just say "wow." >> charlie cook, we are over time. charlie cook, "cook political reports." >> thank you. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captions performed by national captioning institute] >> on the next washington journal, jeremy mayer will iscuss the war powers act.

after that at 8:30, mark mix discussing union organization. and then at 9:515 earthquake, mary kay henry talks about labor unions. we will also take your phone calls and share the day's latest news and headlines on "washington journal" live every ay starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> if they went by the data, parents would say they wavent to give get things -- if you take

the data and just act on the data you are going to be in big trouble. because people lie, a, and as steve jobs said, people don't know what they want until they see it. you can ask threm a million questions and then you can give them an ipad. he didn't take any -- there were no focus groups and data in the building of that ipad. it was all in here. >> what will the future bring. this discuss on the digital revolution is one of our atured programs labor day, -span. >> the media is clearly a dominant -- increasingly

dominant criteria for every first lady. but in the end, the buy graphic cal, human stories, you know, which are not limited to the 19th century or the 20th century or media or anything else. t is how these people endure and prevail and the very rough world of politics. historians preview "first ladies, influence and image" featuring 20 first ladies from the 21st century to the president, looking at their private lives and public roles on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> the prospect of britain taking military action against syria was the topic of debate this past week in the british house of commons.

prime minister david cameron met with the house of commons to outline military intervention saying there was little doubt syria used chemical weapons. members eventually voted 285-2782 not to move forward with military force. up next, some of that debate between the prime minister and other members of the house of commons. this is just over an hour.

>> the british house rejected a proposal for the response to syria. mr. cameron had recalled parliament to outline the basis for military action, saying it was beyond doubt that the syrian government used chemical weapons against its own people and that the uk cannot stand aside. >> we begin with members of the house motion, motion number 1. the leader of the house to move the motion. thank you. we have a summary of the government's legal position, making it explicit that no action would have a legal basis

at the moment. we have the legal basis from the joint intelligence committee. e have a motion from the government to set back a path of steps that need to be taken before britain can participate in any military action. they include another vote in this house of commons. even if all of these steps are taken, anything we do would have to be legal, proportionate, and specifically focused on determining and preventing any further use of chemical weapons. >> why do you refuse to publish the full attorney general site, especially when legal experts are saying that without explicit u.n. security council enforcement, it is not legal under international law. >> there has been a long standing convention backed by attorneys generals of all governments not to publish any

legal device at all. this government has changed that. we published a summary of the legal advice. with this issue, we published a clear summary of the legal advice. i would urge all right honorable members to read it. mr. speaker, i am deeply mindful of the lessons of different conflicts. i am deeply mindful. in particular, the deep divisions in what went wrong with the iraq conflict in 2003. this is not like iraq. what we are seeing in syria is fundamentally different. we are not invading a country. we are not searching for chemical or biological weapons. the case for ultimately -- and i say ultimately because there will have to be another vote in this house -- the case for ultimately supporting action is not based on a specific piece or pieces of intelligence. the fact that the syrian government has and has used chemical weapons is beyond

doubt. the fact that the most recent attack took place is not seriously doubted. the syrian government has said it took place. even the iranian president said it took place. and the evidence that the syrian regime used these weapons in the early hours of the 21st of august is right in front of our yes. we have accounts of chemical-filled rockets being used. we have media reports and 95 different videos documenting the evidence. the difference between 2003 and the situation with iraq go wider. then europe was divided over what should be done. now europe is united in the view that we should not let this use stand. nato made a clear statement that those who are responsible should be held accountable. in 2003, the arab league was opposed to action. now are calling for it. they have issued a statement holding the syrian regime

responsible and asking the international community to overcome internal disagreements to take action over who is esponsible for this crime. >> a couple of days ago, i was expecting to oppose the overnment. is my honorable friend aware that his determination to go down the route of the united nations and his willingness to share it in this house will be helpful in making up my mind tonight. >> i want to unite as much of the country and as much of this house as possible. it is right on these vital issues of national importance, we should seek the break this consensus. that is the right thing and we will continue to do that. mr. speaker, the president of the united states, barack obama,

is a man who opposes the action. no one could describe him as a president who wants to involve america in more wars in the middle east. he supports action in this case. when i spoke to president obama last weekend, i said we shared his view about the despicable nature about the use of chemical weapons and we must not stand aside. i also explained to him that because of the damage done to public confidence by iraq, we would have to follow a series of incremental steps to build have you looked at the consequences of what will happen with intervention and the affected will have on countries like yemen? >> i have taken a look at all of the impacts on the region. this is the next question that needs to be answered. the region has already been affected by the war in syria. jordan is coping with a massive influx of refugees.

turkey has suffered terrorist attacks and shelling from across the border. that is why the arab league has been so clear in condemning the action and attributing it precisely to present a sigh and calling for international action. this is a major difference with past crises we have had in the middle east. there are clear international laws and people in countries that are prepared to stand up to hem. i'm most grateful to the prime minister for giving way. my reading of his motion tells me that everything within it could have been debated on onday.

>> i believe my constituents like those in the rest of the house wants to the prime minister to make clear on behalf of this country that we are not going to walk away from the illegal use of chemical weapons, but we are going to give peace a chance. will he assure us that he will continue to engage, however difficult, with russia and other key countries to try to make sure the u.n. route is productive and the diplomatic process is engaged again as soon as possible? >> i agree with my honorable friend. we must continue the process of diplomatic engaged in. i saw president putin on monday and had a long discussion about this -- president putin on monday and i had a long discussion with him about this issue. his deep public cynicism has carried with me, that is why i wanted parliament called and i wanted this debate to bring the country together and not divide it. that is why i included in my motion, in the government's motion, all the issues that i could that were raised with me by the leader of the option and, indeed, by many colleagues on all sides of the house, the

beral democratic parties and the other parties in the house because i wanted us to have the greatest unity. now, i have read the opposition motion carefully and it has much to commend it. the need for the u.n. investigators to report. the process at the united nations. quite right. and the commitment to another vote in this house for parmings in direct action. that is in our action, too. i believe this is deefficient in two vital respects. refers to the debt on the 21st of august but does not refer to the fact that they were aused by chemical weapons. this is accepted by almost everyone across the world. i think for the house to ignore it would send a very bad message to the world. >> here, here. >> second, in no way does the opposition motion even begin to point the finger of plame blame at president assad.

now, that is at odds with what has been said by nato, president obama, and every european and regional aleader i have spoken to. by the governments of australia, canada, turkey to name a few, by the whole arab league. t is at odds with the -- i think the opposition amendment will be the wrong message for this house to send to the world. r that reason, i will be recommending that my honorable friends vote against it.

>> it cannot be the case that that is the only way to have a legal basis for action. we should consider for a moment what the consequences would be if that were the case. you is could have a situation in a country where its government was literally anile lating half the people in that country, but because of one vito on the security council, you would be hampered from taking action. i can't think of any member on any side of this house that ould sign up for that. > i am extremely grateful to

listen to further military intervention in the middle east. can i ask him why our allies in the middle east like qatar, kuwait, and others, cannot take action. why does it fall on us again? >> my honorable friend makes a good point. no decision about military action has been taken. it would require another vote of this house. but if we wanted to see action that was purely about detering and degrading future chemical weapons use by syria, and that is the only basis on which i would support any action, then you need countries that have the capabilities to do that on which the united states and united kingdom are, too. i will take one from my honorable friend here and then there. >> on the matter of international law, did not the world leaders and u.n. in 2005 sign up unanimously to the doctrine of the responsibility to protect, which means that if countries default in their responsibility to defend their

own citizens, then the international community has a responsibility as ai whole to defend those citizens? syria has defaulted on its responsibility to protect its own citizens. surely now the international community and ourselves do have a responsibility to undertake what we agreed to do just as recently as 2005. >> my honorable friend makes a very important point and it relates to what happened in kosovo and elsewhere. let me clear about what is happening today. yes it is about doctrine, but it is also about chemical weapons. it is about a treaty that the whole world agreed to almost 100 years ago after the horrors of the first world war. the question is, is britain a untry that wants to uphold taboo about the use of chemical weapons. and my issue is, yes it should e.

>> the question is the motion on yria and the use of chemical

the question facing this house is what, if any, military action we should take and what criteria should determine that decision? that is what i want to focus on in my speech today. it is right to say at the beginning of my remarks that the prime minister said a couple of times in his speech worse to the effect of, we are not going to get further involved -- words to the effect of, we are not going to get further involved in that conflict. i have to say, that is simply not the case. that does not rule out ntervention. >> why is it only now that the prime minister thinks this is the time for intervention? >> we know there are the 14 uses of chemical weapons on a smaller scale, at least 14. this does seem to me and to president obama, and to president alon, and many others, a great moment to ask whether it stand upo do something

for the prohibition of chemical weapons. let me make a little bit of progress. in my speech, i want to do three hings. three hospitals in the damascus area received approximately 306,000 patients with people with symptoms of chemical weapons atax. at least 350 of those innocent people died. the video available exhibits some of the most sickening human suffering available. there can be no way this wide could have been

fabricated, particularly the behavior of small children. there are pictures of bodies with symptoms of that consistent with nerve agent exposure, including muscle spasms and foaming at the mouth. ladies and gentlemen, anyone in this chamber who has not seen those videos should force themselves to wamp them. you can never forget the sight of children's bodies stored in ice. young men and women gasping for air and all inflicted by weapons that have been outlawed for nearly a century. the syrian regime has admitted they were conducting a major military action at that time. the media called for immediate unrestricted access for u.n. inspectors while artillery and rocket fire in the area reached a level around four times higher than the preceding 10 days. there is intelligence that syrian regime forces took precautions normally associated with chemical weapons use. now compl examining all this evidence together with the available intelligence, the joint intelligence committee has made its judgment. it has done so in line with the

reforms put in place after the iraq war by sir robin butler. today publishing these key judgments in a letter from the chair of the joint intelligence committee. the letter states -- let me deal with this and i will take some introductions. the letter states there is little serious dispute that serious attacks took place on the 21st of august. on the syrian opposition, the letter states, there is no yble credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims of chemical weapons by the opposition. the joint intelligence committee therefore concludes it is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a chemical weapons attack on this scale. it says this, and i quote, the riege regime has used chemical weapons on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past. there is some suggestion to in the ulpability attack. the chairman in his letters to

makes this point absolutely clear. he says this, and i quote, there are no applausible alternative scenarios to regime cull pyanlt. i am not saying there is some piece of intelligence that i've seen that's world won't see that convinces me i'm right. i'm saying this is a judgment. we all have to reach a judgment about what happened and who was responsible. but i would put it to you that from all the evidence we have, the fact the opposition don't have chemical weapons, the fact the regime do, the fact they have used it, the fact they were attacking the area at the time, and that intelligence i have reported, that is enough to conclude the regime is it cull pable. let me take the right old lady and then the honnable gentleman. >> where is it that an action by the snalm community would cease the use of chemical weapons within syria, a country where the competence have accepted

100,000 dead, millions of refugees and the continuing action which is destroying totally that country. where is the evidence that convinces him that the external world can prevent this. >> honorable lady makes an extremely serious point. in the end, there is no 100% certainty about who is responsible. you have to make a judgment. certainty so no 100% about what path of action might succeed or fail. but let me say this to the honorable lady. i think we can be as seven as possible, that when we have a regime that has aused chemical -- at on at least 140 least 14 occasions, that if nothing is done, it will conclude it can use these weapons again and again and on a larger scale. to me the biggest danger of escalation is if the world community stands back and does nothing. i think assad will draw very clear con includings from that.

why he thinks president assad did this? thereeems to be no logic to this and that is worrying some people. >> it is a very good question. if you read the conclusion this is where they find the greatest difficulty of aribing motives. lots of motives have ascribed. from my part the most likely possibility is that he has been testing 14 uses and response and he wants to know whether the world will respond to the use of these weapons which suspect tragically and repulse >> guest: are proving quite a effective on the battlefield but in the end wkend know the mind of this brutal dictator. all we can do is make a judgment about whether it is better to act or not to act and make a judgment whether he is responsible or not responsible. in an end these are all issues of judgment and as members parliament we have to make them. i take a question from the scottish national party.

>> any signs of military action before syria? >> i obviously can't discuss the details of potential action in detail ifront of this house but i can tell the house the american president and i have been discussions reported in the newspaper about potential military action. we have had those discussions and the american president would ke to have allies alongside the united states with the cability and the partnership that britain and america has but we have set out very clearly what brita would need to see to happen for us to take part in at. more action at the u.n. report by the u.n. inspectors and furtr vote in this house. actions won't be determined by my good friend and ally the american president. they will be cited by this government and the house of commons. >> i agree with the prime

minister the horror of chemical weapons but the vast majority of the 100,000 killed so far in this civil war in syria was the result of conventional weapons. can you convince the house that military action by our country would shorten the civil war, how to herald in the postwar government that could create stability? >> good question. i can't make any of those assurances. we have not made that decision but were we to make a decision to join the americans in military action it would have to bection in my view that was solely about deterring and degrading the future use of chemical weapons by the syrian regime. full stop, an end of story and if we were aware of large-scale use of chemical weapons by the opposition i would be making the same argument and the same recommendations. ..

let me turn -- i'm going to make sol progress, as i said, the second part of my speech is deal with the action motion. i want to address those and take more interventions. whatever disagreement will there other over the complex in syria. i -- the world came togetherto agree in 1925 treaty and outlaw the use of chemical weapons. international law since that time reflected a determination the event of the war should

never be repeated. it put a like in the sand. whatever happens the weapons must not be used. they have crossed the line, in my view, and there should be consequence. it's the first use of chemical weapons this century. for at least 100 years. interfering in another country's affairs should be undertaken except for the most exceptional circumstance. it is must be a humanitarian catastrophe and a last result. this is the humanitarian catastrophe. if there are no consequences for it, there's nothing to stop it and other dictators from using the weapons again and again. as i said doing nothing is a chce. it's qhois with consequences and the consequences, in my view, would not just be about president assad and his future use of chemical weapons. decades of pain staking work to cru