the worst outcome that could happen. >> congressman, i apologize for interrupting. i think it would be helpful to you -- as you were asking the question. because i'm very concerned about the foundation of your question, the premise of it. a woman by the name of elizabeth bagley, she works for the institute of war. she is fluent in arabic and has spent an enormous amount of time studying the opposition, a city in syria. she just published a very interesting article which i commend to you. sitting behind me is ambassador robert ford. he has spent time in syria. the has been done enormous amount of time working with them and helping to understand is dynamic. i just do not agree that the majority are al qaeda and the bad guys.

it is not true. there are about 700,000 oppositionists. about 15% to 25% might be in one group or another that we would deem to be bad guys. there are many different groups. and sometimes they are fighting each other, even now. the general belief, there is a real moderate opposition that exists. and our allies in the region are now in a disciplined way funnelling resistance to the moderate opposition. >> i get when you're saying, but there are moderates. the briefings i have received are that it is at 50% and rising. these fighters coming globally

are not coming in as moderates. they're coming in as jihadist. i also want to hear from the secretary and from the general as well. >> i agree with secretary kerry's analysis. let me remind us all, and you know this very well, congressman, especially with your responsibilities as chairman of the homeland security committee. this is an imperfect situation. there are no good options here. every point you made of the complications with the various terrorist groups that we have noted are there. i don't question that. secretary kerry has pointed out that we are moving in the right direction.

>> time has expired. >> i believe we stand at a pivotal moment where congress is either going to uphold its duty to protect our national security or we will retreat from our moral and strategic obligations. it will have to be a narrowly drawn resolution to determine whether congress to end of four human-rights or allow our power to dramatically shrink. i stand a hard choice. behind the president's choice for turgut it and limited targeted andr limited strikes with no boots on the ground. by emboldening the vial regime and its terrorist proxy's, i

think it is essential that the united states send an unequivocal message to assad and especially iran, that the president, and every civilization on earth says that you cannot guess innocent children to death, you cannot use chemical weapons of mass

destruction, we mean it. i believe america's credibility is on the line in syria and we have the gut wrenching image and -- images of women and children coldly murdered by a side. if the strike is to occurit is about preventing when aities in the future. to prevent those weapons from being used by other groups like has bala. american credibility is also on the line in iran. this committee has been strongly bipartisan and set a clear red line that we will not allow iran to obtain weapons capability. if congress votes down a limited authorization, then to iran's leaders, our red line against their development of nuclear weapons is meaningless. the sanctions we have passed unanimously out of this committee and supported by 400 members on the house floor will be largely worthless because it

will not be backed up by a credible threat of force. secretary kerry, if we're when to do everything in our power to solve the iranian nuclear issue without actual conflict, then we must support this. make no mistake, this resolution is about syria and holding assad accountable. it is also about iran and making sure they do not up chain -- that thatons. nation does not obtain nuclear weapons. i do not want to be in this position. none of us do. the president did not put us in this position. bashar al-assad put us in this position when he chose to gas his own people. secretary kerry, a lot of people they say theyto me.

are disgusted by what they see. u.s. shouldhy the be the world's policeman. which are the nations who said they will support our action and how are they prepared to support it? >> the united states of america is not being the world's policeman. united states of america is joining with other countries in upholding an international standard that 184 nations have joined into. obviously, we have a greater capacity. the american people have invested in and in order to protect our security interests our security interests are directly involved in what is happening in the middle east.

our security interests are directly threatened with respect to assad's use of these chemical weapons. we are building support with other countries. among them, the arab league, which announced its condemnation of this. the turks, the french, obviously the british government felt it should. it had a different vote, but that -- in fact, i think that raises the stakes in terms of holding ourselves accountable to a multilateral effort, to a multilateral standard in which the united states is the most technologically advanced partner. mr. ted pogueto --

>> think you, mr. chairman. we heard a lot today about credibility in the united states. it seems to me that we have a credibility problem because our foreign policy in the middle east is inconsistent. our enemies really do not know what our foreign policy is. our friends don't know what it is and i am not so sure that americans know what it is. we see it playing out with different reasons, going into different countries, removing people from leadership and putting someone else in. i like my friend from austin, i am concerned about the players there is no pure

sidein this civil war. you have hezbollah, a bunch of bad guys on one side, and then you have other terrorist groups allthe other side, including of the groups involved. i do believe these are powerful groups on both sides. history will find out who ends up winning this civil war. you factor in the religious connotation in this civil war and you really do have a real problem. we do have a real problem on our hands. my concern is, specifically, we want to do something to punish mr. bad guy assad. no question about it. he is a bad guy, wasting good air breathing. we're not going to shoot him or take him out because we do not want to destabilize the civil war going on between both sides, if i understand what that civil war is. let's assume that we do that. i will ask you general dempsey this question first. assume we do that.

what ever it is to destabilize the weapons of mass destruction. get rid of them. i assume that is what we are trying to do. i eliminate the weapons of mass destruction, even the secretary hagel said they are getting those things from russia, which are they going to give them our -- more weapons? i do not know. so, we do that. assad fights back. he does not just take it. he retaliates against us or let's iran retaliate against israel because we have come into this civil war. so, they shoot back. what do we do once americans are engaged and escalated in a specific strike not by our choosing, but by their choosing? do we escalate or do we not fight back? and i know, general dempsey, you have a tough situation on your hands. what do we do if they literally

shoot back at america? our friends the israelis? >> just to clarify, this is not about eliminating chemical weapons. that is not possible, given the number and distribution of them. it is about convincing the assad regime it is unacceptable to use them and that is this military operation. we are postured for the possibility of retaliation and i can assure you our regional partners are as well. >> let me just ask that question with a little more clarification from you. i know you are in the military and you are to the point. that is great. you are in charge. can you see that escalating, though, with u.s. military involvement in the region -- have you made a contingency plan for us being in and escalated military operation in the region?

>> in the spirit of your compliment on my conciseness, yes. [laughter] >> do you see escalation as a possibility? u.s. military escalation as a possibility? >> i could never drive the risk of escalation to zero, but i think the contributions we will seek from others, it begins to limit that risk. >> one last question since i am nearly out of time here. general dempsey, you mentioned earlier that you are concerned about removing assad from power. will you elaborate on that and if so, what is your elaboration? >> separate from this conversation which is about the limited purpose of the hearing

and degrading, i still am cautious about whether we should use military force for the purpose of tipping the balance. i think there are other ways we can contribute to that through the development of modern opposition. i remain cautious about taking the oppositions role here in the the civil war. >> thank you emma mr. chairman. >> -- thank you, mr. chairman. >> that bashar assad used chemical weapons i think is irrefutable. however, i think the facts of history are needed here as well. the situation in syria is that of a national civil war. that conflict that america cannot solve and should not try to. this is not a fight for freedom and democracy. there is no democracy movement in syria.

if there is no unifying vision or social contract. not a constitution, or even a preamble of what syria wants to become. this is nothing more than a twoht for control between two sectarian fashions. -- factions. it is estimated to be about 1000 militia with no air power. this is a conflict between a brutal and murderous dictator and an opposition who's best fighters are represented by al qaeda affiliates and islamic extremists bent on creating --lamist sanctions in syria. state in syria. there are no good options. the lesson in syria, as in iraq and afghanistan, is that civil wars should be fought internally and that political reconciliation cannot come from without, it has to come from

within. andthat cannot be a post from-- imposed fromoutside influences. we know that from our own history. the syrian civil war has caused 100,000 apps in a countries 23 million, the american civil war caused 675,000 deaths from a young nation of 34 million people. after spending two dollars trillion in iraq and afghanistan, representing $40,000 in debt for every american family and the loss of 6668 american lives and the destruction of tens of thousands of americans, iraq is -- at any -- is as violent today thanat any time in its history. afghanistan is as corrupt as it's always been. the american people are sick and tired of war. it is time to nation build in america and invest in the growth of the american economy.

bashar al-assad used chemical weapons on his own people. that is morally reprehensible for certain. he should be condemned universally by the international community and stiff sanctions should be imposed. he should be indicted as a war criminal in the international tribunal for his murderous deeds. unfortunately, the use of chemical weapons in this part of the world is not new. saddam hussein used them in the iraq-iran war. and again, against his own civilian population in northern iraq in 1991. unfortunately, the stockpiling and use of mustard gas and staring, thousands of tons of -- and sarin, is all too common today taking back decades. the international support for the united states-led military strike in syria, however limited in scope at the time, consists of two countries.

turkey and france out of 194 countries. the rest of the international community, but for china and russia, says we support you, america and your military strike, so long as we do not have to do anything. the arab league's response to this is a joke. here we are, left to topple the last regime in the middle east. for the third time, in a decade, entering a national civil war in that part of the world, essentially alone, again, secretary kerry, you spoke on the world's response to the use of chemical weapons. even that history, one would think that more countries would join the u.s. in participating, not supporting, in participating

in a military strike against syria. what gives? >> well, congressman, i will try to be quick here. first of all, i do not want to make this debate about what is happening in terms of regime change and a larger issues. a fruitwant to clarify. vendorwho was tired of corruption and being slapped around started the arab spring in tunisia and throughout a dictator who had been there for a long. of time. that's a long period of time. intel rear square, -- squareit was a bunch of young, in tahrir it was a bunch of young people with facebook and

so forth who organized a resolution. it was not the muslim brotherhood. it had nothing to do with religion. it had to do with a generation of people looking for freedom, opportunity, and aspirations to be met. the same thing happened in syria. in syria, that opposition was met with violence by assad. that is what has happened here. the moderate opposition is, in fact, committed to democracy. it is committed to the protection of all minority rights, inclusivity, they want elections in syria. i do not want a debate about that because this is not about regime change. this is about the enforcement of the standard with respect to chemical weapons. the president is asking for a limited authority to enforce that standard, not to deal with all those other issues. >> matt salmon of arizona, chairman of the western --misphere committee. subcommittee. >> secretary kerry, let me first congratulate the president on bringing this matter to the congress as i believe he is constitutionally required to do. i for 1 am very happy he has chosen to do this. he said just this morning that

he did not draw a red line, the world did with the ratification of the chemical weapons treaty. where is the rest of the world in the response? why are we looking at a go it alone mission? you said in your testimony that there are 34 countries who are with us. what degree are they with us and you are they, specifically?-- who are they specifically? >> i do not have the full list of them here. i have listed a bunch of them. the arab league countries have condemned this. a number of them have asked to be part of a military operation. the turks, nato countries have condemned it. they have asked to be part of an operation. the french volunteer volunteered to be part of an operation. there are others who have volunteered, but frankly, and i will let general dempsey speak to this, we have more volunteers

and we can use for this kind of an operation. in the next days, those names as they chose to as evidence comes out will be made more public. as i said here, we have 53 countries who have already condemned the use publicly area 37 have said so publicly. i think it total of 34 nations have said they are prepared to take action. that is growing. more countries are reviewing the evidence we have shown. as i have said, over time the president has purposively -- purposely taken this to congress. he has asked me and the state department to reach out to more countries and to build the kind

of international support that this merits and we will do so. >> thank you. i would appreciate it if we could get a list of the countries and what assets they are willing to -- >> i have -- all broken down. >> not now. we can get that later. i do have a question for general dempsey. what are our goals in the military strike? the president said the military attack would be limited in duration and scope. do you believe that the use of strikes will achieve the president's goal and can you guarantee the american people that the assad regime will be unable to launch any chemical warfare attacks altered home or -- both at home oron their neighbors? do you believe the region will be more stable after u.s. attacks or less stable? >> the mission given to me was to prepare options to attack, deter and degrade

andthat would be targets directly linked to the control of chemical weapons, but without exposing those chemical weapons. secondly, the means of delivery, and third, those things that the regime uses, for example, air defense, long range air missiles and rockets in order to protect those chemical weapons. so, that target packages still being refined as i sit here with you. as far as whether it will be effective, given the limited objectives i have received, the answer is, yes. i believe we can make the military strike effective.in terms ofwhat it will do to the region, that really will depend on the reaction of the assad regime. as i mentioned earlier, our partners and the united states military is postured to deter his retaliation. >> finally, general dempsey, as we have been discussing this over the last few weeks, we have given pretty clear -- we telegraphed our message to assad

and his regime that we are planning to make an attack. do you not assume that they might circle those wagons with civilians and with the possibility of civilian casualties being very great? >> the targeting requirements, as given to me by the president, require us to receive a collateral damage estimate that is low. though they are, in fact, moving resources around and in some cases placing prisoners and others in places that they believe we might target, at this point our intelligences keeping up with that movement. >> karen bass of california. thankyou and thank you chairman ranking member for holding this hearing today and our witnesses for coming. i have three questions and i would like to get out all three questions. then ask whoever chooses to respond.

as i recall in libya, the arab league asked us to intervene. if i am wrong, correct me. i want to know what was different this time. i know they condemned the attacks, but why haven't they asked us to intervene? and then second, what type of retaliation, if any, do you expect from syria, from iran, hezbollah, or other unaffiliated parties and what are we doing to prepare for any retaliation? finally, as i understand, -- made some comments today that he -- vladimir putinmade some comments today that he might be open to the idea of responding if it could be proven where the chemical weapons came from. i was wondering if you thought this provided an opportunity? how you might interpret his comments, but is there an opportunity for the international community to come together? those are my questions to which

ever one of you chooses to answer. >> i will answer the one that --tually most up lies to my most applies to myparticular expertise, and that is what kind of risk of retaliation. there is conventional risk, that would be if he chose to use some of his long-range rockets to attack his neighbors are some of our facilities. there is also asymmetric. he could encourage some of these surrogates and proxies such as lebanese hezbollah to attack an embassy. there is action secret seek to-- there is actions he could seek toachieve in a cyber and we are alert to all of the possibilities. ourmitigating strategies in a

way that we have positioned ourselves in the region. >> thank you. the arab league and the other one was about putin. as i recall, during libya, i believe the arab league asked us to intervene. i wanted to know what the difference was with syria. so, they condemned to the attacks but they have not asked us to intervene and why? >> the reason is that a couple of their members, a number of their members, three or four of them are not in favor of it, so they did a consensus statement. individual countries are prepared to and are in favor of it. i named the number of them. lebanon, for obvious reasons, has some problems. nigeria and iraq have some -- algeria and iraq has some issues. you can understand why people might be a little restrained. let me just share, could because this has been a recurring theme here today. australia, the foreign minister said australia supports the u.s. position on syria. it is right

to take actions to support vital international norms. he noted that australia believes the united states has its right independent of any endorsement from the united nations council. the albanian ministrysaid they are ready to politically support the u.s. and nato in any action that needs to be taken to put an end to the massacre of the syrian population and support the bosnia-population. herzegovina -->> before i run out of time, could you respond about putin? >> i would interpret his question -- his comments as that the g-20, the president and he will have a conversation. there may be a road forward where russia would consider not locking actions. i would quickly we say to everybody here --canada, stephen harper said we should take action. denmark, france, poland, turkey.

all have suggested the united states should take action and would be prepared to take action with us. this is a building response and i think other countries understand the moment. >> we are going to go now to mr. tom marino of pennsylvania. >> thank you chairman. secretary hegel, if you could tell me or tell us, who are the bad guys? or maybe put it this way. who are our allies? who are the good guys in syria? >> you are referring to the opposition, i assume? >> who are they? >> we have covered some of this ground. again, you are looking at various groups that are part of the opposition. as secretary kerry noted, under the general there are groups who have one motive and one objective.

that is a free and inclusive syria. >> do you trust these people? >> that is not my business to trust. >> it has to be the business is you are making decisions to go into war and put american lives at risk. it is a simple onset.-- it's a simple concept. you either trust or do not trust. if you do not trust, we do not call these people our allies or support. >> congressman, every nation, every individual, every group response in their own self- interest. we are not unaware of all the different groups self-interest. >> excuse me, sir, with all due respect, i think we are aware if we look back at what happened in libya and in the middle east in the past. if we look at the muslim brotherhood. al qaeda. we have to take this into consideration. obviously, we do not know yet who the good guys are.

>> congressman, let me respond thishat. isnot on good guys-bad guys. the focus is on a narrowly drafted resolution asking resolution from the congress. >> i would not think the good guys would be using gas. secretary kerry, if i may ask you, from one prosecutor to another, i believe you are beyond a reasonable doubt assertion. i truly believe that. this will not stop the butchering and the killing that takes place over there. sowhat is the purpose? what is the endgame? what is the imminent danger to the united states? >> congressman, you are absolutely correct that it will not stop the butchering. i wish it would. what it will do is what it is intended to do. it is intended to a search the

--incipal, which has been in assert the principle which has been inplace since 1925, that no one should use chemical weapons under any circumstances. >> i understand that. this is the reality of this. what is the reality of this? we have seen this used in the past. you made the comment in 2002, when bush wanted to go into iraq which i did not agree with. the president also made the statement which i think was in the senate, in the state that was advancing his career, that we should not do this, even know even though saddam hussein gassed his own people. what is his own -- what is the difference here that you are so intent in going into syria because assad has done this? >> the gassing was not the pretext for that operation am a

but ultimately saddam hussein was held accountable for not just that crime but all of his other crimes. he hung. the bottom line is he was held accountable. >> in hindsight, i concede see you stating that. but you are not supporting that in 2002. you are supporting it now. i do not see the difference. my issue gets to this. who is going to pay for this? and what is it going to cost the united states taxpayers? >> i will let secretary hegel address the cost issue from the military. >> we have looked at the different costs depending on the different options depending on the decision the president makes. we have given some ranges of this. it would be tens of millions of dollars, that kind of range. >> i see my time is running out. believe this, regardless of the minimization of intervention,

american military personnel will die. this i cannot accept. soldiers coming home in a body bag is not acceptable to me and therefore i cannot and will not vote for this intervention. thank you. >> this notes that no boots would be on the ground, i might remind the congressman. >> i have heard that before. >> we go back to the gentleman from massachusetts., mr. william keating. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of you or your service to our country. i want to thank all of you for sharing the information you have so far with congress and the american public, as well as the world. i think, clearly, that anyone looking at this evenly that has been a success in terms of making clear the case that there were chemical weapons used and that the assad e-government -- assad government use of them.--

used them. i want to congratulate you on those efforts. general dempsey -- so general dempsey does not run out of time with a few seconds to answer, we were going down a road that i want to pursue if i could. you raised concerns in the past about engaging militarily in the syrian conflict. obviously, you are here today to support a limited military reaction. you did start to say in your remarks that there are military outcomes in supporting the opposition. but you qualified as saying, that is not what we are doing here. i am concerned that regardless of our stated intent in this area, that others will not share that same view. that is not our intent. if you could, and in plenty of time i hope, could you just expand upon what your concerns were and maybe are that you had in the past that you stated so we have a better understanding

of what they are and given you enough time to see what your views might be on how we can mitigate that or navigate around those concerns in the situation we are right now? >> i want to separate support for the opposition from acting in a limited focused way to deter and degrade the assad regime from use of chemical weapons. the former, support for the opposition, does come with some risk of a slippery slope of not entirely understanding when that support ends and how much it has to grow over time, which is why i am mostly supportive of helping the opposition by their development, by training and equipment. not by becoming their military arm. separate that from what we are here for today. in my view, militarily, the fact that the assad regime has increased its use of chemicals over time to the point where it

initially was a weapon intended to terrorize a small portion of a particular neighborhood. to send a message to the opposition, to where now in the most recent case it was used to literally attempt to clear a neighborhood. they reached a point where assad is using chemical weapons as just another military pool -- military tool in his arsenal. that runs a great risk for syria. it runs a great risk in the region. it runs a great risk for the globe i am able to, with a lots integrity, i hope, be able to come to you today to make that distinction that we should do something in our national interest based on the use of chemical weapons without committing to supporting the opposition to overthrow the >> was part

of that slippery slope, was that partly a concern about how other countries or other factions could be taking our actions question mark even in a limited sense, we are helping the opposition because we are attacking the assad government. in that respect, is that any concern that you had prior to how do you mitigate that now? >> we always considered not only whether -- the actions we would thee on our partners and even iraqisfor that matter. ,with what impact it would have on our potential adversaries. of coarse, that has always been a concern. a concern and a consideration. but when something reaches the level where it has a direct impact on our national security, then the overriding consideration is not what others think but what we think. >> thank you, general.very

quickly, i am theranking member in europe and eurasia. it was set in 1999 -- there was a precedent set in 1999 were nato moved without approval. do you think this helped them moving not just individually. have you exhausted everything in terms of-- trying to get nato support as an organization? >> i apologize. i was just reading a note. could you repeat that question >>it was about nato, the 1999 precedent where they moved forward without that security council approval. is there any hope of doing that going forward? >> i doubt it, but i cannot tell you until i have the meeting this weekend and get a better sense of that. i will say to congressman marino, with respect to the body bags, i think we had a 28-day

campaign, maybe 30 daycampaign in kosovo. there were over 30,000 of our aircraft and so forth. none of which is contemplated here. and there were zero casualties. zero. >> we should go to jeff duncan at -- of south carolina at this time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i cannot discuss the possibility of the u.s. involvement without talking about benghazi. the administration has a serious credibility issue with the american people. the benghazi attack was almost one year ago.there are unanswered questions. when you factor in the targeting of the irs to conservative groups and nsa spying programs, the bottom line is that there is a need for accountability and trust-building. to paraphrase, it was said that i am not upset over you not telling me the truth.

i am upset because from now on i thenot believe you. administration has a credibility issue. benghazi is germane to the discussions in syria, because as you stated, the world was and is watching for our response. after almost a year of not bringing anyone to justice in benghazi, they are watching our response. your predecessor asked, what difference does it make now? this is the difference. these issues call into issue he accountability of this administration. the american people need to -- need answers. if this is about accountability. it sure it is. the american people deserve answers about benghazi before we move forward in syria's civil -- this is a picture.

you cannot see it from there, but you might go to see on the screen. byis is a picture given to me his fathera navy seal. ,this family deserves answers. he was killed in benghazi. america deserves answers before we sent another man and woman into harms way, a specially in another country's civil war when there is no clear indication that there is an imminent threat to the united states. i do not question that chemical weapons were used in syria. i have looked at the classified briefings. i do ask where are the other signatory countries as the u.s. beats the drums of war against this regime and syria? i have spoken to hundreds of constituents. this represents about 300 e- mails that my office has gotten and not a one member in my district are the e-mails of people who have contacted my office to say, go to syria and fight this regime. they say, no. it did not go into syria. do not get involved in their civil war. i spoke to eighth graders. about 150 of them get it that we

should not be drug into someone else's civil war where there are no good guys. i can only envision an escalation of this conflict. the same administration that was so quick to involve the u.s. in syria now was reluctant to use the same resources at its disposal to attempt a rescue to four brave americans that fought for their lives in benghazi. secretary kerry, you have never been one that has advocated for anything other than caution in past conflicts. the same is true for the president and vice president. is the power of the executive branch so intoxicating that you would abandon past caution in favor of pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly? the reason that i say benghazi is germane is this. secretary kerry, had there been any efforts on the part of the united states directly or indirectly to provide weapons to the syrian rebels, and that

would also include facilitating the transfer of weapons from rebels to the syrian rebels. >> have there been efforts to? >> to put weapons in the hands of syrian rebels and also transfer weapons from libya to syria. >> let me begin, congressman, by challenging your proposition that i have never done anything except advocate caution because i volunteered to fight for my country and that was not a conscious thing to do when i did it.-- a cautious thing to do when i did it ini'm going to finish, congressman. i am going to finish. wheni was in the united states senate, i supported military action on any number of occasions, including her innate in panama. i could run a list of them. i'm not going to sit here and be told by you that i don't have a set of -- a sense of what the judgment is. we are talking about people

being killed by gas and you want to go talk about benghazi and fast and furious. >> absolutely. americans lost their lives. i do think there should be a worldwide response, but we should act cautiously. >> we are acting cautiously. we are acting so cautiously that the president of the united states was accused of not acting because he wanted to have sufficient evidence and he wanted to build the case properly. >> it has been 15 days. >> point of privilege, here. this is important. i think this is important. it is important whether or not we are going into syria in a way that the congressman describes, which i think most people in america do not want us to do. would you not want to do that.-- we don't want to do that. that is why the president has said no boots on the ground. this is not about getting into

syria's civil war. this is about enforcing the principle that people should not be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity. if we do not vote to do this, a assadwill interpret from you that he is free to do this any day he wants to. that is what this is about. not getting involved in syria's civil war. let's draw the proper distinction here, congressman. we don't deserve to drag us into another benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice until assad. hitler, and saddam hussein. if we give license to somebody to continue that, shame on us. >> we go to mr. davis of rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking our three witnesses not only by being here today, but for extraordinary service to our country.

i went to a knowledge the president for his consultation. i've had the opportunity to participate. i was on the telephone monday with secretary kerry, hegel, and ambassador rice. i think the president for his ongoing consultation and sharing of information. this is a difficult question. secretary hegel said there is no good answers with the use of chemical weapons. it is our ethic. i think the assad regime is responsible and should be held accountable. my question really is, as i talk to constituents in my district who reacted the same way with war weariness and a recognition of all of the enormous risks associated with the military intervention, both in propping up the wrong opposition and being deeply engaged in a civil war, they all wonder, is there a set of actions we could take

which would evidence strong condemnation, isolate assad, and also vindicate our deep commitment to a set of international institutions. things like making china and russia act on the security council on a public stage to veto a public resolution. seek an indictment of assad for war crimes. isolate syria through sanctions and other kinds of international actions where we might build a broad coalition, strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons, isolate syria, and build the international voice and do it in a way, frankly, that would be more consistent with our values. with the idea of working together and using international organizations. i would like to know, was there a discussion about a set of options that might be effective without the risks that are associated with military actions? was it considered and rejected

or is it something we could put together that would be a strong force and set of actions that --uld hurt assad, the turk the determine the likelyuse of chemical weapons again, but without the dangers? second question, quickly, mr. secretary, you mentioned america and her allies have ample ways to make assad regret that decision without going to war. i would love more -- i would love to hear more about what those things are is i think many of our concerns are what happens after. i am interested in the discussion from all of you as to whether we might think hard about the ways to do this. >> congressman, a very good question. believe me, we wish that the international institution that is there for this response would respond. that is the u.n. and un security council.

our representative attempted with other allies to put a resolution before the security council that would have simply condemned the event, not assigning blame at all. the russians said no. they blocked it. that is what has set us into this path that has an effect of deterring assad from these weapons. even if you had some sanction, if it isn't meaningful in a way that is going to deter the action and no one has yet contrived of some piece of paper or terminology with respect to what he is fighting for.

the judgment has been made that the only way to have an impact and hold him accountable is to make it clear to him that this will, in fact, detract from his andlity to abuse his people. to use force to stay in power. >> i think what the secretary said is exactly right. i would add two things. there are a number of tracks we are on right now to accomplish what you're are talking about. secretary kerry's diplomatic track which has been ongoing and intense. reaching out to our allies all over the world. i was in asia last week with 15 defense ministers from all over asia discussing this. meeting with leaders. our nato allies.

all three of us have been talking to our counterparts from countries all over the world. what did the white house is doing. what the president is doing. we are still involved with the united nations. those tracks are being run in addition to what we are talking about here. one exact point on the purpose of this hearing. general dempsey said this morning at the senate armed services committee, when asked about the violation of the chemical weapons norm come a a 100 year old norm, -- norm, a 100 year old norm, one of the points that general dancey made which is exactly right and we start here, this is a threat to our interest, to our forces, to our country, allowing a tyrant to get away with the use of chemical weapons. >>at is the real threat.

adamkissinger of illinois. i know you have had a couple of long weeks. i'm about to support this, but i want to say at the beginning my disapproval of the president's policies in the middle east. i believe part of the reason we are having difficulty rallying a coalition is they do not see the united states is having lead on this until recently. that said, as a veteran of the military, as a current serving military pilot in the national guard, i also am war weary. but i want to remind americans what one of my favorite presidents ronald reagan said. he said, if we want to avoid work, or begins when governments -- he said it war begins when governmentsbelieve the price of aggression is cheap. that is the situation we find ourselves in in. it has been amazing to me that we are seeming to paralyze ourselves into inaction, running every potential scenario that could occur in this. it makes me wonder, god help us if we become a country that cannot do the right and because

we paralyze ourselves into inaction. here's a picture i think everybody needs to see. this is a picture of syrian children, many of which the secretary said earlier, about 400 died in just this one chemical gas attack. if we don't do anything about this, you can ensure that maybe the kids in this picture are definitely other kids will die from the same attack. i want to quickly read you the iffects of syrian -- sarin gas. want you to look at these children and that children have gone through this. the mild effects is running -- blurred vision, sweating, chest tightness, diarrhea, not sitting, increased urination, slow or fast hi rick, low or high blood pressure. exposure to large doses like we saw in ceric, loss of consciousness, emotions,-- convulsionsparalysis, ,respiratory failure which is a

polite way of saying you suffocate to death while you are aware you are suffocating to death. what we are talking about is a discussion of what the international community and united states of america in the goodness of our heart has determined is the right thing we can affect. can we ban artillery shells? we cannot. can we ban all war? we can't. if we can stand up and say chemical weapons have no place in this world and do something about it, god help us if we do not. i will remind folks and ask you all to comment on this eventually. from 1991 to 2000 two or 2003, we maintained two no-fly zones because of our disdain for chemical weapons.over iraq. most people would have agreed that what we did was the right thing to do because saddam residents.ssed his own

this is not the first time america has put down a red line on chemical weapons. i have heard people say that this is the president red line, not a red light at united states of america. you just have to look at history to know that it is. i am also reminded of what president clinton said when he was asked what his one regret was. he said his one regret was inaction in rwanda. i wonder in 2010, 50 years, what are we going to say if we did nothing about the gases of people in syria. i have heard people say, in its has really bothered me -- they say that if we go in and strike assad and make him pay for the use of chemical weapons more than any benefit he gains, that we are acting as, al qaeda's air force. i believe that is a cheap line by some people to garner headlines and not a serious discussion about what is going on. secretary kerry, if you will start, what is your hot on the comment -- what is your thought on the comment of the cheap line about qaeda and punishing an evil man with evil weapons?

>> congressman, your comments have been very eloquent and i think very important to this discussion. i am confident i joined the general and the secretary hegel in thanking you for your service, willing to serve both in the guard as well as pilot, but also here. the intent of the president could not be more clear. the impact, if congress will pass this and we can carry out this action, the impact will be not to help al qaeda. in fact, it will not help al qaeda. it will further expose al qaeda. it will hold a dictator accountable to this critical standard.

you just reiterated it and i said in my opening testimony, later on syriaon at the brookings institution. there will be a debate in congress on military strikes on syria. we will have a look at the u.s.- russia relationship.

♪ >> the senate foreign relations committee act president obama's request to strike syria upload limits on it. the resolution now goes to the full senate as early as next week. the house is working on a similar proposal. welcome to the washington journal. we are going to keep our focus on syria. we will hear first from democrats.