it clear that u.s. troops would not be on the ground, that made it very clear the purpose of our action is to determine use of

chemical weapons in syria and elsewhere in the world. resolutionhe presented by the administration does not currently meet the test. it is to broadly drafted. two open-ended. not a question of whether or not you trust the president. i do. this is a question now of what kind of authorization congress will give to the executive branch. >> how do you see this going forward? >> there are a number of changes. prohibitionpressed on american troops on the ground. i would argue we should be limiting our action to the use of our standoff capability so people are not put in the line of fire. at the very least, clear language that american troops

and soldiers will not be on the ground. secondly, there has to be some date in the legislation. you have to be careful because you want to be deterring the use of chemical weapons. that is the narrow purpose of this. there should be some opportunity to take action if the asad regime were to use chemical weapons again. you could say after the initial strike, the only additional authorization for force would be if there were another case of chemical weapons use from the resolve -- assad regime. there are ways, but it needs to be more narrowly drawn. i do not think anyone is interested in writing blank checks or even partial blank checks. this is a partial blank check the way it is currently drafted because it does not have those limitations that i mentioned. >> how do you see the changes

going forward? do you think it will be done by the democratic leadership? how will it happen? >> it will go through the regular order. the white house will of input and so will members of congress. the president will now ask congress to engage in this. i know the senate has right now scheduled some hearings. we will have to see. thank you. [indiscernible] >> last, but not least. [inaudible]

>> a lot of questions, legitimate questions, and people asking those questions. we had a wide range of discussion about everything, involving how much latitude the president would had -- would have, how -- what other countries might or might not do. .t was well thought out everyone had the opportunity to ask a question. everyone who wanted to essay question got the opportunity. there were follow-ups. it was respectful. a very good presentation. i am happy i heard it. >> are you yes or no? >> i support the president. these arey strongly war crimes and these are murdering children, innocent children, women, children, it should not stand. we have had prohibitions on this kind of behavior, for many

certainly since world war i. if this goes unchecked, it will invite every terrorist organization in the world to feel they can use poisonous gas him -- against his people with no repercussions. that is not something we want. >> earlier, he said he thought the resolution was a partial blank check. a couple of minutes ago, you seemed concerned about micromanaging. theld there be changes to resolution? >> i think there will be changes, possibly, after some discussion. but we have to be careful. you want thent -- president to do what he needs to do. people cannot have it both ways. some people say, it is just a surgical strike and it has no military value. what is the point?

it is just the president lashing out against people he does not like. you have other people saying it is too broad and it has got to be narrowed. where do you find the happy medium? i think it will be narrowed a bit but i do not want to tie the president's hands. he knows what he is doing. we have got to let him do it. did you learn anything about the intel we had for the chemical weapons attack that you can share from the briefing? >> we cannot share any intel. i learned i have no doubt in my mind gas was used and the assad people used it there it >> all of the members of congress are confident? >> people are asking questions. for me, you have this situation. in have the gas being used the suburbs, which is really the stronghold of the opposition. it would seem to me if the

opposition forces used it, they would not use it against their own citizens. they would use it against the strongholds of assad. it fact of the matter is, kind of give -- tells you who used them. of thelong with all other evidence, and things we have seen, and movement of personnel, leaves me no doubt it was used and that the assad forces used it. >> thank you. >> we also heard about syria and what is expected next for the country domestically and internationally on this morning's washington journal. it is about 40 minutes. >> we want to welcome gordon adams. he spent five years in the clinton white house as the theciate director

president seeking a vote on the syrian strike. >> i expect frankly a lot from president obama. the president found himself in termsernationally of the un security council being needing lease here, and nato not supporting it. he found himself alone domestically because there was a noting amount of noise but a lot of agreement about what the united states should do. under the circumstances, to take a step back and say if he sees the nation is behind him first before he does this, i think it was a clever move. >> hearings this week led by the chair of the foreign relations committee of new jersey.

subsequent hearings expected next week. you expect the debate to focus on? >> what is really interesting is neither the american people nor the congress is unified in terms of their view on the issue. 80% of the american people do not think we ought to mess ourselves in the syrian civil war. congress, we find both parties strong, fairly libertarian right-wing caucus and republicans reluctant to throw rank and military power around in the middle east. a strong set of advocates like lindsey graham and john mccain who want to go in and do more than the president is proposing. democrats equally divided between people who want to support the president and people reluctant to yet again interaction in the

middle east. >> let me share with you the chair of the house committee. the administration's syria policy has been incoherent and there are many unanswered questions. --

from the chair of the house foreign affairs committee.

guest: yes. and we're going to hear more of that kind of thing. some folks are quite deliberative and want to talk about it very seriously. i think for the president, this is a very smart political calculus. some have described it as a statement about his weakness, about his inability to lead. we have a lot of reasons for wanting to undermine the president on this. but i think, frankly, what the president has said is i take it to the congress. if the congress supports me, my hand in doing this is strengthened. if the congress defeats it, the congress owns responsibility for their not being an american response. so i think he's calling congressional bluff on this and we'll see where it comes out. but it's not a stupid decision. host: here's along those lines what the president said and what he told -- is going to tell members of congress. [video clip] >> here's my question for every member of congress and every member of the global community. what message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? what's the purpose of the international system that we built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, that has been agreed to by the government of 98% of the world's people, and approved overwhelmingly by the congress of the united states, is not enforced? make no mistake, this has implications beyond chemical warfare. if we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? to governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? to terrorists who would spread biological weapons? to armies who carry out genocide? host: and yet the president also seemed to indicate that even if congress doesn't go along with this vote, he would still act. guest: it's not clear whether he would or would not. my sense is if congress said no, the president is not going to carry this out unilaterally. i think that's, you know, the most likely response. presidents have over time decided either to seek congressional support or not to seek congressional support and move ahead. in fact, even this president, the libyan case, refused to go to the congress and simply

allowed the united states to participate in the libyan exercise. so he's going to use his judgment but my guess is if congress says no, the president's not going to go. host: the bbc reporting that the delay could embolden syrian president assad. could it? guest: absolutely. do you think anything would not embolden syrian president assad? the bottom line here -- and this is really -- the real problem with this decision is that president assad is going to do what president assad is going to do. and the american ability to influence his thinking is quite limited here. the president has chosen to emphasize one piece of policy that's very important to him, which is nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. so this is something he's worried about with biological weapons, something he's worried about a lot with respect to nuclear weapons and now chemical weapons. this has been a light motif of his presidency since the very start. so in this case, the vector of decision for him, i believe, is in the area of nonproliferation. we must not let this red line be crossed. we must do something. the downside is that from president assad's point of view, he is going to do what he is going to do to hang on to power, whether that means a limited attack by the united states or a civil war in his own country or using chemical weapons against

his people, what we have to understand in this situation is the american ability to impact events in this region is minimal. these events in the region, including the civil war in syria, are being driven by events and -- and groups and religious fractions and national and regional political conflicts, that the united states is not the master of. we will not shape this. the biggest downside of an attack by the united states in the middle of this is the uncertainty of the outcome in the region in terms of politics of the region. assad is not i think going to be particularly deterred one way or up to others who flout another. host: our guess is gordon adams, who is a professor of the school of international service at american university here in washington, d.c. spent five years at the clinton white house. is a graduate of stanford university. earned his master's and doctorate degree from columbia university. and the author or coauthor of a number of books, including "the iron triangle: the politics of defense contracting." and "mission creep: the militarization of u.s. foreign

policy." craig is joining us from east brookfield, massachusetts, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i'd like to go back to 9/11 and and look at when that happened, how -- how hurt we were, how

surprised and floored by the -- by the military power that was that was brought against us with such little effort and how we all came together, the president asked for prayers, people came together. we seem to be united on her -- how we wanted to take on this enemy together and how little by little, slowly how it became one party against another and then it became, when are we going to get out, how are we going to -- how are we going to fight this war? you know, we need a date. and then it just became political theater and a way for each party to hurt the other, especially the democrats to hurt the republicans. host: thanks for the call. guest: that points basically to my fundamental belief here which is that the politics and conflicts that are happening in the middle eastern region are conflicts in which the united states has relatively little capacity to have an impact.

we would not be in any position to send troops back into iraq in order to stop what's going on in iraq. our invasion and rather sloppy implementation of post-invasion occupation and reconstruction operations has left that particular country exposed to severe ethnic and religious conflicts that have become murderous and political. our capacity to influence those

outcomes now is quite limited. it is the same kind of ethnic and religious conflict that's going on in syria today. our ability, our voice is quite limited. and the real downside, the real risk of launching an attack by cruise missiles, for example, into the region is that at this point, over 70 or 80 years of history, american policy in the middle eastern region has allied itself with forces that are now losing the battle in the battle of history. and so our ability to have an impact in the region is almost counterproductive. any american military action in this region today is going to increase the level of anti- americanism in the region. there's almost no exception to that across the region, whether it's egypt, syria, saudi arabia or iraq. no matter what country you're in today, launching a military action by the united states is simply a repetition of 70 or 80 years worth of history that now is on losing side of history in that region. we don't know where history is going to go. we don't know what the outcome is going to be of these massive religious, ethnic and sectarian conflicts but our ability to channel them or shape them is extraordinarily limited. host: a couple of headlines courtesy of the newseum. the president turns to congress on the issue of syria. the denver sunday post has this headline, "an about-face on sy the president says he asking for congress to vote on the action." the "atlanta journal constitution" asks congress to get a say on the syrian question. and one other headline from the boston sunday globe, obama seeks congressional approval for an

okay on syria. this is from one of our viewers saying, face it, the president played the cards he was dealt with correctly. this ultimately will be decided by the do-nothing congress. guest: i don't know if it will be decided by the do-nothing congress. and in it instance, i don't know if the president will do nothing. what the president has done is opened an opportunity for congress to have a say. it's not the first time that a president has asked congress for this kind of authorization. the -- president bush asked -- president bush one asked for it with respect to gulf war one. president george w. bush asked for it with respect to gulf war two. it's also not unusual for a president not to ask for permission. ronald reagan didn't ask for permission when he went into grenada. president obama didn't ask for permission when he went into libya.

presidents have always had an ambivalent relationship with the congress when it comes to asking for their authorization on go to war. and although we have congressional authority to declare war, we haven't used it since the second world war. so virtually every military action we've had has been without a declaration of war. at that point, the powers and authorities are ambivalent and ambiguous. some presidents ask. some presidents don't ask. and in this case, the same president does both things -- doesn't ask one time, does ask another time. what it tells us is decisions about going to war and, in fact, about much of foreign policy, are political decisions. they have domestic consequences. you can't do them without having domestic support. and in this case, it's not clear that the president will have domestic support. host: gordon adams, who worked in the clinton white house, now professor at american university here in washington. freddie from oakland, california. good morning.

caller: good morning. i've been watching the show a whole lot, maybe like ten years, and one thing i have not noticed, the american people have been truly dumbed down. we have a lot of sympathy for israel. i'm not hearing anything much about israel. if people would stop and do their history, we would look and see that the people that's running israel came from poland and russia. they're not the indigenous israelites. so israel have everything to gain. we -- they're not threatening us. they're probably threatening israel because israel's taking their property, their land and trying to run the middle east. let's look back. let's have some segments on who the true jews are. they own your judicial system, your financial system, your news media and everything else. they're 1% of our population but they're running the world. and we're not waking up to them. host: your point is what? caller: my point is that this is all behind israel and taking over the middle east. host: we'll get a response. guest: yeah, i don't agree with you for a minute about who owns what with respect to the media, finance system or any of that. i just think that's a myth. but what's the interesting

question tucked into what you're saying is there's been a lot of silence from israel about its view on what's happening here. and i think that silence from the -- from the israeli government reflects an ambivalence that is understandable. from the israeli point of view, having security around its borders is an important benefit. egypt is uncertain. jordan frequently troubled now, with a lot of syrian refugees. lebanon on its northern border. hezbollah, influence rising, rocket attacks into israel. and syria has been a, if you will, a -- an island of stability in israel's regional relationship with assad in the presidency. so from one point of view, the israelis might be happier to have assad stay there and have syria be stable but we're past that point. from the other point of view, for the israelis, assad leaving in syria at least opens the door to an iranian loss in the region because assad's been an ally of iran. if that were to happen from the

israeli point of view, the uncertainty about the political outcome in syria might be outweighed by the new regime. so i'm kind of not surprised that the israelis have been quiet and putting on their gas masks. host: a couple of developments courtesy of the associated press. this morning, the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, has told his cabinet that his country -- quote -- "is ready for any possible scenario." at the united nations in new york, the secretary-general expected to be briefed by the head of the chemical weapons team on exactly what they saw. in egypt, the arab league foreign minister scheduled to hold an emergency session in cairo to discuss the developments in syria. and with this photograph courtesy of the "new york times," the aircraft carrier, the abraham lincoln in the ararian sea. there are five destroyers in the eastern mediterranean sea armed with dozens of tomahawk cruise missiles. they continue to stand by. and from france, the french president saying he will wait for the french parliament and u.s. congress to consider

possible military action. on all of these fronts, your thoughts. guest: what we're hearing and what we're seeing here is a disbursal of point of view and an uncertainty about direction and an uncertainty about implications of this kind of a strike. the israeli position is very consistent with what i was saying. we're ready for anything. we're not taking an opinion on this. in the united nations, the president clearly does not have the support of the security council.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

caller: i process it. as far as the -- i protested. evenr as the morality, yesterday and the day before, -- the deaths, just the wmd's on children is terrific. all the deaths of children in iraq, are less valued? what is the value when you come to work. think,at the world and i if man keeps going the way he is, and the general mode -- and the gentleman before him, if people reasons the fact this was going on gradually, a reason to

kill each other, i said to my grandson, i said, i wish the spaceman would come down and say they are coming back to take over this planet. it is the first time in the planet's history that humanity might unite and not kill each other. since man became part of this planet, he's been attacking each other. host: thanks for the call. i would love for you to take some concern into the region. i read that over the next 20, 30 years we're going to see a lot of dust in the air in this region before the dust settles.

most of us -- the brits, americans, japanese, chinese -- will be holding hands in the circle around this region for a while, because the conflicts in is awhile, because the conflicts in the region are by and large indigenous to the region. the countries that have historically played a role in this region have all done so in ways that helped createand how will you look in that and i i swam as an as this is a he is slow andand he and i and you know is you is

i and as an dictatorial regimes, very difficult politics, arbitrary borderlines between nations, tribes and groups and ethnicities and religions. we have a cultural challenge that is internal to this region now. a political challenge internal to this region. the capacity under which the russians, the americans can come to bear in this language, shape events, our capacity is quite and you and he and i and yo

a military intrusion that might be done for the best of all possible reasons could bounce back, blowback, and be seen in the region as yet another launch of american military power in the islamic world. there is a serious downside in terms of our ability to relate to this region of the world. host: secretary of state john kerry is making the rounds, appearing on "face the nation" and "state of the union." he said a no vote by congress is not expected, and that america's overall security is at stake. guest: i always worry when presidents and administrations think their credibility is at stake. credibility is very hard to measure. are we more credible in the region by launching a military attack, or less credible because we launched a military attack? with whom are we more credible? measuring credibility is always dicey.

host: we have seen photographs. secretary of state kerry indicating that there in -- chemical weapons were used. guest: nobody would deny that what we saw on the internet and youtube was devastatingly horrible, and a criminal act likely to have been executed by the president of syria and his military forces. i have no doubt that is true. the president got himself in some trouble with this response, where he drew a red line. that put him in a box. the minute bashar al-assad use these weapons, he was forced into the box where he had to act or not act. that raised the issue for him of his credibility. weapons of mass destruction are a high priority for this president. he put himself in a box when he drew the line. now bashar al-assad has called his bluff. we are in the bluffing end of the game. what we have to think about is,

what are the long-term implications of a military strike? are they likely to be positive? will they change the situation? are they likely to diminish american credibility internationally because they struck militarily? and from some people's point of view, and effectively. host: you have tens of thousands of these refugees, hundreds of thousands across the border in jordan and turkey and egypt and elsewhere. guest: you have a massive outflow of population. we saw that in iraq. it pushed millions of iraqis out, waiting to see how events would unfold. any major civil war, use of siloed -- military force leads you to a massive refugee population. in turkey, a major influx of kurds refugees has destabilizing effects in turkey. in jordan, a relatively impoverished government is trying to cope with not only a large palestinian they asked brock, but now with a major syrian -- diaspora, but now with a major syrian disapora. this is a miserable situation, and it's miserable outside the

borders of syria itself. the real challenge the administration faces is, how do you create an international understanding? how do you facilitate national negotiation and syria that leads to an end to the violence? a relatively limited and point strike is not likely to weigh much in the balance in terms of seeking that solution. host: many of you weighing in on our facebook page. obama pulled a bill clinton political move, says israel tamang. from our twitter page, there is this comment. stewart's joining us from great britain. good morning. caller: i had to go back to what your current spokesman is saying about obama being in a box. i have been watching what is happening in british parliament all this week. do you think that obama is going into this expecting he's going to lose, and is getting himself on the hook that he doesn't want to be on? despite the complexity of everything you have been describing, this has become a simple political problem for obama, and his way of dealing

with it is, if i go to the house or the hill, i know i could not get them to agree because they will vote on -- against almost anything i want? guest: very good question. you could describe this as a win-win or win-draw for the president. to view a president's decision about foreign policy in the congress as just being a politician does not quite understand the nature of foreign policy or politics. all presidents are politicians.

a good deal of foreign policy is actually domestic politics. president obama has faced -- he has faced a fractious congress for the entirety of his presidency, including a substantial minority who would like to see him impeached our out of office -- or out of office. is a president who has been besieged by a do-nothing congress. he has done clever jujitsu

politically, saying to congress, put up or shut up. host: trevor from new york city. caller: talking about these calls from the u.k. -- don't you think the turnaround by president obama and asking for congressional approval is simply because dave cameron lifted the phone and said, take my advice and have the people's input before doing anything? guest: absolutely. i was not inside the white house doubler -- to liberations -- deliberations, but i have no doubt that the vote in the house of commons was very influential in the president's decision, to a decision to ask the congress to provide him with that authority. he was and is very much alone in this decision.

the un security council, nato, the arab league is not with him. only the french internationally said they would support a unilateral strike. domestically, he was alone. he had not build political support for this decision. the vote in the commons was critical. the president's decision was heavily influenced by that vote, and the need to find some support, someone who would have his back on his decision. host: henry chu reporting from london that the president's decision to seek congressional approval could bring another vote in the house of commons. guest: it is likely. i understand that they will come back next week and revisit this. now they want to see what the house of representatives and senate do.

host: this is a headline that made a lot of news last week, the reporting of bart gelman, the release of what is called the black budget, details of war in cyberspace. david ignatius is writing about this inside the "washington post." he says, one conclusion that emerges from the revelation of the secret black budget is that the u.s. does not have many secrets anymore. guest: the "washington post" probably had a lot of discussions about this. the details here are the kind of thing that people would have celebrated to have 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. they are now out there in the

public. what is really interesting is the amount of damage that this has done to the u.s. is extraordinarily minimal. you have not heard people screaming about it. i think ignatius has the right point. in the internet age, with a generation of people who don't believe secrets are important, we are living in a totally different age from the mental thoughts of those who are responsible for the security system in the u.s. government. they don't know how to deal with the reality that these are all becoming well-known facts. host: he concludes with this point.

the beneficiaries and in no secrets world will be relatively open societies. guest: the issue here is not at snowden -- ed snowden. the issue is having that debate about how open a society we are, about what the government can do, what they can look at, how broadly they can intrude, and what the limitations, rules, and controls need to be on this information. we have over classified stuff for decades. we are declassifying by stealth

as we go along with people who are whistleblowers. it will be a very important debate over the next year or two what the constraints are of the patriot act and pfizer court. we are watching a big change happen. host: deborah joining us on the independent line from florida. gordon adams, professor at the school of international service. caller: good morning. i would like to know when the u.s. became the kgb of the world. why do we need to take on all the problems of the middle east when there is no way we can resolve their religious issues? guest: that is a $640 billion question. over the 30 or 40 years i have spent in the national security establishment, we've always had

a rhetoric internally and even with the public dominated by the view that we were the indispensable nation, the one country that everyone relied on to bring order out of chaos, maintain stability, prevent anarchy around the world. it has been a miss to us for a long time, but we have global capabilities. the u.s. has a global military. we can fly and deploy everywhere, sale everywhere. we have bases everywhere. we have intelligence of a kind that no other country finds imaginable. for all of that capability, we cannot shape events in every region of the world. making choices is what being president is all about. this is one of the areas where

the president is struggling with a choice and limited ability to affect the outcome of events that are historic in the middle east and beyond our control. host: a follow-up from mike, who sent us an e-mail. he says, why is nobody talking about building a wartime's kreis war crimes case against the syrian regime members? guest: i have no doubts that people are working on what it would like to bring war crimes cases against bashar al-assad. we have done it with historic cases of war crimes in the balkans, africa. i have no doubt that the international criminal court and administration are taking a look at it. host: patrick, good morning, on our democrat's line. caller: i agree that we have a do-nothing congress. i think they will do nothing with regard to any kind of action towards syria. i think that is a big mistake. we have to show that we are the leaders of the free world. we stand up for societies that need our help. something should be done. i hope that obama exercises the war crimes thing and does

something anyway. we need to do something. guest: it is a good question. they may surprise you in congress. there are a lot of people who would like to support the president. you can bet there's going to be a struggle on the hill about this resolution. my guess is that at the end of the day they probably pass something. it could be that it doesn't work. presidents have tried this. it squeaked through the senate in terms of gulf war one. in the end, the hill will probably see its way to some kind of an answer. the bigger question for leadership is, leadership involves choice making, weighing interests, and restraint. the hardest thing for the american people to put up with is restraint in the white house. our instinct is to strike back and do it now, do something. it's not clear where restraint is the better choice.

host: thank you for joining us. professor at american university and veteran of the clinton white house. some news on this sunday morning, the passing of sir david france. his work, his interviews available on our website at www.c-span.org. from "usa today," david frost dies. in "washington journal." a look at the right to work laws , discussing the impact of those laws on unions

and labor force. mary kay henry talks about labor unions. we will also take your phone calls and share the days latest news and headlines. live every day starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. think you have to unplug. it is good to be analog sometimes. it is very hard. ,ne of the unintended unfortunate consequences of texting and instant messaging and social networking and e- tol is that it is very hard be off the grid, out of touch, and sometimes, that means it is hard to find a big enough chunk of time to just think or relax and although i think those things are important for your health and also the quality of

your work. i think it is up to people to try to figure out a way to unplug or mostly unplug at least for time. more about the future of personal technology monday athts on the communicators 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> c-span. public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at , whitesional hearings house event, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable industry years ago and funded by your local satellite provider. now, you can watch us in hd. tonight, on c-span, q and a with charlie cook, political analyst.

followed by the perdition house of common debate on uk action in syria. then, u.s. representatives speak with reporters on the situation in syria. >> this week on "q & a" editor and publisher and national journal columnist, charlie cook, talks about his job as a political reporter and -- eporter, and how he became interested in politics. >> when did charlie cook become charlie wook cook? >> i