our assessment very closely matches the french assessment. >> my circuit -- my question to you secretary kerry is in light of the vulnerability of these countries, what has been the response of the arab and muslim world to this? you have listed four or five who stepped forward to say they support our efforts. it would seem that if this danger in the region is so profound that we would have even greater support. >> senator, i think this is something i would be happier discussing in greater detail with you in a closed session. there are obviously some countries for whom public statements are more complicated than others. i think we should talk about that in the other session. dempsey,nough. general we saw these photographs earlier. it was heartbreaking. page three of "the washington post," a group supporting the president's effort has a

photograph that is riveted in my mind as a father and grandfather . children on the floor in shrouds , victims of the gas attack. what the administration is asking as far as military authority to launch additional attacks, what have you been charged with in terms of the issue of collateral damage? as it would affect innocent people and civilians in the nation of syria. >> senator, the guidance we received on targeting is to maintain a collateral damage estimate of low. just briefly on how we come up our assessment, it is based on how much we know about a target through intelligence. its proximity to civilian weaponres, and what against it. i collateral damage estimate of

low means just that, that it will keep collateral damage lower than a certain number which i would rather share in a classified setting. that doesn't mean that we would have the same constraint in what damage could be done to regime personnel. that is a separate issue. even in that case, i could tell you more in a classified setting. >> i look forward to that. >> thank you, senator. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is very good to see teresa here with you in good health and good spirits. i apologize for what i am about to do to john. john, when you tell the enemy ,ou're going to attack them they are obviously going to disburse and try to make it harder.

i am looking right here at a story, syria said to be hiding weapons and moving troops. there is even open-source reporting that they may be moving some of their assets into the russian naval base. let's not get -- it is ridiculous to think that it is not wise from a military standpoint to advise the enemy you're going to attack. weregon planners instructed not to offer strike options that could help drive mr. assad from power. the concern is the wrong groups will be able to take advantage of it. a senior military officer said, is there any truth to that? us for aesident asked range of options and we provided him a range. >> i am asking if there is any truth. >> our options were not limited to -- >> any truth to the story in the wall street journal? >> no. >> secretary kerry, the same

reflectedhe delay broader u.s. approach rarely discussed publicly that underpins decision-making according to former and current u.s. officials, the and menstruation doesn't want to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear. the outcome may be worse than the current stalemate. if that story accurate? >> no. by the way, can i add something? on the warning issue, i don't disagree with you. in fact, the general wouldn't disagree either. we are all -- >> the general said it would be -- let's not get into that. >> although want to say is that there were leaks which are the bane of everybody's existence. the fact is that the newspapers began to carry stories about a strike and targeting well before any decisions were made. that began a process of moving. now, -- >> i got it.

i would like to move on to more important questions. >> i thought all your questions were important. >> thank you, john. i will try to run a number that. thatresident said today the purpose of military action in syria is not just to respond to chemical weapons use, but to the greatest -- to degrade his military capabilities as part of your broader strategy. said, to allow syria to ultimately free itself. do you agree with that assessment? front, they will automatically be as a result of degrading his ability or chemical weapons, there will be downstream impact which will have an impact on his military capacity. i agree with the president. >> general dempsey, do you agree with that statement? >> i agree. i have never been told to change the momentum. i have been told to degrade

capability. momentumt a change in that syria could ultimately free itself? >> i think they all are connected. degrading military capability as you know is a pretty significant part of momentum shifts. john, over the weekend, the washington journal ran an important op-ed, i hope you saw it. a syria analyst spent a great deal of time inside syria including this month. i want to read her assessment of the situation on the ground. i quote the story. holdsnventional wisdom that extremist elements are mixed in with moderate rebel groups. this isn't the case. wieldtes and extremists control over distinct territory. contrary to media accounts, the being waged is not

entirely or predominantly by dangerous islamist and al qaeda diehards. in are noturing flocking to the front lines. they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern rebel held areas of the country. , aerate opposition forces collection of folks known as the free syrian army, continue to lead the fight against the syrian regime. with theseling battalions, i watched them defend christian villages. they demonstrated willingness to submit to civilian authority working closely with local administrator councils and they struggle to ensure that their fight against a side will pave the way -- assad will pave the way for a flourishing society. do you agree with this assessment of the opposition?

>> i agree with most of that. they have changed the definitely. the said earlier, fundamentals of syria are secular. i believe it will stay that way. >> i think it is very important to point out, it is a secular state. they would reject radical islamists and in some cases come in the areas in which they have control -- the information i have. when we see these commentators say, we don't know which side will win, we don't know who the bad guys are. if you agree with this assessment, we know who the bad guys are. is that correct? >> i believe we do for the most part. worse and they tend to be mostly in the northern area and the east. >> i thank you. again, i would like to ask. can you assure the committee that the administration does not

see a protracted stalemate in syria as somehow a good thing or a goal of u.s. policy? >> the goal of u.s. policy is not a stalemate. the goal is a negotiated solution which resulted in the departure of assad and a free choice of the syrian people for their future. , if would like to ask again resolution,is doesn't it send a seriously bad message to our friends and allies? andurage our enemies despair at our friends, particularly those fighting in syria? mccain, i have gotten to know my counterparts in the mideast particularly well because of the number of crises

and initiatives that we have had to deal with in that region. i cannot emphasize enough how ,uch they are looking to us now making judgments about us for the long term, and how critical the choice we make here will be, not just to the question of we maybut to the support or may not anticipate in the mideast peace process, to the future of egypt, to the transformation of the middle east, to the stability of the region and other interest that we have. there is no way to separate one thing from all of the rest. relationships are relationships. they are integrated and that is why this is so important. >> i would also emphasize, if it is a wrong kind of resolution, it can do as much damage in my view. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. senator.

>> thank you very much. forank all the witnesses their testimony and for their service here today. i also want to thank chairman menendez for the way he is conducted this hearing. like everyone here, i deplore what bashar al-assad has done to his own people. by attacking them with chemical weapons, assad has committed an atrocious crime so heinous that international law singles it out as an assault deserving of international action. let there be no mistake, i fully deserves horrific acts and international response. what should the response be? that is why we are here today. to ask that question and many others. i hope this hearing will do more than just rubberstamp a decision that has already been made by the administration. about whate concerns

the administration is asking of us, our military and of the american people. here is the situation as i see it. with limited international support, we are being told the united states must retaliate for the use of chemical weapons with a surgical bombing campaign of our own. we are being told we are bombing in order to send a message, but what message are we sending? to the international community, we are saying once again the united states will be the world's policeman. you break a law, the united states will step in. we are on shaky international eagle foundations with this potential strike. -- legal foundations with this potential strike. we need to know if we have exhausted all options to affect syria's behavior. we need to increase our attention on the source of assad's ability to continue to

ruthlessly kill his own people. that is support from nations including russia and china who are cynically trying to hold the moral high ground. assad would not be able to maintain his grip on power if he were not being supported from outside. the full force of international outrage should come down on those nations that are refusing to allow the u.n. to act and find a solution. finally, i see this potential bombing campaign as a potential next step towards full-fledged war. you have been here before. began as an international effort to kick some hussein out of kuwait, and then years of a no-fly zone to keep saddam from threatening his neighbors or reconstituting his arsenal of chemical weapons. as we all know, this limited military action eventually led

to what is one of the biggest blunders in u.s. foreign policy. a war that i voted against. many who voted for it came to regret that vote. americans are understandably weary after the fiasco of iraq in over a decade of war, how can this administration make a guarantee that our military actions will be limited? how can we guarantee that one surgical strike will have any impact other than to tighten the vice grip assad has on his power? or allow rebels allied with al qaeda to gain a stronger foothold in syria? i take our role extreme the seriously here like many of the other senators have said. i will hear the president and his team out. the president made the right decision to pursue an authorization for the use of military force. i hope these hearings will give the american people the answers they deserve.

there are troubling questions that need to be answered. to start kerry, i want with you. you have assure the american people -- i watched your performancesvision that the u.s. action will not include -- that you said this today, will not include the use of ground troops. it will be limited in nature to assad and to deter others from using chemical weapons. use of force proposed by the administration states that it would allow the president to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict with syria. " this is a very open-ended proposal with no specific limits on types of forces that would be used, no limit on their duration.

why was a proposed in a way that it conflicts with the statements of no ground troops and what kind of language -- the precise language are you willing to back in terms of showing the american people that we really mean what we say in terms of no boots on the ground? >> senator, all good questions. i will respond to all of them. suspicionaddress the and concern that you have which is appropriate. i think everybody understands that iraq left a lot of folks reeling for some. of time -- some period of time. it is appropriate to ask the questions you have asked. let me try to emphasize. this is not sending a message, per se.

affect, andng an impact. this is taking action to achieve something more than just a message. it is to degrade his current capacity. it will make it harder for him to do that in the future and it will also facilitate our ability to hold him accountable in the future if he does. he will know that. this will affect his calculation. that is number one. >> secretary kerry, by degrading his capacity, don't you in fact make him weaker and make the people out there like al qaeda and these other extremist forces stronger? this is what i want secretary- general dempsey to talk about a little bit too. could you answer that? by degrading him, you make these extremist forces stronger, do you not? >> i don't think you do. you actually make the opposition

stronger. the opposition is getting stronger by the day. i think general idris would tell , that his daily concern is not the opposition. it is assad. what assad is doing with his scuds, with his airplanes, his tanks, his artillery to the people of syria. i think it is important also to look at this because you raise the question of, doesn't this make the united states the policeman of the world? no. it makes the united states a multilateral partner in an effort that the world has accepted the responsibility for. which hasted states the greatest capacity to do that doesn't help lead the effort, then shame on us. we are not standing up to our multilateral and humanitarian and strategic interests.

>> can i stop you, secretary kerry? if you're talking about multilateral efforts, what we are talking about is the world being able -- this is a breach of a treater. put within the united nations that enforcement mechanism. what we have done here with russia and china holding up the ability of the u.n. to act, we have turned -- >> with all due respect. >> we should be standing up. we should be standing up and making sure that they are condemned, those countries that are not allowing us to move forward to move -- to find a solution. >> i don't disagree. the fact is that just a few weeks ago, just a few weeks ago at the u.n., we saw a condemnation of a chemical attack. without blame, without citing

assad, without saying who was responsible, simply a condemnation of a chemical attack and the russians blocked it. we have no illusions. if the un security council having difficulties from its conscience? yes. does that mean the united states of america and the rest of the world should shrink from it? no. said howrge you, you do we know it won't result in x or y or z happening if we don't do it? let me ask you. not a question of what will happen if we don't do it. it is a certainty. are you going to be comfortable if assad as a result of the united states not doing anything gases his people yet again and the world says, why didn't the united states act? history is full of opportunity and moments where someone it and

stand up and act when it made a difference. whether you go back to world war ii or look at a ship that was turned away from the coast of florida and everybody on it lost their lives, those are the things that make a difference. that is what is at stake here. i would say to you, these -- it is a guarantee if the united states doesn't act with other countries, we know what assad will do. that is a guarantee. i can't tell you what is guaranteed that some country will do if we do act. i know what happens if we don't. i am pretty darn clear that a lot of things that people think will happen to happen if the united states act -- it will have enforced this international standard with respect to the use of chemical weapons. if the multilateral institutions set up to do it is being blocked, that doesn't mean we should turn our backs and say there is nothing we can do. that is not the case. we did it in bosnia and made a

difference. we saved countless lives. i believe the president of the united states believes we can do that now. >> i don't believe that we should have given up so easily on using the united nations. not taken russet to task. that is what we should be pointing out. i want to respectfully disagree with you and say also i very much appreciate your service. i know that you're trying very hard to find on the diplomatic side, a peaceful resolution. thank you for your courtesy. >> senator. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i heard from people across the state who all believe what is happening in syria is awful, despicable. they do have concerns about the administration and what the plan really is. they want to know

what the core national security the united states are that aren't stake in syria, what is our ultimate goal of proposed strikes and what happens if he strikes are not effective? to that end, i would ask you what exactly it is that we are going to be voting on. senator durbin also asked about the narrowness or expense. would we be voting within the next 24 hours? >> the chair is working with a ranking member and others to -- thatan agreed-upon we will meet the goals of achieving the ability for the administration to pursue the military actions they have sought the congresses support for.

by the same token, taylor it sufficiently so that this is not an open-ended engagement and specifically not with boots on the ground. we're not there yet. it is our aspiration to try to get their before the end of the day. and then to look forward to the possibility of a markup tomorrow. we will see if we can get there. we do, we will give all members ample notice. we start off with a classified briefing and will move from there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i appreciate you coming to congress. obama specifically asserted on saturday that he already had the authority. when the british parliament rejected a motion supporting u.k. participation, the prime minister said that he would respect the will of the british people and there would be no

british military intervention. standdoes president obama now that he has come to congress? >> he intends to win the passage of the resolution. >> on the k-fed he does not, is the plan -- >> we are not contemplating not. it is too dire. >> we talked about the risks of delays. there are already reports that i delaying the military action, that assad is moving military assets, hardware, troops to civilian neighborhoods. reports indicate that russia plans to send an anti-submarine ship to the mediterranean in the next few days. i wonder what this means to our contingency planning and what this impact is going to be for our military operations. >> the movement -- there are already four russian warships and they are staying a respectful distance. i don't see that as a factor.

>> has the administration created a threat assessment of how russia, how iran, how has a lot is going to respond -- hez bollah is going to respond to a u.s. attack? agree that that would be best handled in a classified session. of what success lloks like, senator uda specifically said what happens if gases are used again. i wonder if we do a limited strike as is proposed and still assad goes back and uses chemical weapons on his people, that creates an entirely new set of hearings and how does this end? where are we one month from now? said, we are preparing

several targets come in the first of which would set the conditions for following assessments. the others would be used if necessary and we haven't gotten to that point yet. what we do know is that we can degrade and disrupt his should puts and that us in a better position to make the kind of assessment you're talking about. >> let me add to that. senator feinstein brothers of today at the white house. -- brought this up today at the white house. it would not be sensible to pass this resolution with a view to capacity and preventing him from doing it if he were full is enough to do it again, the general does have follow-on possibilities and

since the objective would remain the same, it would be important adr us not himself -- ass himself to know that you have not limited this to one specific moment with respect to chemical weapons. you can still have a limited respectation but with to chemical weapons, it would be a huge mistake to deprive general dempsey and company of their options to enforce what we are trying to achieve. >> a negotiated departure of assad. you keep mentioning trying to get him to do this from the negotiating table. it seems to me that somebody who will go to any length to stay in power to the point of using chemical weapons against his wouldn't he be just driven to a more serious level of determination to keep our? >> that is a very appropriate

question. i don't believe so and there are a number of reasons why. most of them are best discussed and i look forward to it, and a private session. there are very strong indications. from a number of discussions that have taken place between countries over the past months would not necessarily avoid making a different decision under different circumstances. i think we ought to leave it at that. in a private session, we ought to dig into it. >> i was going to ask about chemical weapons stock aisles. -- stockpiles. in terms of steps that we could take in terms of command and control of the regime's chemical and stockpiles -- chemical weapons stockpiles.

to make sure these things are protected in a way that they cannot be used. >> absolutely. this is something that ought to be done in the other session. i will say generically that general dempsey and his team have taken great pains at the instruction of the president to make certain that whatever we do doesn't make it -- doesn't make people less safe or potentially more exposed to weapons or that those weapons would have less control and so forth. all of these things have entered into the calculation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i just want to add onto my original response to you. sent to us by the administration will not be a resolution that we will be working on but it is a good areing to what the desires and intentions are, but it will not be the specific resolution we will be working on. senator murphy. >> thank you very much.

we all are referencing conversations we have had over the last week. i have never seen a greater level of public engagement on an issue since the health care reform debate of 2009. while there are hard-liners that have come to me with a ,esolution that we should go in most people see both sides of this issue. they wrinkly appreciate the fact that they have an american president who has taken so much time and put so much thought into arriving at this decision even if they disagree. they appreciate even more that this president trust them and their elected representatives enough to bring this conversation to the united facts congress albeit the that it may be messy to get from point a to point b. of the commotion we

will hear from our constituents, that comes out to me loud and clear. when i look at this question, i see two questions inherent. ourselves, is there a moral or national security imperative? i think you have made the case that there is. atrocities that we cannot let stand, a country that is very vital security interests. there is a second question. that is the one that i have trouble with and some of my colleagues have trouble with. that is this. lessen thetion acuity of that action or advance our security interests? there has to be a problem that needs to be solved and a way to solve it. that is why i struggle with this. frankly, i don't think the fact that i and many others struggle

with that question means that we lack courage or that we are enabling the syrian regime. i think that we wonder whether there is a limit to the ability of american military power to influence the politics on the ground in the middle east. not some direct linkage between what happened in iraq and what happened in syria, it does chill the ability of people to believe that military might influence politics on the ground after they have watched the last 10 years. the second problem people have is the question of escalation. i think one of the most important things that you said in your prepared remarks was this, you said that we would be prepared to respond to a miscalculation of assad whether it be in reprisal against his own people or attacks against our allies in the region. we would be prepared to respond without going to war.

some people will find that statement incongruous. how do you respond without going to war? let me ask the question this way. there are a variety of responses from assad. he could launch another attack against his own people. a conventional weapons attack. he or his allies could launch attacks against our allies in the region. explain thist you as early what the response will be today. does this resolution that we are debating give you the ability to respond to those reprisals or in any of those situations that i just outlined, responses within oria against his own people responses outside of syria against our own allies, would you have to come back to congress for a new authorization of force? >> excuse me, sorry.

as i think the president has made clear and as we have seen in many of these crisis over the course of my career, i saw presidents do both. i supported some and i opposed others. on a number of occasions, presidents acted without the authorization of congress. there is no question that the president would have the authority and the right and conceivably the imperative to respond without authorization if assad were to attack again. speak for the president in terms of what decision he would make, but he has the authority. that right would be available to him. if i can just a quickly with it is absolutely appropriate to ask a question,

will this make a difference? totally appropriate. and to think about this question of escalation. let me say something quickly about both of those. if the congress decides not to guaranteet is a whether it is with assad in or nuclear weapons in iran, or nuclear weapons in north korea, we will have a certain confrontation at some point in time that will require you to make a choice that will be even worse with a potential of even greater conflict. that, i guarantee you. that is the message that will be sent. there is a distinction between this and iraq. we lived through that here. reportedintelligence that weapons of mass destruction

existed here it we didn't know if they existed. inwe had a massive invasion order to try to find if they existed and we found they didn't. here, we have met since -- weapons of mass destruction's that not only we know exist, they have been used. not once, not twice, not tree times. multiple times. teens, and in the the opposition estimates more than that. now we have this most recent use of weapons of mass destruction in contravention of nearly 100 years of prohibition against their use. >> i don't think that is the dispute. is what are you going to do about it? the dispute is what are you prepared to do? that is the dispute. if you believe that by doing nothing you're going to stand up for the norm and somehow reduce the threat of use at some future

time? that, but to believe i think and the president against allt flies common sense and all human behavior. >> let me ask this question about iran. i think it is important. the circumstances are very different. not to trivialize what has happened in syria, but the stakes of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon which could kill millions is different than syria killing thousands with chemical weapons. not its whether or morals -- it lessens our authority to make a decision with respect to iran. second, i worry about this weariness we have talked about within the american public. it may ultimately make it harder for us to rally the american public with respect to a response to iran having gone through what could be a slightly

protracted engagement with syria. i want to challenge you on the automatic nature of a failure to step in in syria. >> let me just make it very clear. the world decided after world war i and the horrors of gas in the trenches and the loss of entire generation of young people in europe, that we would never again allow gas to be used in warfare. so, if all of a sudden at this moment, the third instance -- it was used by an officer. it was used by -- adolf hitler. it was used by saddam hussein. now it has been used by bashar al-assad. three people in all of history.

if the united states, knowing it and knowing that we have drawn the line that the world has drawn with us, is unable to stand up and confront that, it is an absolute certainty that gas will proliferate. we've had a syringe gas in the -- sarin gas in the tokyo subway. -- don't know how we could live with that. is there a difference between gas and nuclear weapons? i suppose it would depend on the scale. it would depend on the scale. the world decided that chemical, biological and nuclear are

prohibited in warfare. we as a nation and as a global community have struggled to try to enforce that through the years. it is hard for me to imagine that the united states would not stand with world against that. is it going to be effective? i am convinced that what we can possibilities the of more use of gas and to create -- degrade his capacity to use this weapon. i think it is imperative for us to take that step. differentificantly from what took place in iraq originally with respect to weapons that we didn't know existed and the two just are not similar. >> senator paul. >> thank you for coming today. get toot often that i

complement the president. i can probably count the number of times on one hand. when i first heard that the president was going to come to congress, i was presently surprised. i was proud that he was my president. i didn't vote for him but i was proud that he did this. i was just about to stand on my feet and clapped, but then i heard, if i lose the vote, i will probably go ahead and did the bombing anyway. it does concern me. i want to be proud of the president but every time i am just about there, i get word that he doesn't really mean it. he is going to sort of obey the constitution if he wins. i heard secretary kerry say if we win, sure. if we lose, what? make me proud today. stand up for us and say you're going to obey the constitution and if we vote you down, which is unlikely, but if we do you will go with what the people say through their congress and not go through with a war that your congress votes against.

can you give me a better answer? can't give you a different answer than the one i gave you. i don't know what the president also decision is. i will tell you this. he still has the constitutional authority. it would be in keeping with the constitution. >> i disagree with you there. i don't believe he has the authority. i think congress as this. madison was explicit when he wrote the federalist papers. he wrote that history supposes -- the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most likely to go to war and therefore the constitution vested the power and the congress. it is explicit throughout all of madison's writings. this power is a congressional power and not an executive power. they didn't say big war, smallbore. they didn't say boots on the ground, not boots on the ground. they said the claremore. -- declare war. ask the people on the ships if they are involved in war or not.

if we do not say the constitution applies, that we will abide by this vote, you are making a joke of us. you're making us into theater. we play constitutional theater for the president. if this is real, you will abide by the verdict of congress. you are probably going to win. just say it is real and let's have a real debate in this country and not a meaningless debate that in the end you lose and say, oh well, we had the authority anyway. >> a couple of items. i assure you there is nothing meaningless. there is everything real. >> only at our vote makes a difference. leave to the man who was elected to be president irresponsibility -- the responsibility for telling you what his decision is. the president intends to win this vote. >> we have had a lot of discussion about whether or not

we are going to make the world safer with this. i think that is an open question. i think it is conjecture at best. you can say, we think assad will be less likely to launch chemical weapons after this. we may be able to degrade his capacity, but he has a thousand tons. are we going to wipe it out? most groups say we are going to directly bomb weapons because of white -- what might happen to this running population. most people say, assad acted illogically. why would he release chemical weapons on his own people when it brought the anger of the entire world? he is already acting irrationally. now we are going to determine him and he will act in a rational manner. i think it is equally likely that he either does it again or doesn't. i don't think you can say for certain which is better. we can't say that by attacking them he is not going to lunch another chemical attack. be more stable

or less stable? we all say we want stability in the middle east. that is a national interest for our country. think there are equal arguments on both sides. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack on them or less likely? i think there is a valid argument for saying it will be more likely to suffer an attack? orl russia be more likely less likely to supply more arms and get more heavily involved? there is a valid argument they might become more likely to be involved. iran, more likely or less likely? if a run gets involved, more likely or less likely that israel launches a reprisal attack on japan? there are all kinds of unknowns that i can still you're absolutely the answer and neither can you. i think there is a reasonable argument that the world may be less stable because of this. they may not deter any chemical

weapons attacks. what i would ask is, how are we to know? i haven't had one person come to me and say they are for this work. we get calls by the thousands. nobody is calling in favor of this war. i was home all month. i didn't have one person come up and say, do they all agree it is around this? yes. we all agree. people are not excited about getting involved. they don't think it is going to work. they are skeptical of what will occur. i would appreciate a response. reassure us that the boat is meaningful and valid, and also that you are convinced that all of the different items will be better and not worse. >> i would be very happy to do that. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack or will it be safer? i can make it crystal clear to you that israel will be less safe unless the united states

takes this action. are two ofzbollah the three biggest allies of assad. hezbollah are the two single biggest enemies of israel. run -- iran and hezbollah are advantaged by the united states not curving assad's use of chemical weapons, there is a much greater likelihood that at some point down the road, has llah will haveo access to these weapons of mass destruction. israel will for certain be less secure. i would also argue -- >> but it is more likely that hezbollah will attack because of this attack? >> israel feels confident in its

ability to deal with hasbro but if it does so. israel has on several occasions seen fit to deal with threats to its security. not once has assad responded to that to date. i think there are a bunch of things we should talk about in a classified ocean. let me just -- classified session. let me just make it clear to you that you asked these questions. will this or that be more likely to happen? if the united states of america doesn't do this, is it more or less likely that assad does it again? do you want to answer that question? >> i think it is unknown. >> senator, it is not unknown. if the united states doesn't hold him accountable on this, it is a guarantee assad will do it again. a guarantee. i urge you to go to the classified briefing and learn

that. secondly, let me point out to you that with respect to this question of americans wanting to got three people here who have been to war. you have john mccain who has been to war. not one of us doesn't understand what going to war means. we don't want to go to war. we don't believe we are going to war in the classic sense of taking american troops to war. the president is asking for the authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. you think by doing so announce in advance at your goal is not winning. i think the last 50 years of secretaries of defense would say -- >> of course not. 100% of americans will say no. we say no.

we don't want to go to war in syria either. it is not what we are here to ask. the president is not asking you to go to war. he is not asking you to send one american troop to war. he is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a 100-year- old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we want to that? i don't consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young americans in harms way. that is not what the president is asking for. general, do you want to speak to that? >> not really, secretary. [laughter]

>> great. thank you to all of you. i want to echo what senator paul and others have said. i very much appreciate and celebrate the president's decision to bring this matter to congress. i also believe with others that the constitution reserves the power to initiate military action. there is only one commander-in- chief. iser the vote is taken, it the commander-in-chief that has to decide how to execute the decided upon mission. i applaud the president for doing it. i view it not only as a matter of constitutional law, a reflecting of very important underlying value. the value is this. we shouldn't put service menus theymbers in harms way if don't have the consensus of the american public behind them. to send young men and women into war or into military action

where they are exercising military options with a divided political leadership is the worst thing we can do. we need to come to a consensus and execute on that consensus. it would be my hope that congress's consensus would be what the president would do. there is a basic principle at stake. it is a principle of international law. no use of weapons of mass destruction against the billions. -- civilians. i don't know of a higher principle of the relations of state of international legal morale. principal that is at stake as we wrestle with this request of the president on this committee. that is a principle that is very clear as you said, it is not about the weapons of mass destruction existing. they exist. they have been used. they have been used against civilians.

including women and children. it is a principle that is squarely at stake. we know that bashar al-assad contraryare about -- to what you said, we know that vladimir putin does not care about the principal. still caresess about the principal. it is a principle that syria signed onto. , theeneva convention soviet union signed onto the and again, theon chemical weapons convention. we know that there are some who don't care but i hope that congress shows that we do care about our action. a couple of questions, first russia. -- we have not done enough to demonstrate that russia is becoming a pariah nation by being pro-chemical weapons. it is hard to read their action

and come up with any conclusion other than the current government of russia is pro-use of chemical weapons against civilians. where beingke them a pro-chemical weapons nation like a carcass around their neck. at some point, they will ask themselves the question, do we really want to be the nation that is pro-use of chemical weapons against a civilian population? if we make that as painful as we can every day at the u.n., even if they block it, we come back -- we should make it painful everyday so that at some point they will ask themselves the question. why do we want to carry this water for a dictator who is using chemical weapons against his own civilians? we haven't done enough on that score. the fact that they are going to block us shouldn't dissuade us. we should do more and more. that will contribute to a political negotiation. when i asked you about the syrian oppositions position on chemical weapons, i was unclear

about their position on chemical weapons. i understand that the opposition may have made some commitments that have been negotiated. they are anti-chemical weapons, they could commit to turn over to michael weapons to the international community if they take control of those weapons during the course of the civil -- can youhey are talk about the opposition and their commitment to get rid of this stockpile of chemical weapons that is currently being used? >> we have had some discussions about that. i hope that when the president will make that he that position clear to all of you. >> that would be very helpful. that would be one of the best things the opposition could do. there is a little bit of a confusion. we can talk shorthand here in ways that might make it hard for senators and certainly the public to follow.

we are here talking about military action on the same time saying there will be no solution to the civil war. those can seem to be at odds. i want to stake my understanding of how they fit together. , action toaction degrade the ability of syria to action toal weapons, degrade their ability to violate international law, it will take away a significant asset that they have in their battle against the opposition. it will level the playing field by removing the ability to use chemical weapons. it will therefore increase the odds that the parties will then come to the table to try to figure out that political solution. is that the connection between the military option you are proposing and the stated end goal of a solution to the civil war only being achieved through a political and? >> it is the collateral connection to it.

it is not the purpose of it is a collateral connection. >> i don't have any other questions. i will save them for tomorrow. >> thank you, senator murphy. >> there is great horror and disgust at assad's use of chemical weapons and great sympathy for the people of syria. that their leader would use chemical weapons upon his own people. that this murderous regime is so dedicated to retaining power that they would use those weapons. at the same time, in our own country there is great concern. we could be invoking the law of unintended consequences. as we talk about using our own military in syria. 2002, the01 and

threat was obviously that the next attack at the united states could come in the form of a androom cloud from iraq although there were inspectors on the ground for 100 days who could not find it before the war started, nonetheless, that were began. i think people are understandably apprehensive. what did precipitate a war in iraq. i continue to look forward to additional evidence being presented and my hope is that we can act in a way that does not bog us down. i think there are many people who want us in the middle of a syrian civil war. many people. but i don't think that the american people want that. i think they are very wary of

having our country once again drawn into a civil war in another country. the concern that i think many people have is that we don't fully understand as this is a tough job and we really appreciate the sensitivity with which you are handling this. you talked about the russians having four vessels and the mediterranean. syria is a proxy state of russia. concerned that a strike by the united states could increase the amount of military assistance that russia sends into the syrian regime?

>> it could, senator. there is some indication they have assured the regime that if we destroy something, they can replace it. that is not a reason for me to hesitate to act. is always unintended consequences of conflict. as the secretary has mentioned, we know what the consequences could be if we do not act. >> thank you. it is my understanding that you and chemical -- the united nations chemical inspection team last saturday. when do we expect to obtain that data and the analysis made by expect thed we do we

information to be made public? senator, i am looking over at my successor and i do not know if there is a new initiation process on the committee, but he does not even get a nameplate. [laughter] i was worried about you. they put it up, for you. the sequester, you have to do it yourself. senator, welcome to the committee and welcome to the senate. good to see you here. process, we to the from 2-4ng anywhere

weeks is the range. >> would it be wise for us to wait for that information in ader to ensure that there is signal sent to the international community as to the veracity of the analysis that chemical weapons have been used? >> let me speak to that. it is a very important and legitimate question. all, the mandate of the united nations inspection team, which we have great respect for and we are grateful to them and to secretary-general for their courageous efforts to go in under difficult circumstances, and we have obviously pushed for inspections and other circumstances. the distinction here is that there mandate will only allow

them to say that a chemical weapons attack took place. they have no mandate to assign blame. general has reaffirmed this is what they will not do. they will not assign blame, they will confirm what happened. can they provide additional information in terms of details and some additional evidence? the answer is yes. will they tell us anything that we do not know today the on to reasonable doubt? the answer is no. doubt?nd a reasonable the answer is no. they do not have the technical means or the capacity to put together what we have released to the world in an unclassified document. when you add what we have in , we have an even

more persuasive case about what has happened. itself have both admitted that a chemical weapons attack took place. iran and syria are already telling us an attack took place, but they have chosen the improbable and illogical notion that the opposition did it, not the regime. >> my only suggestion would be that the united states declassified a higher percentage of the information that we have so the american people and the international community can see it. that would be helpful in this whole discussion. we declassify it and it would give more assurance to the international -- >> i understand and i have to

tell you the unprecedented level of declassification already could possibly put at risk some sources of methods. one of the reasons it was chosen to release, somehow it leaked from someplace in the world and it was already in several newspapers. as a result of that, it was further declassified. that it selfn't -- is an intercept, an actual conversation that shows the regime acknowledging its own culpability and expressing fear it.t the u.n. discovering there is already a sufficient level. >> on the draft resolution, would that draft authorized allow the u.s. military to conduct military operations

outside of syria? >> no. >> would allow military operations against foreign governments other than syria? like snow. >> would it authorize military operations against nonstate >> no.-- >> what it authorize military operations against nonstate actors? >> no. have been testifying for in excess of 3.5 hours. i appreciate their information. say that i appreciate the thoughtfulness with which each member has come to this issue at expressed their concerns and their views and i have listened closely and understand some of those concerns. colleaguesened to my

expressed concern as to whether degrade thewould ability of assad to pursue chemical weapons attacks in the future. i am reminded of an experience i had in my own life. general dempsey is originally from my area, jersey city. i grew up in a tough neighborhood. we had a bully in the neighborhood. i was walking along the street one day and he slapped me in the face and i went away and told my mom and she said avoid him. later, i saw the bully again and i did my best to avoid him and this time, he punched me in the notice. i went back to her and said, i tried to avoid him. just avoid him.

on the -- on the third time, i got a piece avoid -- a piece of wood and i whacked the bully and i never got whacked again. aside has -- assad has made a calculation, inching up several times that he can use chemical weapons or he believes he can use chemical weapons without consequences. in doing so, there is a global message that other state actors and other nonstate actors to leave a can do so as well. that is a critical challenge for the national security of the united states. i hope members will consider that as we move towards final action. i want to advise members, i think we are close to eight -- close to a resolution. they should consider that it is likely that we will be in a

business meeting sometime after the classified hearing tomorrow morning and we look forward to working with all of the members of the committee. i think you have said it. i want to thank the witnesses for spending this much time. i look forward to the classified meeting tomorrow. i want to thank all of the members for incredible thoughtfulness. i appreciate everybody coming back and taking it so seriously. thank you. >> this hearing is adjourned.

>> the committee coming back and 40or a three-hour minute hearing today on whether the u.s. should use a limited military strike on syria following a chemical weapons

attack of several weeks ago. they have heard from secretary of state cary, chuck hagel, and the chairman of the joint chiefs, martin dempsey. we would like to hear from you over the next few minutes or so. your thoughts on what you saw today. how do you want your member of congress to vote when it comes up for a vote next week? here are the numbers to use for democrats. republicans -- all others -- you can also tweak et us -- we will read a number of tweets. calls first.your this is arkansas, republican

line. anthony, hello. called, i seei this as the most convoluted and confused way of trying to run foreign policy that i have seen in 30 years. several weeks ago, if there was the use of weapons of mass destruction and the president says he has the authority to take care of it, anything that could be taken care of except for things too large to move , what will the targets be? i feel sorry for the people. this is where this cruise missile goes. it does not chase things around. it goes to a certain point. for the president to say, i have the authority to do this.

it strikes me as a complete inability to allow this president to do much of anything. i can only think the actual ,otes will be done politically based on politics of the moment, because the president has painted himself into a corner. hear tomorrowill from the same three officials. we will cover that for you at noon. >> i agree with your last caller. the resolution has not even been drawn. there will be changes. >> we're going to go live to senator corker speaking to reporters. >> not being able to supply ammunition.

there is a lot of capacity building that needs to take place. thatyou announce publicly you are doing something covertly , when you do something covertly, it is very limited in your ability to carry it out. i know there has been internal debate about that. we doope whwe do, not take our focus off the fact that the way to move ahead, as i have been saying for well over year, is to support the moderate opposition to build their capacity and to let syrian's take the lead. i have a sense that the be able toon will address that in the proper way. >> [inaudible]

>> sorry, guys. i do not know what the plans are in the house. a great deal of it will depend upon how they view the work we have done. it will end up being a very good starting point. we have 20 or 30 more minutes of work to do. that was not discussed this morning at the white house as to any kind of congressional strategy. it was more making the case for having an authorization. >> [inaudible] >> i think the goal is to have a

debate on the floor as soon as that is possible. i think the concerns that people have are pretty strongly felt. secretary kerry may be wandered a little bit on the boots on the ground issue and came back home strongly one that was brought up. it really wasn't anything said today that was new ground. you guys have reported on these things. hopefully, people will feel like they are in a position to anress authorization and in appropriate way. >> how long will that debate be?

>> i do not want to prejudge that. [inaudible] that is really up to the members of the senate to determine. have any priority until all of the tools that people use legislatively are available. it is unknown at this point what position people will take relative to that. >> [inaudible] is there absolutely no boots on the ground? >> i would like for us to be able to share with the membership of the committee the language first. it is pretty clear -- i do not solo wasthe soul -- a interested in having u.s. combat -- i do not ground

know of a soul who is interested in having u.s. combat boots on the ground. >> will you or other members of the committee [inaudible] >> we have already begun about getting a sense of where people are. i virtue of the questions they asked, you get a sense of where people are. -- by virtue of the questions they asked, you get a sense of where people are. here is the issue, the united states senate and the house can pass a resolution which sets policy. the administration is going to implement. of a is still a little bit disconnect or concern in people's minds about how that implementation is going to be. what does the grading really mean? short duration really mean? people getting comfortable with

what that means to them and a sense of where the , i think that is is a good thing. meetings,now how many phone calls, conferences i have , and i wased with just in the region, and i continue to be dismayed at the lack of intensity regarding our support for the vetted opposition. it is beyond belief to me that we are where we are and have not provided more support at this time. that is still the central element. i lost my train of thought, i am sorry. >> have you had any conversations with rand paul? >> i think i know where he is on issues of this type. conversationant

about when we thought a markup was going to be. times wegh many disagree on policy, our discussions are always very pleasant. think he looks forward to being there tomorrow. >> [inaudible] i think it is an art to craft something that gives the flexibilities that it may need. at the same time, assures the american people and members of congress that we are not going to promote activity to put us in the middle of a civil war. none of us want to see that happen. i do think we are still going through red lines. there is a room full of people right in the back area of the committee room addressing those. you have sn them come out

asking both of those questions. we will end up at a very good starting point for committee members to weigh in on, as they should. i am going to probably step down, thank you very much. >> bob corker, the ranking republican on the senate for foreign relations committee, indicating the committee is meeting tomorrow. it will be a closed session tomorrow. your thoughts on what you saw today. deborah, who says, i am still not convinced the syrian government used the chemicals versus the rebels. the french general assembly

meeting tomorrow to discuss this. kathleen, i think we should stay the heck out of syria. what happens in the fire missiles from our ships and cereal shoots back -- and syria shoots back? >> thank you. i was talking about before with the final resolution. there are short durations. that is boots on the ground. are going to be sitting on those tomahawks. stop them now. thank you. >> amanda is in california, democrats line. >> i strongly agree with no boots on the ground. if they are using chemical warfare on their own people,

what will make them stop for us? there are boots are on the ground, too. -- it isd to have horrible. we need to somehow come to a democratic democracy on this and say no more. it will be more lives lost. this is the red line. there is no win or lose out of the situation. ground ints on the terms of not keeping things -- taking things off the table. president obama is not asking

america to go to war. i say that sitting next to two .en who know what war is senator mccain knows what war is. you know the difference between going to war and what president obama is requesting now. all agree there will be no american boots on the ground. the president has made crystal clear we have no intention of assuming responsibility for syria's civil war. to make certain the united states means what we say, the world, when we join together, mean what we say. he is asking for authorization assad'sde and it'deter ability to use chemical weapons. some alaska, what about the

unintended consequences of action? what aboutl asked, the unintended consequences of action? enough and arrogant tolish enough to retaliate the consequences of his own criminal activity, the united states and our allies have ample ways to make him regret that decision without going to war. even his supporters, russia and iran, they publicly the use of chemical weapons is acceptable. some will also question the extent of our responsibility. when someone kills hundreds of children with a weapon the world has banned, we are all responsible. kerry -- zero capacity

for u.s. ground troops. if such language were included in the authorization measure. meeting tomorrow in a closed session. live for youthat here on c-span. let's go to florida. >> i am definitely a firm believer in what you all are doing as far as setting the world. to the who was not discussed was was supporting us with this. is there any other countries that will be involved? are we going to be doing this alone? that is the biggest thing. that should have been part of the discussion, i feel. >> the french national assembly

is meeting tomorrow to discuss the issue. there will not be any vote on that tomorrow. atlanta, georgia, chris on our others line. thehen the first -- when old,war, i was 12 years and i ended up serving in that war. i am 24 now. i am 50-50. i understand us needing to stop if murder of innocent kids he is using chemical weapons. that is part of me fearful of what could actually happen. if the u.s. does get involved and they respond, how would they respond? i have friends that are still over in that area. that was just my comment.

>> thank you for your comment. we did asked the question on facebook. how do you want your member of congress to vote? the question broadened out today on facebook. beverly says, chemical weapons are bombs. why are chemical weapons any worse than a bomb? jackie says, since there have been numerous claims the rebels --e the ones to do this, facebook.com/c-span if you want to post your comments. >> thank you for taking my call. is the difference between saddam hussein using chemical weapons of mass distraction against his people and assad using chemical weapons against

his people? george w. bush is still taking a bashing for his actions and he received congressional approval. i think it is time we stop bashing bush. >> vincent, thank you for that call. the day started in washington with meetings. john boehner came out and spoke to reporters, offering his support for the president to measure in the house. >> good morning to all of you. weapons is aemical barbarous act. it is clear to me that united nations is unable to take action. nato is unlikely to take action. stood up forates democracy and freedom for people around the world. to use of these weapons has

be responded to and only the united states has the capability and the capacity to stop assad antiwar and others around the behaviort this type of is not going to be tolerated. i appreciate the president reaching out to the colleagues and the congress and i appreciate the president asking the congress to support him in this action. this is something the united states needs to do. i am going to support the president's call for action. shouldve my colleagues support his call for action. we have enemies around the world that need to understand that we will not tolerate this type of behavior. we also have allies around the world who need to know that america will be there and stand

up when it is necessary. >> john boehner from earlier today. this evening, we will show you all of our coverage from today, including the hearing. let's check twitter. republican from new jersey. this one is from bill, covering syria. we will get a couple more. let's go to glendale, arizona. >> we are the united states of america and we need to be united in this idea.

coming together and stopping the war and the use of the chemicals. if we do not stop it, it will come to our backyard. law, you havehe to be subjected to the punishment. it is international law. what is so hard to understand? why are we afraid to step up? we need to step up. that is all i have to say. we need to respect that we have a president that is not hotheaded. .e is a president of peace this is a president that is for the people. >> one more call. >> i watch the hearing. i am very confused. i got three different messages

from kerry and from martin dempsey and how can we trust these people? i think they will lie about whatever they want to lie about. we would not know until after the fact. as far as chemical agents, in vietnam, we use this stuff called agent orange. that was certainly a chemical agent. no one was indicted. nobody came after us. problems.lot of -- caused a lot of problems. . am opposed to this act i was favor in iraq, i could understand that one. i was not in favor of afghanistan.

know if the outcome will be any different. >> thank you for your call. a couple of quick last-minute tweets. they're classified meeting tomorrow would be fascinating to listen to. use this moment to put pressure on the u.n. to put pressure on putin. the conversation continues online. a conversation tomorrow morning on washington journal at 7:00 eastern. people look at the u.s. and their response to syria with our guest tomorrow morning. 7:45 a.m.oin us that we will also hear about the to raise the minimum

wage. the senior editor from fortune magazine. that is all tomorrow on "washington journal." at noon, the house foreign affairs committee will hear from john kerry, chuck hagel, and martin dempsey. we will have the alive for you on c-span and on c-span radio beginning at noon eastern. up next, we will show you the opening statements from this morning, the ginning would secretary john kerry. -- beginning with john kerry. >> thank you very much for having us here today. we look forward to this opportunity to be able to share with you president obama's -- aboutth respect to

syria itself and the course of action in the middle east. thank you for welcoming. we are all happy she is here. debate,nvened for this it is not an exaggeration to say world is watching, not just to see what we decide, but is watching to see how we make this decision, whether in a dangerous world, we can still make our government speak with one voice. they want to know if america will rise and make a difference. of whether toon authorize our nation to take , this isaction

obviously one of the most .mportant decisions the president and the administration appreciates that you have returned quickly to the nation's capital to dress it and that you are appropriately ,eginning a process of focusing which is the only way to approach potential use of military power. whyow you want to discuss matters beyond compelling humanitarian reasons and i look forward to laying that out this afternoon. important to is

explain to the american people why we are here. it is important for people who may not have caught every usponent of the news to join in focusing in on what is at stake. that is why the president of the united states made the decision as he did, contrary to what many people thought he would do, of asking the congress to join in this decision. we are stronger as a nation we do that. we are here because against multiple warnings by the president of the united states, from the congress, from our friends and allies around the world, and even from russia and assad regime unleashed an outrageous chemical attack against its own citizens. we are here because a dictator and his family's personal

enterprise, in their lust to hold onto power, were willing to infect the air of damascus with the poison that killed innocent mothers and fathers and hundreds of their children. their lives were all snuffed out by gas in the early morning of august 21. havepeople amazingly questioned the evidence of this assault on conscience. onlyeat again today that the most willful desire to avoid reality can assert that this did not occur as described or that the regime did not do it. happen. and the regime did it. i remember iraq. secretary hagel remembers iraq. general dempsey especially

remembers iraq. remember hagel when i -- and i remember iraq in a special way because we were here for that vote. we are especially sensitive to never again asking any member of congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence. that is why our intelligence committee has scrubbed and re- scrub the evidence. we have declassified unprecedented amounts of information and we asked the ofrican people and the rest the world to judge that information. we can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that our evidence proves the regime prepared for this attack, issued instructions to prepare for this attack, warrant its own forces to use gas masks. we have physical evidence of

where the rockets came from and when. not one that rocket landed in regime-controlled territory. not one. all of them landed in opposition control or contested territory. we have a map, physical evidence showing every geographical impact, and that is concrete. within minutes of the attack, 90 to be precise, maybe slightly shorter, social media exploded with pictures of damage. men and women sprawled on a hospital for with new wounds, no blood, but all dead. those scenes of human chaos and desperation were not contrived. they were real. we're certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to make a strike of

this scale, particularly from the heart of regime that territory. think about it is logical terms, common sense. with high confidence our intelligence community tells us that after the strike the regime issued orders to stop, and then fretted openly about the possibility of u.n. inspectors discovering evidence, so then they began to systematically destroy it. contrary to my discussion with their foreign minister who said we are nothing to hide. i said if you have nothing to hide, let the inspectors in today and let it be

unrestricted. it was not, and they did not. it took four days of shelling before they finally allowed the men under prearranged structure. we have now where the hair and blood samples from first responders in east damascus have tested positive for sarin. i can tell you we know things beyond a reasonable doubt for the standard we send people to jail for lives. we're here because of what happened two weeks ago, but also we're here because of what happened nearly a century ago. in the darkest moments of world war i when the vast majority of the world came together to declare that no uncertain terms that chemical weapons crossed the lines and must be the end for use from ever. over the years that followed, over 180 countries, including iran, iraq and russia agreed and

joined the chemical weapons convention. even countries with whom we agree on little, agreed on that conviction. some have tried to suggest the debate we're having today is about president obama is red line. i could not more forcefully state that is just plain and simply wrong. this is about the world redlined, humanities red line. a line that anyone with a conscious ought to drop. this is about congress up red line. you agreed to the chemical weapons convention. you the congress have spoken out about grave consequences if assad use chemical weapons.

i said to you, that is one of the reasons why a assyria is important. as we debate and the world watches and you decide in the world wonders, not whether the regime executed the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century, that fact i think is now beyond question. the world wonders whether united states of america will consent through silence to standing aside will this -- while this kind of brutality is allowed to

happen without consequence. in the nearly 100 years since the first global commitment against chemical weapons, only to tyrants there to cross the world's brightest minds. now he has become the third. i think all of you know that history holds nothing but empty for those criminals. history reserves all so very little sympathy for the enablers. so the reality is the gravity of this moment. that is the importance of the decision that this congress bases and the world is waiting to learn about in these next days. a ranking member corker the central question, why should americans care, beyond what i just said, which ought to be enough in the judgment of the president and this administration? well, it is clear that in addition to what i have just mentioned about the syria accountability act and threats

to the middle east, we cannot overlook the impact of chemical weapons and the danger they pose to a particularly volatile area of the world in which we have been deeply invested four years. because we have great friends here yet we of allies. deep interest there. since president obama's policy is that assad must go, if it's not insignificant that the -- to deprive him of the capacity to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity to use chemical weapons actually deprived him of a lethal weapon in this ongoing civil war, and that has an impact. that can help to speed -- stabilize the region alternately. in addition, we have strategic national security interests. to avoid the creation of the safe haven in syria or the base of operation for extremists to

use the weapons against our friends. all of us know the extremes of both sides are there waiting in the wings, poking -- pushing and fighting. they would be desperate to get their hands on these materials. the fact is if nothing happens to begin to change the current calculation, that area can become even more so an area of uncovered those extremists threaten either the united states or in war -- or more immediately, allies and friends of ours like jordan, israel, lebanon on or others. forcing him to change the calculation about the ability to act with impunity can contribute to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament. it has been the president's primary goal to achieve a negotiated resolution, but you

have to have party is prepared to negotiate to achieve that. syria is important because quite simply, i cannot put this to you more plainly, then to just ask each of you to ask yourself, if you are assad or any one of the other desperate in the region and the united states steps back from this moment together with our other allies and friends, what is the message? the message is he has been granted impunity. the freedom to choose the weapons again or force us to go through the cycle again with who knows what outcome after once refusing it.

we would grant him the capacity to use the weapons against more people with greater levels of damage because we would have stood and stepped away. as confidently as we know what happened in damascus on august 21, we know that stepping away is using it with impunity. opportunity for dictators to pursue their own weapons of mass destruction, including weapons of mass destruction. i will tell you there are some people hoping the united states congress is hoping to not vote for this proposal. iran is looking for us to look the other way.

hezbollah is open isolationism will prevail. north korea is hoping ambivalence carries the day. they are all listening for our silence. if we do not answer him today, we will erode a standard that has existed for those 100 years. in fact, we will erode the standard that has protected our own troops in war, and we will invite even more dangerous tests down the road. our allies and partners are also counting on us in the situation. the people of israel, jordan, turkey, each look next door in see they are one stiff breeze away from the potential of being hurt, of the civilians being killed as the consequences of choices assad might take in the absence of action. they anxiously await our assurance that our word means something. they await the assurance that if

children live up in shrouds were their own children would keep the world promise. that is what they're hoping. the authorization that president obama seeks is definitively in the national security interest. we need to send a message to the dictators, allies, civilians alike, the unmistakable message that when the united states of america and the world say never again, we do not mean sometimes. we do not mean the somewhere. never means never. so this is a vote for accountability. norms in loss keep the civilized world civil mean nothing if they're not enforced. as justice jackson said at the nuremberg trial, the ultimate

step and avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international law was this, is to make states men responsible to the law. it the world's worst desperate sees they can flaunt against the world's best weapons, then those prohibitions are just pieces of paper. that is what we mean by accountability. that is what we mean by we cannot be silent. let me be clear, president obama is not asking america to go to war. i say that sitting next to two men who know what war is. senator mccain and knows what war is. they know the difference between

going to war, and what president obama is requesting now. we all agree there will be no american boots on the ground. the president has made crystal clear we have no intention of assuming responsibility for serious civil war. asking only for the power to make clear, to make certain the united states means what we say, that the world, when we join together in a multilateral statement means what we say. asking for authorization to degrade and the terror the capacity to use chemical weapons. some will undoubtedly ask, and i think appropriately, what about the unintended consequences. some feared retaliation that leads to a larger conflict. let me put it bluntly. if he is arrogant enough, and i would say foolish enough to retaliate to the consequences of his own camp -- criminal activity, the united states and allies have ample ways to make him regret the decision without going to war.

even his supporters say publicly that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. some will also questioned the extent of our responsibility. to them i say, when someone kills hundreds of children with a weapon the world has banned, we are all responsible. that is true because of the geneva convention and chemical weapons convention. for us, the syria accountability act. it is also true because we share a common humanity and common decency. this is not the time for armed terror isolationism. this is not the time to be spectators slaughtered. we have spoken up against unspeakable horror many times in the past.

now we must and up and act and protect our security, protect our values, and lead the world with conviction that is clear about our responsibility. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the committee will be in order. rotestor yelling] >> we do not want war! nobody wants this war! launching cruise missiles means another war. the american people do not want this. >> secretary hagel? testifiedst time i before this committee when i was 27 years old, i had feelings very similar to that protester.

i would just say that is exactly why it is so important that we are all here, having this debate , talking about these things before the country, and that the congress itself will act representing the american people. i think we can all respect those who have a different point of view than we do. >> mr. chairman, thank you. chairman menendez, and ranking member corker, members of the committee, as we all know, in the coming days, congress will debate how to respond to the most recent chemical weapons attack in syria. sarinarge scare -- sclae gas assaultin against its own people. as a former member of this committee, i welcome this debate , and i strongly support president obama's decision to

seek congressional authorization for the use of force in syria. as each of us knows, committing the country to using military force is the most difficult decision america's leaders can make. as ranking member corker noted. all of those who are privileged to serve our nation have a responsibility to ask tough questions before that commitment is made. the american people must be assured that their leaders are acting according to u.s. with well-terests, defined military objectives, with an understanding of the risks and consequences involved. , along with his entire national security team, asked those tough questions before we concluded that the united states should take military action against syria because of what the assad regime

has done. i want to address how we reached this decision by clarifying the stake, oursts at military objectives, and the risks of not acting at this critical junction. said, the usebama of chemical weapons in syria is not only an assault on humanity, it is a serious threat to america's national security interests and those of our closest allies. the syrian regime's use of chemical weapons poses great risks to our friends and partners along the serious borders. -- syria's borders. prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like hezbollah, which has forces in serious supporting the regime, would acquire them and would use them. risks of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct

threat to our friends, our partners, and u.s. personnel in the region. you cannot afford for hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the united states to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons. this syrian regimes actions risked eroding the nearly century-old international norm against the use of chemical weapons, which secretary kerry has noted. protecthat has helped the united states homeland and american forces operating across the globe from those terrible weapons. coulding this norm embolden other regimes to acquire or use chemical weapons. for example, north korea maintains a massive stockpile of chemical weapons that threatens our treaty ally the republic of korea. and the 28,000 u.s. troops stationed there. i have just returned from asia. -- ie at the very serious

had a very serious and long conversation with south korea's defense minister about the real threat that north korea's tameka weapons stockpile presents to them. our allies throughout the world must be assured that the united states will fulfill its security commitments. given these threats to our national security, the united states must demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. the president has made clear that our military objectives in serious would be to hold the -- in syria would be to hold the assad regime accountable, degrade its ability to carry out these kinds of attacks, and deter the regime from further use of chemical weapons. the department of defense has developed options to achieve these objectives. we have positioned u.s. assets throughout the region to successfully execute this mission. we believe we can achieve them with a military action that would be limited in duration and scope.

general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s. forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. we are also working with our allies and partners in this effort, key partners including france, turkey, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, and friends of the region have assured us of their strong support of u.s. action. in defining our military objectives, we have made clear that we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct limit -- through direct military force. instead, we are contemplating actions that are tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons. a political solution created by the syrian people is ultimately the only way to end the violence in syria. secretary kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties in syria move towards a negotiated transition. a freeition that means

and inclusive syria. we are also committed to doing more to assist the syrian opposition, but assad must be held accountable for using these weapons in defiance of the international community. having defined america's interests and our military objectives, we also must examine the risks and the consequences of action. as well as the consequences of inaction. risks in taking action. the assad regime under increasing pressure by the syrian opposition could feel empowered to carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks without a response. chemical weapons make no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians, and inflict the worst kind of indiscriminate suffering, as we have recently seen. a refusal to act would undermine

the credibility of america's other security commitments, including the president's commitment to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. the word of the united states must mean something. in foreign currency relations and international and allied commitments. ,very witness here today secretary kerry, general dempsey, and myself, has served in uniform, fought in war, and seen its ugly realities up close , as has already been noted also senator mccain. we understand the country faces few decisions as grave as using military force. we are not unaware of the costs and ravages of war. but we also understand that america must protect its people and its national interests. that is our highest responsibility. privilegewho have the

and responsibility of serving this great nation over the american people, especially those wearing the uniform of our country, a vigorous debate on how america should respond to this horrific chemical weapons attack in syria. i know everyone on this committee agrees and takes the in office just as seriously as the president and everyone sitting at this table. thank you, mr. chairman. looking live at the white house, president obama this evening making his way to sweden, to stockholm, for the beginning of the g 20 summit. -- g-20 summit. the day began with syria this morning as the president met with leaders of congress and leaders of the committees. we are let you know, going to bring you all of our coverage on syria, all of the day's coverage, including comments here at the white house , members, coming up at 8:00 eastern here on c-span.

that includes all of today's senate foreign relations committee hearing. a couple of comments on twitter. cspan is that -- the hasthag. -- hashtag. one response -- also, a quick check on facebook, a couple of comments. terry and tony that is facebook.com/c-span3 up next, we will bring you some of the questioning of senator john mccain -- that is c-span.com/c- span. up next, we will bring you some

of the questioning of senator john mccain. >> i think the witnesses. very goodjohn, it is to see teresa here with you. good health and good spirits. i apologize for what i am about to do to john. [laughter] >> there is a set up. >> when you tell the enemy you're going to attack them, they are obviously going to disperse and try to make it harder. i'm looking right here at an ap story report, "syria said to be hiding weapons and moving troops ." there is even open source that they may be moving some of their assets into the russian naval base, but let's not -- it is ridiculous to think -- it is not wise from a pure military standpoint to not warn the enemy that you are going to attack. secretary hegel, in the "wall , the bigurnal," today

concern is the wrong groups in the opposition would be able to take it vantage of it. a senior military officer said. is there any truth to that? as i have said, the president asked us for a range of options, and we provided him a range. >> is there any truth to the article? >> our options are not limited to any -- >> i would just ask if there is any truth to the story? >> no. >> secretary kerry, in the same article, "the delay in providing arms to the opposition reflects struggle broadly, but underpins the u.s. decision- making. the current administration does not want to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear the outcome may be even worse for u.s. interests than the current stalemate." is that story accurate? >> no. can i add something, senator? on the warning issue.

i do not disagree with you. the general would not disagree with you either. >> but the general said it would be just as easy -- let's not get into that. >> all i want to say to you, john, is that there were leaks, which is the bane of everybody's existence, and the fact is that the newspapers began to carry stories about strikes in targeting well before any decisions were made. that began a process of moving. >> i got it. i really would like to move on to some more important question. >> i thought all your questions were important. [laughter] >> that's good. i will try to member that. the president said today that the purpose of military action in surrey is not just respond to the use of chemical weapons but to degrade his military capabilities as part of a broader strategy to change the momentum on the ground grid as the president said, "to allow

syria ultimately to free itself." do you agree with that assessment, john? >> i said up front, i've said several times, as a result of degrading his ability for chemical weapons, there will be downstream impact, which will have an impact on his military capacity. i agree with the president. >> thank you. general dempsey, do you agree with that statement of the president's? >> i agree. i have never been told to change the momentum. i have been told to degrade capability. >> do you think without a change in momentum that syria ultimately could free itself, as secretary hegel - -- secretary hegel -- hagel? >> i think they all are connected predictive grading a military capability as a significant part of momentum are all- they connected. degrading military capability is

a significant part of momentum shifts. >> another article in the "wall street journal." read this assessment of the situation on the ground. "thete the story -- conventional wisdom holds that the extremist elements are mixed in with the more moderate rebel groups. this isn't the case. moderates and extremists wield control over distinct territory. contrary to many media accounts, the war in syria is not being by al- is not being waged qaeda diehards. pouring into syria are not walking to the front lines. instead, they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern am a rebel held areas of the country. moderate opposition forces, a collection groups known as the free syrian army, continue to

lead the fight against the syrian regime. while traveling with some of these battalions, i've watched christian villages from government forces and extremist groups. they have demonstrated a willingness to submit to so -- to civilian authority, working closely with local administrative councils, and they have struggle to ensure that their fight against us out will pave the way against assad assad will pave the way for peace." >> they have changed significantly. they have improved. the fundamentals of syria are secular. i believe they will stay that way. >> i think it is very important to point out, as you said, it is a secular state. they would reject radical islamists. they, in some cases come in the areas in which they have control, people are demonstrating against them. that is the information i have. and we see these commentators

say, we do not know which side will win. we do not know who the bad guys are. if you agree with this assessment, we certainly know who the bad guys are. is that correct? >> i believe we do, for the most part. there are some worse than al- nusra. they tend to be in the northern area and the east. >> i thank you. again i would like to ask -- can you assure the committee that the administration does not see a protracted stalemate and conflict in syria as somehow a good thing or a goal of u.s. policy? >> the goal of u.s. policy is not a stalemate. the goal is a negotiated solution which resulted in the departure of assad and the free choice of the syrian people for their future. >> finally, i would like to ask again. if we reject this resolution,

does it send us seriously bad message to our friends and allies like -- alike? dispiriting our friends, particularly those fighting in syria, but not only that, but around the world. , i have gottenin to know my counterparts in the mideast particularly well because of the number of crises and initiatives that we have had to deal with in that region. i cannot emphasize enough how much they are looking to us now, making judgments about us for the long term, and how critical the choice we make here will be, not just to this question of support we may or may not anticipate in the

mideast peace process, to the future of egypt, to the transformation of the middle east, to the stability of the region and other interests we have. there is no way to separate one thing from all of the rest. relationships are relationships. they are integrated. emphasize, if it is the wrong kind of resolution, it can do just as much damage, in my view. i thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator udall? >> thank you very much. i think all the witnesses for their testimony and their service here today. i also want to thank chairman menendez for the way he has conducted this hearing. like everyone here, i deplore assadbush are -- bashar al- has done to his own people by attacking them with chemical weapons. assad has committed a for rent

is crime -- a horrendous crime. let there be no mistake. horrific actshis deserve an international response. what should the response be? that is why we are here today, to ask that question and many others. i hope this hearing will do more than just rubber stamp a decision that has already been made by this administration. grave concerns about what the administration is asking of us, of our military, and of the american people. here is the situation as i see it. with limited international support, we are being told the united states must retaliate for the use of chemical weapons with surgical bombing campaign of our own. we are being told we are bombing in order to send a message, but what message are we sending?

to the international community, we are saying once again, the united dates will be the world's policeman -- united states will be the world's policeman. you break a law and united states will step in. we are on shaky international leaky foundations for this strike, and we need to know whether we exhausted all diplomatic and economic sanction options to affect syria house behavior. we need to increase our attention on the source of assad 's ability to continue to ruthlessly kill his own people. that is support from nations including russia and china. they are cynically trying to hold the moral high ground. assad would not be able to maintain his grip on power if he were not being supported from outside. the full force of international outrage should come down on those nations that are refusing to allow the u.n. to act and find a solution.

finally, i see this potential bombing campaign as a potential next step towards full-fledged war. we have been here before. began as an international effort to kick saddam hussein out of kuwait, and then years of a no-fly zone and airstrikes to prevent saddam from threatening his neighbors or reconstituting his chemical weapons, and as we all know, this limit terry miller this thised military action -- limited military action led to a blunder in u.s. foreign policy, a war we voted against. many who voted for it came to regret that vote. americans are understandably weary after the fiasco of iraq and over a decade of war. makean this administration a guarantee that our military actions will be limited? how can we guarantee that one surgical strike will have any

impact other than to tighten the vice grip assad has on his power, or allow rebels allied with al qaeda to gain a stronger foothold in syria? role extremely seriously here, like many of the other senators have said, and i will hear the president and his team out. the president made the right decision to pursue an authorization for the use of military force. i hope these hearings will give the american people the answers they deserve. there are troubling questions that need to be answered. secretary kerry, i want to start with you. you have assured the american people -- i watched your national television performances -- that u.s. action will not include the use of ground troops. that it will be limited in nature to deter assad and others from using weapons of mass destruction.

draft authorization of force proposed by the administration states that it would allow the president to use as hermed forces " determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict with syria." this is a very open ended proposal with no specific limits on types of forces that would be used, with no limit on their duration. why was it proposed in a way that it conflicts with these statements of no ground troops, and what kind of language, secretary kerry, are you willing of showing thes american people that we really mean what we say in terms of no boots on the ground? senator, all good questions.

i will respond to all of them. suspicionaddress the and concern that you have, which is appropriate. i think everybody understands that iraq left a lot of folks reeling for some time. it is appropriate to ask the questions you have asked, but please let me try to emphasize. this is not sending a message per se. an effect, and impact. this is taking action to achieve something more than just a message. it is to degrade his current capacity. it will make it harder for him to do that in the future, and it will also facilitate our ability to hold him accountable in the future if he does. he will know that. this will affect his calculation. that is number one. >> secretary kerry, by degrading

his capacity, don't you, in fact, make him weaker and the aeople out there like al-nusr and al qaeda and these other extremist forces stronger? could you answer that? theserading him, you make extremist forces stronger, do you not? >> no, i do not believe you do. as a matter of fact, you actually make the opposition stronger. the opposition is getting stronger by the day now, and i would tellal idris you that, that he is not sitting around -- his daily concern is not the opposition. his concern is assad and what assad is doing with his airplanes and scuds and airplanes and artillery to the people of syria. , doesn'td the question

this make the united states the policeman of the world? no, it makes the united states a multilateral partner in an effort that the world, 184 nation strong, has accepted and took responsibility for. thenited states, which has greatest response -- capacity to do that, doesn't help lead that effort, shame on us. we are not standing up to our multilateral and humanitarian and strategic interests. that said -- >> can i stop you right there? if you are talking about multilateral efforts, what we are talking about is the world being able -- this is a breach -- the world put within the united nations that enforcement mechanism, and what we have done here with russia and china holding up the ability of the u.n. to act, we have turned aside. >> with all due respect --

>> we should be standing up. we should be standing up and making sure that they are condemned, those countries that are not allowing us to move forward, to find a solution where the solution should -- >> i do not disagree that we should be finding a solution where it resides. the fact is, just a few weeks u.n., we sought the condemnation of a chemical attack, without blame, without citing assad, without saying who was responsible -- simply a condemnation of a chemical attack. russians blocked it. -- is the illusions un security council having difficulties performing its functions? yes. does that mean the united states of america and the rest of the world that thinks we ought to act should shrink from it? no. that is really what is the test here. i would urge you. you said, how do you know it

would not result in x and y happ ening if we do not do it? let me ask you. it is not a question of what would happen if we do not do it. it is a certainty. are you going to be comfortable if assad, as result of united face not doing anything, then gases his people yet again, and the world says, why didn't the united states act? opportunitiesll of , moments where somebody did not stand up and act when it made a difference. when you go back to world war ii, you look at a ship that was turned away from the coast of florida and everybody on it lost their lives subsequently to german gas, those are the things that make it if it's. -- that make a difference. it is a guarantee if the united states does not act together with other countries -- we know what assad will do. that is a guarantee. i cannot tell you what is guaranteed if we

do act. i know what will happen if we do not. the united states will have reinforced this international standard with respect to the chemicalthe use of weapons. if multilateral institutions are being blocked and will not do it, that doesn't mean we should turn our backs and say, there is nothing we can do. that is not the case. we did it in bosnia. we made a difference. we saved countless numbers of lives. i believe that the president of the united states believes we can do that now. >> i do not believe that we should have given up so easily on using the united nations -- >> we haven't given up. >> yes, we have. we haven't taken russia to task. we haven't taken china to task. that is what we should be pointing out. >> the time of the senator has

expired. >> i want to respectfully disagree with you. i also appreciate your service. i know that you are trying very hard to fight on the diplomatic side. thank you for your courtesy. sorry for going over. >> senator barrasso? >> thank you for being here. over the weekend in wyoming, i heard from people all across the state. all believe what is happening in surrey is awful and despicable. they do have concerns about the administration what the plan really is, what the strategy really is. they want to know what the core national security interests of united states are that are at stake in syria. what is our ultimate goal or proposed military strikes, and what happens if the strikes are not effective? to that, i would ask you -- what exactly will we be voting on? is it what the white house has sent forward? when will we see the specifics? i think senator durbin also

asked about the narrowness or expanse of what we would be voting on. would we be voting in the next 24 hours? >> the chair is working with the toking member and others come to an agreed-upon text that we believe would meet the goals the ability for the administration to pursue the military action they have sought in a way that would allow them to have the maximum ability to succeed in that action. by the same token, taylor it sufficiently so that this -- -- sufficiently so that this is not an open- ended commitment. we are not there yet. it is our aspiration to try to e before the ther end of the day and to look forward to the possibility of a markup tomorrow. we will see if we can get there.

if we do, we will give all members ample notice at that time. we start off in the morning with a classified briefing. we will move from there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you coming to congress to seek legislative authorization for the military action. president obama specifically asserted on saturday that he already had the authority. when the british parliament rejected a motion supporting u.k. participation, the prime minister specifically said he would respect the will of the british people and there would be no british military intervention. where does president obama stand with that now that he has come to congress? >> he intends to win the passage of the resolution. >> in the case that he does not, is the plan -- >> we are not contemplating that. it is to director it >> we -- too dire. >> we talked about the risks of delays. there are already reports that by delaying military action that

assad is moving military assets, hardware, troops, to civilian neighborhoods. reports indicate that russia plans to send a missile cruiser to the mediterranean in the next few days. i wonder what this means to our contingency planning and what this impact is going to be for our military operations. >> the movement -- there are already four russia warships in the eastern mediterranean. they are staying a respectful distance could i do not see that as a factor. -- distance. i do not see that as a factor. >> has the administration created a report about how russia and iran will respond to a u.s.-led attack? what response do we expect to our military action? >> we all agree that that would be best handled in a classified session. in terms of what success

looks like, senator udall happensally said, what if gases are used again? i'm wondering if we do a limited strike as proposed and is still a side goes back and uses chemical -- assad goes back and uses chemical weapons on his people, that would engender a whole new set of hearings. how does this and -- end? where are we a month from now? >> as i said, senator, we are preparing several target sets, the first of which would've set the conditions for follow-on assessments, and the others would be used if necessary. we haven't gotten to that point yet. what we do know is that we can do great and disrupt his capabilities. -- can do is to grade and

disrupt his capabilities. >> senator feinstein brought this up toy at the white house. sensible to pass this resolution with a view to andading his capacity preventing him from doing it if you were foolish -- from doing it. if he were foolish to do it , the general has follow-on possibilities. since the objective would remain the same, it would be important for us on himself to know -- a ssad himself to know that he has not limited us to one specific moment in regard to chemical weapons. you can still have limited authorization, but with respect to chemical weapons, it would be a huge mistake to deprive general dempsey and company of

their options to enforce what we are trying to achieve. >> the negotiated departure of mentioningu keep trying to get him to do this from the negotiating table. whoeems to me that somebody would go to any lengths to stay in power to the point of even using chemical weapons against that -- wouldn't he be driven to a more serious level of trying to keep power? >> that is a very appropriate question. the clot -- i do not believe so. there are a number of different reasons i do not believe so. most of them are best discussed, and i look forward to it, in the private session. there are very strong indications from a number of discussions that have taken place between countries and individuals over the last months would not necessarily

avoid making a different decision under certain circumstances. i think we ought to leave it at that. and the private session, i think we ought to dig into it. >> i was going to ask about the chemical weapons stockpiles. maybe you want to reserve this for the discussion tomorrow, in terms of steps we can take, command and control of the chemical weapons stockpiles. to make sure that these things are protected in a way that could not continue them being used. >> absolutely. i want you to know -- this is something that ought to be done and the other session -- i will say generically that general dempsey and his team have taken great pains at the instruction of the president of the united states to make certain that whatever we do doesn't make it -- make people less safe or more exposed to weapons, or that those weapons would have less

control and so forth. all of these things have entered into the calculation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you, senator. one add-on to my original response to you. the relisten -- the resolution sent to us by the administration will not be the resolution we will be working on, but it is a what the desires are and intentions are. it will not be the specific resolution we will be working on. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. beingmen, thank you for with us and taking so much time with us. we are all referencing the conversations we have had over the last week. i have never seen a greater level of public engagement on an issue since the health care reform debate of 2009. while there are certainly hard- liners that have come to me with a resolution that we should go in or many more with the resolution that we should layout, most people -- stay out,

most people see both sides. they appreciate the fact that they have an american president who has taken so much time and put in so much thought into arriving at this decision, even if they disagree. they frankly appreciate even more the fact that this president trusts them and their elected representatives are not to bring this conversation to the united dates congress -- united states congress, albeit it may be a little messy to get from point a to point b. given all the commotion we will hear from our constituents, that comes out to me loud and clear. question, iat this see two questions inherent in the one. one, we have to ask ourselves, is there a moral or national security imperative? i think you have very plainly made the case, as has the president, that there is. atrocities committed we cannot let stand, and a country that

has very vital security interests to the united states. there is a second question -- that is the one i have trouble with -- that is this, will our the moralsened atrocity or advance our national security interests? they're both has to be a problem that needs to be solved, and then a way to solve it. that is why i struggle with this. frankly, i do not think the fact that i and many others struggled with that question means that we lack courage or that we are frankly enabling the syrian regime. i think we just wonder whether there is a limit to the ability of american military power to influence the politics on the ground in the middle east. clearly, though there is not no direct linkage between iraq and what happened in syria, it does chill the ability of people to believe that american military might can influence politics on

the ground in syria after they have watched the last 10 years. the second problem people have is this question of escalation, and i think one of the most important things secretary kerry has said is this -- we would be to ared to respond miscalculation of assad, whether it be in reprisals against his own people or attacks against our allies in the region, we would be prepared to respond without going to war. some people will find that statement a little incongruous. how do you respond without going to war? let me ask the question this way -- there are a variety of he could launch another chemical weapons attack against his own people, he could launch a ferocious conventional weapons attack against his own , he or hiscould allies, could launch attacks against our allies in the region.

you necessarily to explain exactly what the response will be today, but does this resolution that we are debating today give you the ability to respond to those or any of those situations, responses in syria against his own people, or responses outside of syria against our allies -- would you have to come back to congress for a new authorization of force? >> excuse me. as i think the president has made clear, and as we have seen overny of these crises the course of my career here in the senate, i saw presidents do both. i supported some, and i opposed others. a number of occasions, presidents acted without the authorization of congress. but thatno question

the president would have the authority and the right and conceivably the imperative to respond without any other authorization if assad were to attack again. i cannot speak for the president in terms of what decision he would make, but he has the authority. that right would be available to him. if i can just say quickly with -- it is absolutely to ask the question, -- appropriate to ask the question, will this make a difference? and to think about this question of escalation. let me say something quickly about both of those. if the congress decides not to guarantee, is a whether it is with assad in iran or nuclear weapons in or nuclear weapons in north

invited awill have certain confrontation at some point in time that will require you to make a choice that is with the potential of even greater conflict. that, i guarantee you. that is the message that will be sent. there is distinction between this and iraq. i understand iraq. we lived through that. in iraq, intelligence reported to suggest that weapons of mass destruction existed. we do not know if they existed. we had a massive invasion in order to try to find out if they existed. we found out they did not. we have weapons of mass destruction that we not only know do exist -- they have been used. not once, not twice, not three times, but multiple times. teens, and in the

the opposition estimates more than that. now we have this most recent use of weapons of mass destruction in contradiction of nearly 100 years of a prohibition against their use. >> i do not think that is the dispute. is -- dispute >> the ability of the military to influence the results on the ground. >> the dispute is, what are you prepared to do about it? if you believe by doing nothing you are going to stand up to the norms and somehow reduce the threat of use in future times, that is your right to believe that, but i think, and the president believes deeply and everybody at this table believes, that flies against all common sense and human behavior. >> let me ask a question about iran. i think it is very important and a compelling narrative. let me ask you this -- the circumstances are very different. not to trivialize what has happened in syria, but the

stakes of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon which could kill millions is different than syria killing thousands. itonder whether or not lessens our moral authority to make a different decision with respect to iran just because on syria we decide not to act. second, i worry about this weariness we have talked about within the american public, that it may ultimately make it harder to rally the american public with respect to a response to iran, having gone through what could be slightly protracted engagement with syria. i disallow to challenge you for a second on the automatic nature -- i want to challenge you for second on the automatic nature of failure to respond in syria with respect to iran. >> let me make it very clear. the world decided after world gas inn the horrors of

the trenches and the loss of an entire generation of young people in europe that we would never again allow gas to be used in warfare. if, all of a sudden, at this adult hitler gassed hussein of jews, saddam gassing his own people and iranians, and now used by bush are -- bashar al-assad. three people in history. united states knowing that, unwilling to confront and stand up to that, there is an absolute certainty that gas will proliferate. gas in the sarin tokyo subway. do you want to have a situation where the gas may be available to these groups, if it continues to deteriorate, because assad can use this gas to continue to

subjugate his population that is looking for governance that is for presented if an different and respect -- that is representative and different in respect to their rights? is there a difference between chemical weapons and nuclear weapons? it would depend on the scale. the world has said that chemical, biological, and nuclear are the prohibited asities of warfare, and we, a nation, and we as a global community, have struggled to try to enforce that through the years. it is hard for me to imagine that the united states would not stand with the world against that. is it going to be effective? i am convinced that what we can the possibilities

of more use of gas and the great rade his capacity to use these weapons. i think it is imperative that we have to take that step. it is significantly different from what took place in iraq originally with respect to weapons that we did not know existed, and the to just are not similar. -- two just are not similar. >> thank you for coming today. it's not often i get to complement the president. i can probably count the number of times on one hand. when i first heard that the president was going to come to proud that hes was my president. i did not vote for him. i was proud that he did this. i was just about to stand on my feet and clapped and give him a standing ovation, and then i heard of, well, if i lose the vote, i will probably go ahead and do the bombing anyway. that does concern me. i want to be proud of the

president. every time i'm just about there, then i get word that he really doesn't mean it, that he's going to sort of opened constitution if he wins. say, ifsecretary kerry we win, sure, but if we lose, what? >make me proud today, secretary kerry. tell us you are going to obey the constitution, and if we vote you down -- which is unlikelyyoe say ttheir cocan you give me a , secretary kerry? i cannot give you a different answer than the one i gave you. i do not know what the president's decision is. that ought to make you proud. he still has the constitutional authority. he would be in keeping with the constitution. >> i disagree with you there. i do not believe he has the authority. i think congress has it. madison was very explicit when he wrote the federalist papers, he wrote that history supposes

or the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most liquid to go to war, and therefore, the constitution vested that power in the congress. is a congressional power. it is not an executive power. they did not say big war, small war. they did not say boots on the ground. they said, declare war. at the people launching the missiles on the ships if they are involved in war or not. say the not constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you are making a joke of us. you are making us into theater. we play constitutional theater for the president. if this is real, you will abide by the verdict of congress. you are probably going to win. israel, and let's have a real debate, and not a meaningless debate. real, and let's

have a real debate, and not a meaningless debate. >> i assure you there is nothing meaningless, and everything real -- >> only if our vote makes it ends. only if our vote is binding is it meaningful. >> i believe that the man who was first -- who was elected to the office of the president of the united states, i believe he the responsibility to tell you if and when he makes a decision. >> we have had a lot of discussion about whether or not we are going to make the world safer with this. i think that is an open question. i think it is conjecture at best. you can say, we think assad will be less likely to launch chemical weapons after this. we may be able to degrade his capacity somewhat. will we wipe it out? most reports say that we will not directly bomb chemical weapons because of what might happen to the surrounding population. my guess is he will still have say,bility -- most people

assad acted very illogically. why would he release chemical weapons on his own people when it brought the anger of the entire world? he is already acting irrationally or a logically. now we are going to deter him. i think it is equally likely that he either does it again or he doesn't do it. i do not think you can say for certain which is better. say byt think you can attacking him, he's not going to launch another chemical attack. i've got a few of them. then i will stop. will the region be more stable or less stable? we all say we want stability in the middle east, and that is a national interest for our country. will it be more stable or less stable? i think there are equal arguments on both sides of that. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack on them, a gas attack or otherwise, or less likely? i think there is a valid argument for saying they will be more likely to suffer an attack if we do this. will russia be more likely or

less likely to supply more arms and get more heavily involved in this? i think there is a valid argument that they may become more likely to be involved. iran, more likely or less likely to be involved with this? if iran gets involved, more likely or less likely that israel launches a reprisal attack on iran? there are all kinds of unknowns. there is a reasonable argument that the world may be less stable because of this and that it may not deter any chemical weapons attacks. what i would ask is, how are we to know? i haven't had one person come up to me and say that they are for this war. not one person. we get calls by the thousands. nobody is calling in favor of this war. ien i was home all month, went to 40 cities, and i did not have one person come up and say -- do they all agree it is karen does, -- horrendous? yes.

about are not excited getting involved. they are skeptical about what will occur with this. i would appreciate response. try to reassure the rest of us that the vote is meaningful and valid, and also that you're convinced that all of these different items will be better, not worse, by this attack. >> senator, i would be very happy to do that. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack him up or will they be safer -- attack, or will be the same -- safer? i can make it crystal clear to you that israel will be less safe unless the united states takes this action. iran and hezbollah are two of the three biggest allies of assad. the two hezbollahar are single biggest enemies of israel. love -- he has advantaged by

the united states not curbing the use of chemical weapons, there is a chance that hezbollah , which is been one of the principal reasons for a change on the situation on the ground, will have access to these weapons of mass destruction, and israel, for certain, would be less secure. >> i would say it is more likely that hezbollah would occur -- would attack in response. >> israel feels quite confident in its response. you will notice that israel has seen it fit to deal with threats to its security because of what has happened in syria, and not once has assad responded to that to date. i think there are a bunch of things we should talk about in a classified session, but let me make it very clear to you. with this or that be more likely to happen?

if the united states of america does not do this, senator, is it more or less likely that assad does it again? do you want to answer that question? >> i think it is no. i think it is unknown. >> senator, it is not unknown. if united states of america does not hold him accountable on this with our allies and friends, it is a guarantee assad will do it again. i urge you to go to the classified briefing and learned that. secondly, let me just point out to you that with respect to this question of americans wanting to go to war -- you've got three people here who have been to war. john mccain has been to war. not one of us does not understand what going to war means. we do not want to go to war. we do not believe we are going to war, in the classic sense, taking american troops to war.

the president is asking for the authority to do a limited action. degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. so, younk by doing announced that your goal is not winning. i think the last 50 years of secretaries of defense would say -- >> when people are asked, do you want to go to war? of course not. 100% of americans would say no. we do not want to go to war either. the president is not asking you to go to war. he is not asking you to declare war. he is not asking you to war. he is simply saying, we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100- year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say, we will not do that?

you know, i just do not consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young americans in harms way. that is not what the president is asking. the washington post-abc news are that shows americans opposing missile strikes, nearly six in 10. there is differing numbers between every demographic and political group. pushing for the resolution looking at the use of military force in syria again this morning when president obama met ath congressional leaders the white house and concluded with secretary of stat