lashing out, more chemical weapon attacks, other possible retaliation against regional allies, a very large embassy in iraq. there is potential for retaliation. that is why we are considering the possible reaction by the regime. you need to look at the grading the military capability to reduce the potential for any possible escalation or retaliation affect. on the opposition side, moving away -- the civilians i have talked to, most people believe there needs to be a response to chemical weapons. they are very disappointed that the syrian government has been allowed to use chemical weapons and there has been no international response to that breach. i think that is a really critical point. you are beginning to see some

radicalization by the result of this feeling of abandonment. standpoint,osition there are a lot of expectations. planthat i have talked to -- to that degree, it has been a little that upset and confusion about the potential of a u.s. strike and have the opposition should respond. i think that explains a lot of the comments coming from the opposition that aren't always in agreement with each other because there is a very real sense of confusion given the expectations they had. also, going back to this idea that the opposition is weary of

a punitive strike to the degree that you see commanders coming out and openly saying, if you're just going to give him a slap on the wrist, please don't delay. instead, it needs to be something that degrades military capability, preventing the atrocity and actually helping to empower the opposition. to that degree, it is this focus on a more comprehensive strategy because of the likely consequences that a smaller attack would have. is thatersonal opinion even a punitive strike at this point could have an important psychological impact on the civilian population. again, the radicalization that i have seen develop over time was actually stopped for some time because of positive developments in syria.

it is now starting again as chemical weapons are being used and there is no response. my own personal opinion is that if there is nothing else, and i do not agree with a limited strike, but if there is nothing else, psychological impact of sending a message is very important. moving quickly through the opposition, who are the opposition is to mark what do they represent? let me say this. circumstances are very fluid. i have traveled there frequently and things change frequently. when you're talking about the , youition, who is in power really have to look at it based on transactional legitimacy. frankly, i think there is a very real threat the ming from the islamic -- coming from the islamic state of iraq. oppositionore modern

coming together in ways they haven't before. they are feeling the threat from this new extreme threat to the degree that on my most recent rep in early august, i witnessed much more cohesive organization -- much more cohesive alliance and i have seen in the past. they are actively planning joint operations. there is active communication, attempts to come to agreement on a joint strategy. they are together working on plans across provinces. you do see some levels of organization at provincial levels, but nothing at the national level. we are now beginning to see the foundations of that national strategy come together. it is a direct responsed to this growing threat.

-- iof this also speaks cannot emphasize enough the impact that support coming from u.s. allies had on creating and empowering a modern opposition force. througheginning to see the well-known saudi funded and cia facilitated programs, we have seen what funding can do for creating and empowering a moderate opposition to the degree where they are not only much more effective, but they are able to marginalize extremist forces. levelre finally at a where they can compete in terms of that transactional legitimacy with more extremist groups. in the past, one of the reasons you have seen such a usage dominance -- a huge dominance is

resources. the civilian population has not been welcoming to the extremist groups. and have access to funding they leverage that to give them a more dominant position than they would have otherwise. once you begin to see the more moderate forces at that same level in terms of resources, we have already seen a positive impact on the ground. , i don't like using terms -- all these religious terms. that the way people identify religiously is indicative of our own understanding of what these terms mean. when i am talking about moderate forces, i am talking about people who have over the course of two years not only talked

about but actually demonstrated a respect for minority rights, respect for women's rights, respect for civilian leadership. they have struggled with local administration councils to ensure there is this vibrant and initiative taking root that has helped develop based on democratic pluralism. that is the way i am defining moderate. that being said, i think moderate groups make up a huge percentage of the opposition. especially the opposition that is fighting on the front lines and taking part in the primary battle against the syrian government. i have actually been documenting cases of the more extremist groups leaving the primary

battle front and heading to areas where they are working on patterns of authority and control and creating the framework of a safe haven. the vocalizations on creating led to ans has unimpressive military record in confrontation. they claim credit for a lot of operations that they are not participating in. is implementation of these more harsh principles of islamic lifestyle being pushed back. saw numerous demonstrations pushing back against more extreme measures they are trying to implement. i think this threat is having an impact on the opposition's

ability to come together and forcing them to work together that they haven't in the past. think i will end on theirote about who specific leaderships are and whether they are aligned with u.s. interest. based on my definition of is aate, i think there force inside of syria that can be relied on. if empowered, it could serve as a reliable governing partner that would not only be aligned with u.s. strategic interests but would also help create a governance system that would be to the desires and demands of the population itself but would also help serve. >> elizabeth, thank you very much.

your report is interesting on many levels. for me, it really contrasts significantly with the message of the assad regime which is to say, remove us and the alternative is al qaeda. a message that has actually grown roots in certain quarters of the united states congress. faysal, the floor is yours. >> thank you. you have made a lot of strong points. i will be brief. despite the warnings within the , i think weconflict can all honestly agree that it is a regional conflict and a proxy war. the only difference is different proxy backers are involved to different degrees and with different levels of commitment.

examining the possible backlash or reactions of whatever level of ux action is taken, i think ofis useful to think possible military operations on a spectrum and examine the different scenarios to see how regions would react. the key point is, all of these actors involved are relatively weak and constrained to what they can and cannot do. i think that means -- improves the prospects on one hand. -- the first scenario is the u.s. intervention that might actually break the regime or shift the balance of force in the civil war. i don't think it is likely to start with that in mind but i do see that it could potentially escalate further down the line into that sort of operation. , they haveiran

always struck me as highly risk- averse, very cautious despite their fervent ideology and rhetoric. isir greatest asset here their military capability in the region. if they do perceive that the regime is falling or is in danger of being defeated, i think hezbollah is the first thing they would activate. would they do this against the israelis? yes, i think so. even though hezbollah itself is highly constrained, fighting in syria, trying to cover their backs in lebanon, this is one of the few scenarios i would imagine that they would be compelled by their own interest as well as by iran to fight the war. that would mean raising the cost u.s. and its allies of intervention against the regime. the other thing the iranians may

resort to is carrying out proxy military attacks and other u.s. allied areas. they do have the capability to do this. they have been very hesitant to use that sort of tool. i think it is one in their arsenal that they can employ effectively. believe despite all the bluster, is barely able to keep up the fight at home. certainly not capable of retaliating a significant way against u.s. interests. what they can do is further destabilize lebanon. that is a tool they have employed effectively in the past. they do have strong intelligence networks there. over the past couple weeks, there were large-scale bombings in the non--- in lebanon.

sunni mosques, it is likely that sunnist militants who are were probably behind them. i believe that is a way of setting a price for involvement within the syrian conflict and also due to lebanese president and governments to word syrian behavior. that is something escalating. of weapons of mass welluction, they may very choose to use them liberally in the domestic conflict. that includes chemical weapons. i think the day after scenario is -- i believe this is probably

already planned. an insurgency option in syria. mirror ofch, it is a what is happening already. this is something they practiced in iraq. they would conduct a slow insurgency campaign to degrade rebel assets inside syria. i do think there is a positive here which is that a decisive show of u.s. force in the region would rally regional allies and reinvigorate them. the likely outcome is a different question of course. within lebanon, i think there would be an escalation in violence simply because hezbollah has been successful at deterring their domestic sunni

levels. be importantwould to challenge hezbollah. spilloversay real into lebanon. of course, on the other side of the spectrum is the slow-motion pinprick you described. i think it is clear to me with the original result of that would be. the iranians would calculate that u.s. rep lines can be crossed with relative impunity so long as the united states -- to restore cosmetic appearance. they are not compelled to make any significant concessions over a nuclear program. as for the regime itself, i think this would clarify to them what the rules of the game are.

what they are and are not allowed to do. they will likely be punished if they break those rules. i suspect in the immediate aftermath that they would stay away from using weapons of mass destruction and stick to conventional means. at least until they know how committed the u.s. is to shifting the balance in syria. i think one of the things they might do as well is employee has below -- hezbollah. me how activer to they have been in the rest of syria. there is more capacity they can take away from lebanon to fight conventional wars in syria. i imagine this would apply in damascus as well. i think has below -- hezbollah,

lebanon and the real short and its rivals disheartened. turkey and jordan would be quite vindicated in the caution they have shown to shoulder this burden against the regime alone. they are risk-averse because they see the u.s. commitment as faltering and week. vulnerablels very due to perceived u.s. disengagement. i can also imagine that this would deepen their commitment to what they see as their own proxy in syria. for now, it seems that the convergence of what those should be, i am not sure that that would hold. that would have dire affects for the cohesion of the rebels and u.s. interest. groups wouldrebel be thoroughly discredited having

gambled on strong u.s. backing. that would be to their own peril, to the u.s. house in .'sil and beneficial -- u.s peril and beneficial to others. that seems like a total undermining of what the united states objectives are in syria. i think this anthrax strike -- pinprick strike make temporarily postpone the use of chemical weapons. it might change the calculus in a way that is detrimental to u.s. interests in the long run. the only way to see a different outcome from that regardless of what the u.s. the site studio is if this is accompanied by a genuine full-fledged effort to support the moderate rebel movements in syria.

think it needs to be done. i think this is sort of the elephant in the room. ,he burning question to me was was anyone asking the question of why we find ourselves in this situation? to me, it is linked to the failure to support the u.s. stated objective of supporting the moderate rebel movement as an alternative to the assad regime. that toomey is the only way to restore u.s. credibility. otherwise, probably futile at best. at worst, downright harmful. i would come down and say that playing this card of military action after such a fuss with the mystic politics without achieving any significant strategic aims is worse than nothing. thank you. faysal.s,

i will get the ball rolling with questions. barry, the question for you is if the terrence is the centerpiece -- deterrence is the centerpiece of the military mission? reliable ifnsidered the chemical stockpile itself is unaffected and delivery means remain in place? elizabeth, my question for you profile of the opposition so far is rather low in all of this. perhaps that is understandable given the political controversy in the united states. is the opposition considering outreachof information to the syrian people, either

before, during or in the immediate wake of any american operation? you,l, my question for in your view, is it possible that the regime is effectively deterred is now on the chemical warfare front given the nature of the crisis that has erected -- erupted in the wake of august 21? is it remotely possible that a key lesson has already been learned? >> you gave me a softball. the question of whether deterrence, whether it can be effective without actually destroying the means of delivery of chemical weapons or the agents themselves, my understanding is you can actually destroy -- you can't

militarily take care of chemical weapons themselves unless you put soldiers on the ground. while there are some technologies in some of our munitions that i have read about that and if you'd the agent, i can't imagine the president has the confident to unleash those in a copper hands of a nut fashion without causing casualties. -- apprehensive enough fashion-- comprehensive enough fashion without causing the billion casualties. leaving the affect on the decision-maker that i suggested, sure deterrence can work. there are lots of cases in history where deterrence has worked. you need to make it clear, the essence of the terrence is -- deterrence is imposing costs on the decision-maker that they are not worth potential benefits

that he could gain. my understanding of why he used , it is aweapons is more efficient means of doing what he has been trying to do anyway which is kill anybody who might be in opposition. because he has other means to do so, if this operation is done the way it should be done, i would say the terrence can work well. >> do you have a sense than of potential scope and duration? >> you mean how it should go or how it looks like it is going to go? >> let's assume that your prescription for what it would take to make the terrence operation -- deterrence operationally effective? >> there are lots of different ways to shade military operations and assets. that would be hitting those targets.

at a rough public level discussion, i would say weeklong campaign that come randomly asikes as many targets possible, those that are not so near the billion neighborhoods that you don't end up with an enormous number of casualties. now that aside as a week and a half to move things around, it will be much more difficult. >> thank you. elizabeth, where is the opposition in all this? are they going to lift their heads above the trench line? needshink the opposition a good pr campaign. they could use some help from public larry since firms -- public relations firms. part of our problem with understanding is because they haven't been able to speak with a unified voice. in response to the

delay in u.s. action, you see a plethora of opinions coming out from various figures who don't always agree with each other. opposition on a united page where they are speaking with one message has been difficult. i think that they are -- they do a great despite those minor details, they agree on specific runcible's. to that extent -- principles. even moretent, importantly, they are now attempting to reach out to the american public and make their case as to why congress should authorize military action in to really come together, to finally put a unified voice behind the opposition in ways

that could potentially be much more rallying for any sort of u.s. support than have an in the past. >> enqueue. thank -- thank you. , is it remotely possible that the terrence has already happened? if they thought they could get away with doing so unpunished, they are a cautious bunch. they don't take risks. the way they thought this war has showed me that they have escalated gradually, seeing what the limits are and how the world would react. i sense that at this stage, they are probably already feeling a missteped the bounds. clearing out with less casualties probably wasn't worth that risk.

therefore, there is no reason to use it in the future. unless they are existentially on the ropes. in that sense, if our objectives are so humble as to temporarily delay or postpone or eliminate the use of chemical weapons until the next presidential administration, and perhaps they have been determined. i am not sure how that changes the picture in terms of broader u.s. strategic interests. think we shouldn't be so naïve as to assume they are charging. ahead. -- charging full speed ahead. state --d urge you to first of all, identify yourself, state the question as briefly as possible, and please identify the person to whom the question

is directed. >> my question is to you and to barry. two bank strategic countries that were not mentioned, russia and iraq. -- what role will iraq play? they have a strategic position in terms of closeness to syria. >> when we take these in groups of three? [indiscernible] my question to barry and why do you think that has happened?

obamae speculation about doesn't want to do this. [indiscernible] that is the basic trend among syrians. to the fact that the opposition is dysfunctional and cannot fill a vacuum? let's go backward and go to the congress and get time to prepare the opposition. the question to elizabeth, the saudis are supporting and causing a lot of trouble. would the u.s. do this?

otherwise [indiscernible] that has caused lots of loss for both. >> straight back. my question is addressed to barry. you talked about the possibility takes action,on there could be retaliation, and whenthinking about 2007 israel took out the nuclear reactor, it was even before confronted with the instruction, and then syria did nothing, and israel took out missiles three times and it did nothing. you to the

conclusion that he might actually retaliate now? go with those three. i will start with the issue of russia, ok, and i think i will faysal on a rack. ais administration has made major outreach to the russian federation on this issue from the beginning. secretary of state john kerry in particular really led with his chin on this back in may when he went to his counterpart and said what we really need to do is reconvene a geneva format. what's the secretary of state ran into was a real unwillingness on the part of a regime that thought it was engage on the ground to

in that kind of a dialogue and a strong reluctance on the part of the opposition, which sought that it was losing on the ground and really wanted some upfront guarantees about the status of assad, which were not part of the geneva format. -- and it is obviously very difficult to answer -- but i suspect at this point vladimir putin and his colleagues probably know the truth of what august 21. i think that just from a realpolitik point of view, they understand. they will not like it, they will try to dissuade the president, but they understand that the

united states has no choice but to strike and strike hard here. ,nd i think that understanding i think their understanding of the facts regardless of what they are saying publicly, will reactionminimize their to whatever it is we do. i will say in fairness, though, that the potential of va rious russian reaction is something that has to be taken into careful consideration by the administration. among other things, basically, the windpipe of our logistical afghanistan is in the hands of russia. so this is an important consideration. faysal? useful,aq, it is more

rather than thinking about a iraq as a discrete political player, think of it as that has auntry strong military apparatus. that is how i would read their reaction in a day-after scenario. they are seeing this through a sectarian prism. their primary fear would what would happen in the sunni areas if the assad regime were to be weakened particularly, if the eastern border area of serious has a strong rebel -- area of syria has a strong rebel presence. also through a sectarian prism, and due to their weakness concerning iran, they would have to go along with that strategy. whether they would be direct

participants or not, probably not. they would be focused on what is going on at home. would they continue to facilitate supplies, statistical --logistical things, i suspect, yes. whatever order, whatever you prefer. >> as it relates to the leaks and the russia question, i'm speculating there are two main factors. one is normal discipline and looseness in the pentagon on these kinds of things. i was in the white house right when the obama administration began, and we were developing the new strategy for iraq and afghanistan, and i remember the moment when the first leak came out of central command at the time on what plans the u.s. had four various options. at the time force 2

and raised it to senior white house people and said if you do not do with this now, with some pretty serious as a team to the pentagon, then you will have a bigger problem on your hands, not that it is possible to control it, but that was my naïve attempt at the time to do so. there is a discipline are, but also deliberately gain we know from the white house on some of these things. in that case, their intent was to try to send messages to various audiences. i say there are three audiences that are important. assad, we are, going to do this limited operation, we are not going d, so chill out because we do not want to get involved. the second audience is russia, and here the question was we do not want to risk world ward iii here.

we know assad has been a client of yours for decades. why don't you send too many ships to the mediterranean and chill out until we are done this and this is not something risking a major u.s.-russia military confrontation about. then i think the third audience was the congress and the american people. and here i think the president inherentielded the power of the presidency in a way that i think is easily doable, and, boy, he is a convincing communicator when he sets his mind to it, but because public opinion polls are what ever they are, 80-20 against, there called presidential leadership when you can go to the people, you can talk to them, you can inform a public debate, you can mount a campaign with your own the best export base and stakeholders and commence -- convinced them they is is the right thing to do.

warre all more wary -- all weary. not to denigrate that fact, the lies who have borne the brunt the last 12 years, and the type of assets moreover that would be mostly engaged, we are talking naval and air, are the least stressed, although still stressed on some specialties, but lesser stressed than ground force units. it is a question of presidential leadership. rather than leaking this is going to be a pin prick, i would have gone with a more outward use of the office of the presidency, which has so much that it can bring to bear. the other question about israel strikes on syria's nuclear capabilities and on syrian moreles, 2007, and recently -- the reason syria has

not retaliated is israel has a good repetition for deterrence, and they do not mess around and they do not do so motion or pinprick. a do fast and very hard and very clear. so i think the question of deterrence against israel, the reason it was not retaliation because they knew that the retaliation against the retaliation would be a heck of a lot worse than anything that was done beforehand. whereas, the u.s. -- it is at least conceivable that syria could do things, be more aggressive in lebanon, if iran was stimulated to get involved to use its global network of terrorist capability and of a -- of other capabilities in the persian gulf, etc., if it had sufficient interest at stake, then it might also think about retaliating because i think it has a sense the u.s.

does not mean what it says after the last several years of u.s. policy and relative perception that we are withdrawing from the region. >> elizabeth? >> the issue of funding is a very important question, and specifically to the disparate sources of funding have had a debilitating impact on the opposition to the degree that there are different players who are funding different groups, sending in funds and resources with very specific objectives to be achieved without funding and resourcing, and to the degree it has kept the cohesion of forces from coming together and having a unified channel of funding and support that would eventually help promote a reliable chain of command we have not seen that developed yet. the u.s. could play a key role in terms of his leadership,

rallying all of our allies and people involved in syria, have a vested interest in syria, and getting them on the same page and forcing allies to partner together and achieving that single unified channel of support. this is something that could i think be done with very limited uses of u.s. resources and assets and could actually have a not onlyound impact on empowering the opposition, but also creating the mechanisms for cohesion and coordination that could be very well be the framework for a reliable earning partner. >> thank you. faysal, anything else? ok, anybody else on the side of the room? yes, sir. >> thank you, everyone. a question for you you, elizabeth. you noted that extremist groups in particular are leaving the

front lines and starting to acrossdate bases up ou the country. could you be specific about the areas that you see these groups having a stronghold in. thank you very much. >> thank you, and right in front, right there. i am curious for any of the commentators, to what extent you gradual escalation in the middle east, north africa region, of at least the countries who are vulnerable at themoment, is indicative of declining respect for the word of america on the global stage, and indeed, to take the question a step further, whether it threatens the deliverability of of a declared she just shift to the asia-pacific region? >> thank you.

we will take one more. yes, sir. >> [indiscernible] barry, i think you have correctly put the conversation where it needs to be on the question of objective. is thearize, i think it objective number one was to behavior.assad's elizabeth, in some of your writings, but of the most interesting points you have making is that one of assad's her tactics, reasons why uses these brutal tactics, not necessarily in the chemical weapons, but since the war has begun, it is not necessarily aimed at his adversaries, but within his own alouite community. the point you make is he has to send a signal to his own committee on the only option he has got, you have to stick with me, and some of the brutality

explains that in an interesting way. my question is, then, with respect to what the u.s. should do in achieving this objective, if the u.s. goes heavier, heavier than a pinprick, the more it does, if it does not break the regime, does it not then, elizabeth, create the incentive not to cower, as barry would like assad to do, but the opposite, to demonstrate his viability through his own people? thank you very much. >> thank you, edward. takebeth, why don't you the two that were addressed to you specifically, areas where extremist groups are making adjustments and edward's question. >> looking at the growth of extremist groups in the north, we see most prevalent in aleppo and and other city, to the degree that they have moved up north worth toward the border

area in order to control some of those logistic networks moving in and out of the country. this is where they have been able to establish a power base by controlling those networks and being able to the tape where resources coming into the date the country are been distributed and where they are going to. you really see a strong ence in aleppo and now moving into parts of northern -- and now the coast. i think a lot of what we have seen and actually it is remarkable when you talk to some of the people from these other groups, this really started in early april when the battle for a city was ready up. at the time there was an assessment a that a, the opposition did not have to

resources or capability to defend homs province. as you saw at the regime consolidating in that area, you see these groups pull out because they think there is no way for them to win, so why lose their man and wife lose their resources? to that degree, we have documented, since late april, early may, a huge rise in the extremists moving from the frontlines and go to areas where they can focus on governing and controlling resources and kind of boosting their power from their. a lot of it is focused on the border areas and a lot of it is focused actually on trying to gain some sort of embeddedness with the civilian population. i talked a lot about in my recent article about the geographic situation, which i think israel between the north

and the south, but when you look at these areas where they have a dominant presence, it becomes difficult because they have not been embedded in the population and they are corporate in with some of the various armed position group because of their control of resources and because they control the border areas and it makes them difficult for them forces to operate independently of peace ribs. peace groups. i am not underestimating the role that they have in establishing areas of control, but a lot of it is contemptible attributable to resources, legitimacy, and there civilian populations that are pushing back and trying to curtail some of their more extremist measures, trying to curtail some of their leadership, and working to coming together with the

civilian and the armed opposition groups to try and push back. in regard to your question, ed, this is critical and is back to the point that if it is a strike that does not significantly degrade their regime's capability, it could we spun in a way where it is seen as victorious, where it is seen that he has survived an american attack and live to tell the tale, so to speak, which could be very dangerous in terms of escalation in trying to not only show that he survived the attack, but that he actually has the capacity to protect his community. a we saw a number of massacres that occurred in the coastal area, the area between the coast and inland provinces, that were directly related to this idea that the opposition was

threatening some of their strongholds and there was a need to reinforce this notion amongst his core constituencies that he can protect them and he will go to all measures to protect them. i think the potential for escalation in that regard is very real, and, again, is why i think any sort of u.s. action needs to look at what the regime is likely to do domestically in order to shore up his support base and also address his means of retaliation. >> and my own sense of that, frankly, in the context of an attack or a series of attacks, a campaign that is more or less along the lines of what barry is suggesting is that if the assad regime feels strongly about the need to take additional stern if it isin syria, and

able to do so without an air force, without airfields, without scud missiles, about a major piece of his artillery holdings, welcome to it, but i think that could be the situation we are facing. i am going to turn to barry on the question as whether as a general rule respect for america's word is fading around the world. our cut of time is 1:30. anyone who feels obligated to leave, please do so, but we will continue for a while longer as long as we have got some questions. importance, a central question for u.s. security policy, and i have been thinking about it a lot, including when i was in the pentagon and white house and still thinking about it now, if you look at the broader expanse

of our recent history, i think the iraqi's adventure was perhaps the single most damaging activity by the united states for reducing our influence in the world. i thought president obama did a masterful job in 2009 did this deliberately of resetting the tone. he gave a speech in prague on a nuclear weapons nonproliferation agenda. he gave a speech about detainee policy in guantanamo. he gave a speech in cairo which electrified the muslim world. he did a masterful job of resetting the table and of setting the conditions for regaining and restoring u.s. among someeven negative and contrary trends in raw power. i'm talking about the massive shift of global economic activity that we are currently witnessing from the west back to the east after a few hundred years. the debacle of the

lack of u.s. governments in rnance inn -- gove washington, where it looks like we are in that in managing our polity, our national resources, and also adding on top of that our budget cuts that are coming in which we cannot even stop, even though we have foisted them upon ourselves. all of this adds up and i traveled the world and have been to asia within the last year, ,nd to miss the east, to europe and i hear in every region the same refrain -- where is the u.s.? \ why are they withdrawing from the world? even some of our asian friends say i like your pivoting, but we are scared euro to pivot away. middle east says, where are you, why aren't you engaging? europe is very worried and has their own internal problems as well. i think president obama has gone too far since he reset the table

in 2009. i agree get out of iraq, although i do not think it was done in the most masterful way at the end game, and agree with the question of wrapping up wars are are in ways that effective for u.s. interests. this is going to far. people are screaming for u.s. leadership, including on syria, and it has not been happening. i think we are not in good shape, we are in worse shape than we were, at the end of 2009, but i will end on a possible note. this is reversible. the u.s. has a basic national resources, economic opacity, especially with the energy revolution. no one should count the united states out in terms of restoring its leadership. i believe it was the singaporean crump rhyme minister who gave a atech last fall in beijing communist party central headquarters, and it was

released in public and he basically told them you better watch your rhetoric and your actions, you are overplaying your hand. the united states is one budget deal from being back. i agree that -- i guess my main point is this is easily reversible because we still have the basic national capacity to lead in the world. we just need to sort of regenerate the will, and i think it is easily done. >> thank you. yes, sir. thank you. center for national policy. this is a question for elizabeth. that the aid we have given two rebel groups is extremely limited, reportedly not including anything more than what is thes,

perception among rebel groups of what it is we are trying to do? clearly, it is short of either supplying or promoting supplied by others of game-changing levels of support that are capable of overthrowing assad. so what is the perception -- what is the u.s. gain in the alliance of the rebels, and to what extent do they consider we thatehind those supplies exceed our minimal levels in terms of any tank weapons or other heavier stuff? >> take you for that. yes, sir. >> from the atlantic council. one, the considering deterring the use of chemical weapons in the future, is a u.s. strike against syria and the assad

regime have to include specific targeting of assad himself in order to be effective, or to be sufficiently severe that it clears late leads to his near- term downfall? i wonder if he is able to that level has not been reached, it will not be an effective act that deters future use of chemical weapons. the second question would be, what happens if you do get assad in a strike, either intentionally or unintentionally? what is going to be the immediate impact on the ground in terms of the relationship to the moderates in the opposition and the more extremists that we have less of a preference for? >> thanks. one more. michelle, from the atlantic

council. it seems that the president cost motivations regarding actions in serious spring from issues other than serious, right, from the iran issue and the credibility of u.s. redlines, and another thing i think he had in mind at an early stage was the stability of jordan. a major regional ally that has not come up in this conversation. i was wondering if any of the panelists could say something about the situation on the border with jordan. i know there has been a significant increase in flow of refugees toward their, and assuming strikes take ways in the southern part of syria, what is going to happen with the flow of refugees toward jordan? >> ok, three excellent questions. elizabeth, what do rebel groups think we are up to and what are we actually up to? >> to be frank, for a long time there has been especially

theories floating around on the ground in syria that the u.s. is supportive of the assad regime. in many respect those have been now confirmed with the delay of any sort of u.s. response to chemical weapons, and i have spoken to people who are now absolutely convinced that the u.s. government is supporting the assad regime, would prefer to keep peace. government in power as it stands now, and are in no way committed to helping the opposition. frankly, i kind of agree with them at this point, given our actions. are, we to me that we do seem to have a preference care for keeping the syrian government in power despite our rhetoric, our actions on the ground not having met that rhetoric. traveling said, i frequently in syria and i get a lot of questions about what -- how do people receive me as an american researcher who is known

to work in close relations with various government agencies and officials and i can say i am very well received, and despite people feeling much abandoned by the u.s. and feeling very sad that the us has not stood up for the principles that it claims to stand for, including democracy, pluralism, and a free syria which many in the opposition still continues to fight for, people still -- this is not changed. that can be there are still enough opinion on the ground that if the u.s. did something, people would be very respected for that, would have a positive outlook of the u.s. engagement, and would be very much happy that the u.s. was getting involved to the degree that, like i said, i am well received on the ground and people are very willing to engage with me even as an if they seeng even me as someone who works with the

government, even though i do not. that is often their perception. >> [indiscernible] right, usually that is what it is. but i think this is a critical point. we are at the threshold in which we have to do something. chemical weapons have been used. the population, not only the opposition, but the population as a whole is expecting a response to the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population. if we do nothing, it will be severely radicalizing on the population as a whole, and it is very important, the psychological impact of any sort of response to this. i think the other question of what happens if assad is taken out, this is a question i myself have asked any times because i am not sure if our target set should include assad himself or if it should be more directed at

evening out the parity between military forces and help shift the balance of parter across this negotiation. it is our objective to create an environment in which negotiations are actually possible, because right now they are not. that being said, one of the that is not mentioned, even less so than the opposition, that is actually the and this is something that is very significant, not only in terms militias, funded hezbollah-trade relations, but the empowerment of what are itewn as the alou communities that are acting on behalf of the syrian government that are not related to the chain of command. this is i think a very untenable situation in which if the

government is and i sought himself is -- and assad himself is removed from power, you could see a disbursement of these various pro--regime militia groups that are then engaging on an insurgency basis. if this were to happen, i do not think we have empowered the opposition as yet to severely take over a governance role. that is why i believe anything we do needs to be part of a more conference of strategy that does in fact empower a moderate force that could serve as a reliable governing partner. if today i sought is gone, i am not sure we are there. is gone, i amsad not sure we are there. >> the other question is whether assad should be part of anybody 's target center. john kerry made a rather elegant turn of phrase yesterday when he

suggested even though the mission would be one of the terms and prevention, there could be certain downstream effects. barry, do you think one of those effects should be key members of the regime actually caring for their physical existence? >> i think that is an excellent question, a very controversial and radioactive question. in this case i think you are playing with fire a little bit if you announce to the world that you have objectives x - 100 and you end up going after x, and the system would go tilt in the sense that recall russia's reaction after libya, they signed up to a un security council resolution that enabled a nato-led coalition. that nato-led coalition ended up essentially killing or

providing close air support to kill gaassad -- >> gaddafi. >> gaddafi, i mean. careful that are these are geopolitical stakes you're targeting it. i would turn to the latin roots "deterrence," which means to cause terror. if you leave that key shakers value most what they could be taken away in a subsequent effort, then i think you have done your job. i personally would not recommend , even though under certain understandings of law, assad is a legitimate military target if he exercises command and control of his military, i would

personally not recommend foreting assad himself f a number of reasons, but including the fact that what is the president possibility going to be that we are only going to deter committal weapons use and at theregime change bottom of a bomb? that would be not wise. am understanding we are on your time now. a redline line, and probably a real one this time. deep economicuch trouble and already faces such a severe refugee crisis. the last i heard, not only is one of the camps the fourth- largest operation area in the country, but they are building another one now modeled along those same lines in the north. the question of what a u.s.

strike would do, i suppose that depends on the scale and duration. if it does lead -- or even if it does not -- what would only be worsened by that sort of thing is the problem that i suspect may actually end up becoming permanent or long-term, perhaps even going beyond the military balance in syria. there are a return to syria would depend on the stability in southern serious, which frankly is slightly more likely happening in the north, but .till highly unlikely now that for me would turn jordan into what it is now, which is a state highly dependent on international aid to more or less total bankrupt one that would be a client of the either the gulf states or the united states or whoever was stepping up to fund it, because

unfortunately, before the war broke out, they were in pretty poor socioeconomic circumstances and the regime was also facing a crisis between it and its economic base and its political base, which are not the same. be seriously worried and slightly alarmed by what is happening in jordan. >> thank you. let me just close by saying that in my view, for what it is worth, i strongly suspect president obama will get the comerization he is seeking and i strongly suspect that before very long there will be a u.s. military operation inside syria. i would suggest that perhaps the most interesting thing to keep one's eyes on in the future is whether or not we are seeing the emergence of an actual coherent

objective -- space strategy i this administration for syria. because irrespective of the vote in congress, irrespective of what might happen on the ground, as early as next week, the syria to presented by allies and friends of the united states is not going to go away figuratively speaking in the next 20 minutes. this is going to be a gift that will keep on giving for quite a while. and for the united states operate in a strategic vacuum is not a good idea in many respects. it is precisely the thing that has brought us to this situation we face today. so thank you, all, very much or sharing your time with us, and please join me in thanking our speakers.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] in about 15 minutes, we will have more on syria. we will take your phone calls and tweets and give you the chance to let us know how you want your congressmen to vote. that gets underway at 7:00 p.m. eastern. all this week it is "book tv" in primetime. mystique" 50 years after. bois, biography of du tonight on c-span2.

wilson was so intellectual and he was our most academic, most educated president. he is the only president with a ph.d. as a result, most of the books written about him had been academic in nature, and i think they have missed the very human side of this man. he was deeply emotional, passionate, romantic. he had two wives. when his first wife died, he courted and fell in love with a woman and married a second time. wrote passionate love letters to each womam. this is a living, breathing, human being, and we have not seen that about woodrow wilson. wilsonttlefield woodrow is being released next more. here more sunday night on c-

q and a. this is 50 minutes. >> on syria, specifically, policy wise, assuming, given the secretary's testimony yesterday and today before, plus his very powerful speeches he gave on friday and monday, that he still feels the same way that he did what i do not understand, though, is how he is comfortable with the president's decision. i understand the president is commander in chief and everybody will get on board with everything he decides, but i do

not understand why he is in savor this. he said the president was acting courageously by taking this to congress, and i do not understand what is courageous about asking permission for something that you say you do not need and to do what you believe to be the right thing, but int morally, general. can you explain why this is a courageous move and why the secretary would call it a courageous move? , the secretary said on friday and monday, that intervention is the right stuff, and he does support the president's decision to bring this to congress. procedure inmoval the white house over the weekend? i do not understand. how is this courageous? guest: >> the president has the authority to act without the

cooperation of congress. but the president and the secretary strongly agreed that and the administration people's representatives stand together, that that strengthens our case and makes our case even stronger internationally. and -- >> go ahead. >> go ahead. >> if the administration believes the case it has laid out, if the president has made a decision that the united states should act militarily, if the administration believes that it does not need congressional authorization to do it, and in fact, reserves the right to go ahead and do it even if congress it to vote no, why -- that the only reason to go to covers would be to give the president excuse or reason not to act. absolutely not the

case. the president has made -- >> so the secretary is totally sure and is very come to with this decision and does not believe that the president is sacrificing the courage of his conditions for political expediency? >> absolutely not. to the contrary, let's not forget where the secretary was eight months ago. he was the chairman of the foreign relations committee. if this was a series of events that happened a year ago, i can bet you he wanted congressional approval and authorization for any step that was taken. he has consistently been an advocate since he came into this position for consulting with and working closely with congress and supported as he said this weekend the president cost decision to do that. the last thing i will have on this point, and then boom will go to your next question, as the

president and secretary has said, but i will repeat, the department of defense has made clear that unlike libby, where there was an intending crisis coming within 48 hours, this is a case if we take action in a week, in two weeks, or months, and we can still have a successful action and outcome. that was an assurance that could take the time to go to congress and strengthen our hands. >> in the case of libya, you say you acted to save lives, but here -- you're not acting to save lives. you do not believe you can save more lives by acting quicker? >> certainly the reason the president and the secretary feel so strongly about taking action is to send a clear message that there are consequences to the use of chemical weapons, to violating this international norm. >> but acting later that rather than sooner would seem to risk more lives rather than to save them and if you believe that

military action will deter assad using chemical weapons again, and it seems to me you would want to do it sooner rather than later, because more people -- and the secretary said yesterday he was sure that if nothing was done, i sought would use them again. are you making the cancellation that assad, if he thinks that something is about to happen, that that is a deterrent as well? >> you evaluate factors when making a decision. that is exactly like this is, which is exactly what the president and the national security team did. we rely on the advice of the department of defense, and their statements they have made privately of coarse and publicly that this is not -- we can't have a successful outcome with an action that does not have an immediate headline. >> the timeline presented by u.s. officials is correct, that the president made this decision hisriday night during

stroll in the garden with his chief of staff, can you say that the secretary told the president that in his best judgment it was the right thing to go to congress and get their approval first? is that what you're saying -- >> the secretary on friday told him that he would support his decision. >> i know that. clearly, he cannot not follow the orders of the commander in chief. i get that. >> it is more than that. the secretary supported this decision, and the secretary has consistently advocated for congressional consultation and participation throughout not just this process but any other international process. >> i understand, because on friday, and before on monday, he made a case for action without the need for congressional approval, and then all of a sudden, saying that the president is courageous -- >> hi do not think he said anything along the lines of immediate or without congressional participation and he delivered the remarks he

delivered on friday. >> there was no indication that that was going to happen until the stroll on the white house lawn. if you can assure us that he is comfortable with the decision, that is the end of my -- >> i absolutely can. , did thee secretary president consultant secretary about going to congress to seek and authorization for the use of military force prior to the so,ident's decision to do or was it a consultation after the decision to do so in which the secretary said that he would of course support the decision? specifics,ot go into but i can't tell you there have been reports that the secretary on president obama spoke friday evening. this was a big part of that discussion. the secretary conveyed clearly that he would support this decision, and as you know, that

announcement was made on saturday. that was the series of events over the last couple of days. >> but you cannot address whether that conversation took place prior to or after the president's decision? >> there is a range of topics, including how you're going to go about this, to come about in any meeting or discussion about nationalany serious security issue, i should say, including the process. that was a part of this ongoing, but that is the level of detail i am going to go into. >> the reason i ask, is that there is an impression on some people based on the briefing that i guess was given at the white house on saturday that the insident made the decision concert with or after his talk , and thens mcdonough it essentially informed his senior national security advisers, and i'm giving you an opportunity to dispel that

notion, that it was the president's decision that was rather than reached one made in consultation. >> i do not want to get into how the president makes his own decision making, so i want to provide you with the factual details of the course of events. naturally, the president and the secretary has been locked in stuff on this issue, and the secretary went out on friday and made a case for the administration. he went out on sunday and made the case for the administration to the american people. he has been out the last two days testifying seven hours or so making the case. matters, can you tell us what time the president and the secretary spoke on friday night? >> i do not have that level of detail. , asaking that forward everyone has been saying, the secretary made this forceful, emotional, personal case and

china for put the impression in a letter people's minds that this was imminent, that this is happening right away, that while the president is no naked decision on target, on executive he is going to do, that a decision was made that the type of action would be taken in the near future, and the impression was that that was put on hold for a while in the effort to seek congressional approval. what does that do to the secretary's efforts to build international support among allies? there are many in their world and in europe that say this is another case of these delays, that the u.s. does not mean what it says, and this is a sign of weakness, and we cannot trust the administration, and how does that curb the efforts to get countries on board when they do not what know what is happening? >> the secretary has spent endless hours in touch with his

counterparts around the world, making sure they do know exactly what is happening. as you know, because i just announced it at the top of this briefing, art of his discussion this weekend when in europe, meeting with representatives in europe and the airplay, will address these issues. on case the secretary made friday morning was focused on why we need to take action, why it was an important step, why we feel confident in the details of our own intelligence. part of our effort and something he has felt strongly about is to convey to the american people why that is so important. the decision to go to congress, which as you know is one that the president made and the president made on friday evening , as the white house has confirmed, is one the secretary agrees will strengthen our hand, will show clear cooperation and clear -- that we are all on the

same page on the united states. that -- i am sure he agrees it would strengthen the congress was for it, but this kind of deliberation and some of the opposition in congress, could you acknowledge that might make allies who are afraid that if, although you say you have the authorization to act without congress, that this debate could weaken u.s. resolve to act if the debate is not go the way we expect? >> we are not getting into hypotheticals. that is not what we are hiring for. the secretary and the president are confident that congress will support this effort. we have been building that support of the past several days, and the secretary will continue to play a role in making the case to his former colleagues. alliescan see that our might think if allies could support, will it would be skeptical.

what does he ask of these q countries? is it speak out more, say we need more political support? what is he specifically looking -- and ithis hold up is a holdup, even if it eventually goes through -- what does that do to strengthen or weaken his case? >> his matches when speaking to counterpart -- his message when speaking to counterpart is important we speak of one international voice of confirmation of the brutal regime.f the assad that is the message he is conveying to them. he is asking, as the president asked on saturday, or people to speak out public and, for countries to speak publicly about the support. that is something we are continuing to encourage. publicuntries have expressed support for u.s. military action.

that is something we are continuing to work on. that, it is ap on tough sell in congress. it is not a given. you're talking the let it is a given. what is the next plan if it does not go through? what if it fails? will you walk away and wash her hands of the syria crisis? >> this is one specific component of our overall serious thetegy and our focus on brutal civil war that is going on in the country. it is specific to this in instance of chemical weapons use. beyond that we remain focused on a political solution. that is something we continue to work on. the national security team will anduss a range of options, that is ongoing as we are focused on moving forward this thing.ticular we are confident this will be approved. your confidence in our

conversations, or with members, we are confident that they are not going to stand by and allow this attack to go on answered. -- unanswered. >> your indication is it may not go through the house at the moment. if they say no, are you going to say it is ok to let the attack go unanswered? >> the vote has not been set. i will not get into hypotheticals. the continuing to press for a successful outcome. >> on the political track, where -- on thethe caps on geneva conference? in a bid to push the opposition

and the government to the table? >> it is important to note even though we are focused, and the secretaries focused every day on working with congress and only our international coalition for the specific targeted action, that we still continue to believe there is no military solution and we remain focused a geneva and using that as venue for a negotiated political settlement. we are still working through the details on the process. right before i came down here, the secretary spoke with a foreign from russia. it was too close to the time i was coming that here to give you all an overview of their discussion, but i'm happy to do that later today. >> i want to take you back -- >> let me finish the question and then i am happy to go to you next. i would have to check on that. i am happy to do that as well. >> about getting geneva back on track? >> i am sure there is an

agreement that the political solution to the right process, the right outcome here, was part of the discussion. syria was the focus, but beyond that i have not received a readout yet. >> on the geneva point, i know you have said that you do not want any military action to wade further into the civil war, but the hope that whatever action is taken, that will weaken assad significantly enough, that there is more of an incentive for parties to get together in geneva? >> as general dempsey has said over the past couple of days, we believe that this would have an impact of course on the strength of assad's resources. and that is part of it. this is a direct response to the use of chemical weapons, and we believe that it would degrade

the regime's capacity to carried out in the future. in terms of whether it will force them to come to geneva or not, i do not have a prediction of that. part of what we are discussing with the russians and others is how we can >> but i mean, do you really think that, like, any action that you take should be completely divorced of any policy goals and any benefit? i mean, the secretary talks about possible downstream benefits, but that would be a specific benefit of - to capture momentum to further your policy goal of a political solution. >> well, certainly, and i didn't mean it - it certainly will have an impact on the - it certainly would have an impact on the capabilities of the assad regime. i just don't want to predict what's going to bring every side to the table, but that's part of, of course, the ongoing discussion. >> [inaudible.] >> let's just do one at a time here. >> can we do a political - i mean, staying with the political track -- >> okay. >> -- how, if at all, do you think a military strike enhances the chances for political dialogue between the syrian

government and the opposition? >> well, arshad, as we've said a few times, but it's worth repeating, the purpose of this is to make clear we will not stand by and allow this type of brutal attack by the assad regime on its own people. >> chemical weapons? >> exactly. >> quite. >> chemical weapons on its own people. in terms of bringing all sides to the table, i think what our hope is is that we can work to a point where there's a recognition by all sides that there isn't a military solution, that we don't want to continue on a path where there's a military component of this. we want to work toward a political solution. >> but the secretary had said himself that he doesn't see assad going for a political solution until this - until his calculus is changed, so is this going to - is this action, whatever, even if it is just in response to the chemical weapons, shouldn't it change his calculus? >> well, i don't want to predict what it's going to change or not. it will certainly impact his capabilities.

it certainly would do that. that's part of our calculus. >> what i don't understand here, though - >> [inaudible] perception here - the assumption that the strike will or will not convince assad that perhaps talks are the best solution? >> well, said, i can't predict what would convince him. what i can convey to you is that we feel this is important because of the brutal attack on august 21st. and we're working on a parallel path to continue to work with our counterparts in russia and other countries to bring both sides to the table. >> okay. but to follow on what elise was saying ->> mm-hmm. >> -- isn't it logical that you want to take action not only to punish, but actually to bring about some sort of a political solution? shouldn't there be a strategy that can tie the two together? >> well, there are different components of our strategy. this is what i was getting at. this is specific to the brutal events on august 21st. we're obviously continuing to work toward a political solution. as i mentioned, the secretary just spoke with foreign minister

lavrov. at the same time, the president, the national security team all remain focused on the best way to bolster and strengthen the opposition, and we're working on that as well. >> so if assad were to have a revelation or a vision that chemical weapons are a bad thing and perhaps the time has come to turn them in, do you think that would impact whatever plans and strategy the u.s. may have to strike syria? >> well, if you can arrange that, said, we'd certainly - >> no. i'm not - i'm asking you - i'm asking a serious question. i'm not [inaudible] -- >> and i understand. i'm not going to get into a hypothetical -- that's not clearly what - the path we're on right now. >> if - okay. let me ask it another way. >> okay. >> if this whole frenzy, whatever you want to call, or this intense discussion that has taken place about a strike, if it is to actually convince assad not to use chemical weapons in the future, not to resort to

them, if in -- if he comes out and says, "look, i made a mistake," or whatever, "i don't i didn't use chemical weapons, and here they are," would that in any way, in your opinion - as someone who speaks on behalf of the administration, in your opinion, would that shift the administration's thinking? >> well, said, that's still a hypothetical. i'm taking your question very seriously. we know who used chemical weapons. we don't have a doubt about that. the secretary has stated it clearly. fourteen hundred people died in this attack. and we're proceeding accordingly, because we want to deter this kind of behavior - if it has that impact, of course that's positive - and degrade the regime's capacity to carry it out again. >> okay. now, on this very point that you talked about we know who did it and so on, now, i remember on the 28th -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- the chairman of the select committee on intelligence mark rogers, he said that the evidence was convincing but not compelling, and two days later the secretary came and made a very impassioned case, and said it was compelling. so did he - was he able to submit further evidence to the

select committee to convince them? because they seem to be exactly where they were on the 28th. they have not said that the case is truly compelling and we have we know beyond reasonable doubt that it is actually the regime that did it. >> well, a number of members have come out in support of this effort over the last several days since the 28th. but i will say that as part of our consultation with congress, the secretary has been participating in and leading classified briefings as well. that's part of our effort to make sure that the people's representatives have all of the information we can possibly provide. and that's part of the consultation. some of those happened this week. >> does the administration -- >> oh, i'll go to you, roz, next, if that's okay. >> sure. >> sorry, just a fairly minor detail -- >> okay. >> -- i suppose, in some way. but according to der spiegel today, the german magazine, the german intelligence believes that in fact the alleged attack was a mistake, that the gas mixture was not diluted enough and that's why it was - that so

many people died. is that consistent at all with what you've heard, and would that change at all the u.s. calculus on -- >> i haven't seen that report, actually, but we've been pretty clear, and obviously we've provided information about our own intel assessments. that hasn't changed. >> thank you. >> when was the last time that the secretary spoke with the special representative, mr. brahimi? and i ask because he has been summoned to st. petersburg to work with the secretary general to try to push for a geneva 2, and this -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- has happened in the last 12 hours. >> well, in addition to the secretary, there are other senior officials, including under secretary sherman and others who have been working closely with counterparts at the un and russia. so i'm not sure when the last conversation was, but i'm only conveying that because he's not the only one who speaks to un officials, of course. >> but given the fact that the secretary general requested mr. brahimi -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- leave overnight and join him there to try to push for

some sort of political resolution, does that indicate that perhaps this political track is now moving more quickly, given that the u.s. is prepared to move ahead militarily if it decides that that's what needs to be done in light of august 21st? >> i just don't want to analyze what their reasoning is. obviously, we remain committed to the political solution. we'd like a geneva conference to happen as soon as is possible. i don't have any update on that, but of course any efforts to move that forward we'd certainly support. >> jen, can i just - when you endeavor to get the more detailed readout of the lavrov call -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- can you specifically ask if the comments that president putin made in which he called the secretary a liar, if that came up or if that something that's just water under the bridge now? >> well, let me say on that, i'm happy to check what is possible to share from that conversation. but let me say on the specific comments, since you gave me the

opportunity, that secretary kerry is, as you all know, a decorated combat veteran. he's had more words aimed - more than words aimed at him. so he's not losing sleep after such a preposterous comment that was based on an inaccurate quote and was completely mischaracterized. >> all right. thank you for that. and can you just check and see if he raised this with lavrov or if he thinks that it's no - not really worth pursuing? the argument has been made that not acting would damage not only this president's credibility but the u.s. credibility in - as a whole and future presidents' credibility as well. that is still the argument the administration is making to congress, correct? >> we are certainly making the case that we need to hold the regime accountable, that there are future consequences of inaction. >> right. so a "no" vote risks u.s. credibility then? >> well, i think -- >> what i'm getting at -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- and i know that you're

confident you're going to get the votes -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- but it goes back to my earlier question, because if you if a "no" vote would in fact hurt your credibility, and not acting at all would hurt your credibility, that would suggest that you were go ahead and do it >> well -- >> -- anyway -- >> well, i - just to be -- >> -- even if there was a specific denial of authorization. >> just to be clear, i didn't use the word "credibility." >> no, the secretary did, though. he's used it many, many times, especially last week. >> mm-hmm. >> and that's why i don't understand why he - on friday afternoon, he got up and made this great impassioned case and said that we're going to lose credibility if we don't act, and then the next day all the sudden it was, like, well, mmm, eh, the president is being courageous by going to congress. >> well, he's -- >> it just -- >> mm-hmm. >> the problem i'm having is that i don't understand how this is not an exercise in giving the president political cover not to do what he said he would do. >> if the president of the united states and the secretary and the national security team didn't feel confident this was

the right step and they weren't going to press with every bone in their body to make this vote happen and have a successful outcome, they would not have been as strongly out there this weekend. >> right. well - and i understand that, but just the decision to go to congress when you say that you don't need to puts at risk the credibility of this president, of the administration, and of future administrations. correct? >> well, let me -- >> doesn't it? >> let me flip a positive, if i may here, matt, is that the benefit of going to congress and having a successful vote is that you are showing the unity between the representatives of the american public and the executive branch. >> and you think what we saw yesterday shows - is a big display of unity between the administration and representatives of the american public? >> well, we certainly know there's a range of opinions in congress -- >> well, i don't see how that strengthens the ->> -- but we're looking towards what the final vote is. >> in fact, even if the vote is yes, if it's split as badly as

it seems, i see that - i don't see how that is this overwhelming endorsement. in fact, it would hurt the endorsement, which is why i don't understand how the president - i mean, how the secretary is comfortable with the president's decision to, quote/unquote, "act courageously" by going to congress to get permission for something that he thinks is - says is morally right, that he has a moral obligation to do. i just don't get it. i mean, when falstaff said the better part of valor is discretion, shakespeare meant it as a joke. it's not intended to be the way you go about being courageous. >> shakespeare quotes, i love it. >> so i - that's - i just - i can't - that's what i can't understand about this. because a no - it would seem to me that a no vote gives the president political cover not to follow the - not to do what he has said he thinks he should do, especially if he's going to go ahead and do it anyway. >> well, what's -- >> right?

so the only reason to go to congress, then, would be to get a no vote, and say, well, congress said no, and just like the british parliament said no, i have to do what the american people want me to do. >> i can assure you that the goal of all members of the administration is to get a yes vote -- >> right. >> -- and they are going to congress because they made the calculation, which was courageous, that we - that this would strengthen our hand and show the international community that the representatives of the american people, that the executive branch, all support action. >> all right. but it sounds as though -- >> can i -- >> -- if this is, in fact, a courageous move, that -- >> [inaudible] >> -- the president would go ahead and do - would order the military strikes anyway, even if congress specifically said no. is that correct? >> well, i don't have any - we're confident that congress is going to move forward and -- >> the question, though is - and i'd leave you this, and -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- i'll stop after this, but i do have one logistical question. >> okay. >> it will be very easy to answer. >> we'll see. >> the question i would leave you with on this is: why risk it?

why risk the credibility of the united states on a vote that is not certain? >> because they made the calculation it was worth it because having representatives of the american people's - representatives of the american people stand with the executive branch and say this is the right step sends a powerful message. >> all right. now that - i just - last one, and this is a factual thing, should be easy to answer: you mentioned nine countries that have -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- come out in support -- >> you would like the countries? >> yes, but not only that; i would like, really, a more detailed explanation. the secretary, yesterday on the hill, said that 10 countries -- >> at least 10. >> [off-mike.] >> -- at least 10 countries had offered to not just support but to participate. >> well, there's a couple different buckets we're talking about. so that -- >> i know. but i'm talking about the "at least 10" and what you say is nine today, and plus -- >> well, the united states is a country. >> -- i assume the united states counts as - yes, exactly. so that's 10. >> okay. >> and when he said 10, he meant to include the u.s.?

>> well, i think he was talking about something slightly different, but -- >> well, i don't - i mean, he said that they were - that these countries, these 10 countries -- >> i should say with the 30 countries -- >> -- had volunteered -- >> -- with the 30 - let me try to answer your question and see if i can get there. >> go ahead and give us the nine that add to the u.s. and make 10. >> okay. australia, albania, kosovo, canada, denmark, france, poland, romania, and turkey. >> kosovo? that's a new one. >> i'm sorry. those nine have agreed to do what? to support this -- >> have publicly and explicitly expressed support for u.s. military action. >> so political support, but not to actually participate in? >> correct. but -- >> okay. and then what are the 10, the "at least 10" - well, the nine, i guess, or at least nine, if the united states is part of it, that have agreed to take part? >> well, i'd have to look back at the quote. i think he was referring in that specific case to the countries that have publicly said they supported our decision. i know he said also 30, right? or -- >> thirty-one. >> thirty-four. >> thirty-one. so obviously, as you know, our discussions with countries are, of course, ongoing.

you've seen the secretary's list of calls he's made. we've tried to put them out on a daily basis. and as you know, this will be part of the conversation this weekend. we're not going to publicly announce for countries that haven't publicly said they support our efforts or they're going to contribute to our efforts on their behalf, as i'm sure won't surprise any of you. but as the secretary, i believe, has said during his testimony, we certainly have enough military support to move forward. this isn't the type of action that would be - require significant military support. so a big part of what we're talking about here is, as the president said on saturday and as we've talked a little bit about, kind of a unified condemnation of these actions and an agreement on the appropriate steps forward. >> [inaudible.] >> just so we're clear -- >> i promise i'll get to -- >> what about the financial support -- >> two -- >> -- the financial supporting of other countries? >> can you just repeat the list again? because it's different than the one that i was given earlier.

>> okay. australia, albania, kosovo, canada, denmark, france, poland, romania, and turkey. >> and bosnia is not on there? >> no. >> okay. one -- >> so what about the financial support from other countries? >> let's just - let me just continue -- >> i just want to - please. yeah. >> -- with arshad, and then we'll get to you right next. and then we'll get to you. >> so your understanding is the secretary's "at least 10" reference was to countries that have pledged political support? >> who have stated publicly that they support the united states decision to take military action. >> right, but not that they would actually take part in it. that is not what he was trying to say. >> well, but what i wanted to convey separately from that is that there are - and i don't have a number specifically on this for you, but obviously, there are a lot of private conversations that take place about countries' willingness to participate in a variety of ways, whether that's military support, financial support, public support, and i'm just not going to read out for other countries what conversations they've had privately. >> so let me clarify, then -- >> and then one -- >> -- just because this is

important to get the terminology >> mm-hmm. >> -- and numbers right. sorry to cut across you. but - so you're saying that there are nine countries that have expressed support with the u.s. taking military action -- >> publicly. >> -- an unspecified number who have offered to support that if needed? >> mm-hmm. >> and then when kerry talks separately - and i believe the number was 34, he said, to the house committee yesterday - he's talking about countries that are joining the condemnation of syria, right? he's not - because that's a much bigger number, and i'm unclear how we get to nine - to 34. >> sure, and - okay. let me try to answer that for you. at least 80 countries or organizations acknowledge chemical weapons use, and of those, more than 50 have said so publicly. at least 30 countries or organizations have stated in public or private that the assad regime is responsible. and then nine countries. >> but [inaudible] their evidence from where? i mean, independently they arrived at that conclusion using their own assets, intelligence assets, using -- >> i can't speak for the decision of any particular country. obviously -- >> right. but you said like 50 -- >> -- every country has

different resources, and there's countries we share information with, countries other countries share information with, so i can't begin to -- >> but it is - are they - i'm asking to see whether the u.s. is the source of their intelligence that they've used, or they did it independently. >> well, certainly we share information with some countries, as you know. but it depends country to country. >> and he did actually yesterday talk about people volunteering to take part, of which included france, and then he -- >> denmark, poland, and turkey. >> mm-hmm. >> okay, and then he also talked about other countries who'd stepped forward which are not on your list, which included saudi arabia and qatar as well. now, are they the ones who are - because you talked about the arab league being willing to support them financially -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- which goes to what arshad wanted to ask, so do you - could you give us a list of those countries who want to financially support the - any action that takes place on part of the united states. and also, do we have a kind of ballpark figure of how much it would cost? >> well, let me take the first question first - does make sense. i - there may be countries that

decide they want to make a public statement. i certainly saw the secretary's remarks yesterday but i don't have anything further to add to it. obviously, part of his conversation with representatives of the arab league will certainly be about syria, given events, but i don't have any public announcements to make on their behalf. >> can i follow up on something jo had asked? >> mm-hmm. >> you - which is the question of what if the congress doesn't vote. the secretary yesterday - doesn't vote in favor - the secretary, and i can't remember now if it was yesterday or the day before but i think it was yesterday -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- said that it was too dire, quote, "too dire to contemplate" the possibility of defeat on this. why is it so dire, indeed, too dire to contemplate? >> because he feels, from the bottom of his soul, that making clear to the assad regime that this is unacceptable, that we won't stand by and allow chemical weapons to be used is something we need convey, and that this is the way to do that.

>> but the - everybody from the president on down has made amply clear that the president believes that he has the authority, regardless of what congress decides -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- to act, should he deem it so necessary. so, he can act regardless of what congress does -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- so why is it so dire? i mean, the president can go ahead and do this, as he said he thinks it should be done. >> mm-hmm. >> so you can send the signal that this is wrong -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- even if you don't have members of congress with you. so why is it so dire? >> well, as the president said yesterday, he wouldn't be going through this process and working to achieve congressional support as a symbolic gesture. he thinks it's important to send the message to the world that we stand together. so, the secretary wasn't attempting to make a prediction, he was just conveying the consequences of inaction, and that members of congress have in

their ability the - have in their hands the ability to make a decision to support this action, send that message. >> right, but the issue is less about messages and more about action, right? >> mm-hmm. >> and the action can be taken by the president - the president believes he has the authority to do what he believes should be done here. >> mm-hmm. >> so, i still don't understand why it's too dire to contemplate losing a congressional vote, which you have said doesn't tie the president's hands at all. >> well, the president has said that, but i'm not making a prediction because our focus is on getting support. >> and so we're clear, i'm not trying -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- to get you to make a prediction. >> mm-hmm. >> i'm not trying to get you to box the president in by -- >> sure. >> -- saying, well even if the president loses this -- >> mm-hmm. >> -- he will still do it. >> mm-hmm. >> what i don't understand is what's so dire about losing it if he can still do it and act, and convey to assad and to other potential users of weapons of

mass destruction that this is wrong. >> well, it's clear that that's not the preferred course, otherwise we wouldn't - the secretary wouldn't have spent the last two days up on capitol hill. >> right. >> and all he was conveying was the importance of action here, the fact that inaction, in his view, is unacceptable, and why people should support this effort. it was nothing more than that. >> but here, the thing is, is the preferred course - i mean, the secretary spent the last few days up there because the president told him to. >> well -- >> so his preferred course was made abundantly clear to us last week by him - he, himself, in his two speeches. >> matt, i think you're - i don't - if you can quote me back the secretary saying, "i would be absolutely opposed to any consultation with congress" -- >> no, no, no. >> -- and that would be outrageous. >> he didn't say that. no, but that's kind of disingenuous there, because the a consultation with congress is a lot different than going and seeking an affirmative vote of authorization. >> i - seeking an affirmative. >> anyway, do you know offhand

how many members of the united nations there are? >> i'm sure -- >> roughly about, it's about 190, something like that? >> i don't have the exact number, but yes. >> what do you attribute the fact that only - that only, out of those 190-odd members of sovereign countries in the world, fewer than half have condemned this, and fewer than that, 30 of those, have not even condemned it publically? what, what does that - what does that tell you, if anything? >> well matt, i can't obviously speak for any of these countries; i know you're not asking me to do that. consultations are, of course, ongoing, both - we're participating in them, the usun is participating in them, many countries that i've listed are in touch with a lot of the countries who haven't stated publicly as well. >> is it disappointing to you that in the face of a chemical weapons attack, a horrific attack that violates international principles, you

cannot cobble together even close to the number of countries to join you that the bush administration got for its war in iraq, which ended up being fought on false pretenses? does that bother you at all? >> well matt, we're still - this is a work in progress. we are still consulting with other countries, we're still briefing other countries, and we will continue to build support in the days and weeks ahead. go ahead. >> what was the basis for secretary kerry's claims yesterday that the syrian opposition, quote, "has become increasingly more defined by its moderation"? i think that today, you know, the new york times had a video that sort of would show the other - things maybe going in the other way, almost an al- qaida-type event, perhaps to the rebels' behavior. >> mm-hmm. well, let me first say about the video, the photo i should say, but of course part of the video

that we are horrified by today's photo in the new york times, asserting that syrian rebels are standing over regime soldiers getting ready to execute them. we can't confirm the alleged perpetrators' affiliations, but we strongly condemn summary executions by any party in syria. we've reached out to opposition officials and we're seeking more information at this time. what the secretary was talking about - and there was a back- and-forth, just the context i think is important here, about the belief that there is a large percentage of extremists in the opposition, and that is the claim by some and something that was a part of the congressional testimony. we've long expressed, as you know, our deep concerns about violent extremist element of the opposition and have been clear we're not going to work with or support them. but what he was conveying is that there's a broader majority that we believe we can empower in terms of strengthening a more

moderate force. that's who we're working with. and so he was disputing some of the claims made at the hearing yesterday. >> gotcha. and can i ask one more? >> sure. >> does the secretary feel, having met president assad personally in the past, that that - has that helped his efforts at all, perhaps in sort of guessing or helping predict maybe what his next move might be? and has he ever given any details to his staff about what that was like, that experience? has that helped him at all? >> well, there's some very important context here because in 2009, four years ago, there was a belief by many that there was still a diplomatic route here in working with assad and the regime. the secretary, of course, was a prominent member of the foreign relation committee. he was somebody who met with him to pursue that route. clearly, two years later, events changed. and the brutality on his own people, the now deaths of over a hundred thousand people has certainly changed his

calculation. and you've heard the secretary speak out clearly on his view on assad. there's just so many words and phrases - i don't think i need to list them all for you - but i think the context in the course of events is important here. >> i have one more numbers question, not on the countries. >> okay. >> the secretary also in his testimony yesterday talked about at least 11 chemical weapons attacks that the u.s. intel community could prove. >> mm-hmm. >> can you be more specific? dates, times - dates, places, and casualty numbers if you have them. >> i don't have any more specifics for you. >> are there more specifics? how does this - where does this number come from? >> i don't have any more specifics to add to what the secretary said. >> you can't say where - did someone make it up? >> clearly, we do our own assessments, but beyond that i don't have any more details for you. >> well, if one were to ask the, i don't know, dni spokesperson, would they be able to provide more detail as to where and when these attacks took place?

>> i certainly encourage you to ask them. i don't know how -- >> but no, is this the administration - i don't want to waste -- >> go ahead. okay. >> -- my colleagues' time by having them call up -- >> okay. >> -- whoever it is over there >> mm-hmm. >> -- and say - if they're not going to answer it. has the administration decided that it's going to keep secret the dates and times that it says it has proof that assad used chemical weapons, other than this last one, because clearly we -- >> matt, over the course of the last several months -- >> right. >> -- we've made a great deal of information available, including an assessment that we sent out last friday broadly. the secretary has been briefing congress - members of congress in public and in classified briefings. and he has been an advocate for making as much information available as humanly possible. >> all right. okay. well, is there some intelligence classification reason why these 11 - at least 11 attacks that he spoke of can't be further detailed? >> i don't have any reasoning for you aside to say that sometimes information cannot be released to protect sources and methods. and as we have more information we can release, i'm sure we will

do just that. >> okay. can you just say - can you confirm that it is the case that the administration has concrete and what it regards is indisputable proof that assad has used chemical weapons in at least 11 attacks? >> i don't have any further confirmation -- >> well, is -- >> -- for you from here. i encourage you to contact -- >> is that -- >> -- my colleagues. >> i don't want a number. i just want to know, is the number correct? is that -- >> i don't have any confirmation or more for you on it. >> so the number might not be correct? >> matt, i don't have any more details for you. and i certainly do encourage you to contact my colleagues over in the intel community. >> well, i would but i'm not sure i want to if they're just going to tell me that it's a secret and the reason it's a secret is because we say so. >> i have to wrap this up soon here. i apologize. >> can i just -- >> quick on syria. >> okay. >> you mentioned - for the question on the rebels and their character and so on. do you have an updated list of who these rebels are, their organizations? i mean, i've asked this question before -- >> the moderate opposition we work with, or --

>> all the different groups. do you have a list of the groups, and do you have them - they belong to this, they belong to that, they have affiliations with al-qaida, not affiliation with al-qaida? do you list it like this? >> i don't believe we have a public list along those lines, said. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] vote]ll call >> mr. durbin. >> no. >> mr. murphy? five. -- aye. >> mr. mccain? aye.

>> mr. rich? >> no. >> mr. rubio? >> no. >> mr. frank? >> no. >> mr. mccain? no. paul? >> no. the clerk will report. 7 nays.es, one present. >> the vote yesterday in the senate foreign relations committee approving the limited authorization of electric force against syria.

c-span town hall tonight. one last time during the summer recess. women taking time to hear from you on issues of politics and policy. we're going to focus on syria. we are going to ask you how you tell your congressman how to vote when they return next week. here is to join in the conversation this evening. >> make sure you meet your television if you call in. to join the conversation on twitter, the hashtag is #cspanchat. -- how would you

tell your member of congress how to vote? what is ahead is a look at highlights from the main hearings this week. the senate foreign relations committee, and the house foreign affairs committee hearing from the same trio. we will show you the highlights from this week and look at the week ahead next week in the house and senate on the issue of syria. we will hear about the rebel force in the country and also hit with the international community is expected to contribute to that effort. all of that is ahead on c-span. a quick check of our facebook comments that have come in this evening. here is one. she would have the vote no. --

that is from facebook. a tweet that came in late this afternoon from joe manchin of west virginia. how he is planning to vote. given the case that has been presented, he believes the military starting in syria is wrong. more of those coming up. your calls as well. let's hear about what is ahead in the house and senate. a look ahead with a capitol hill reporter from earlier today. joining us from capitol hill, what are you hearing from senators as they come out of these briefings? for it. lot of people

a lot of people are undecided. there is a briefing downstairs in the capital, a couple of members said they were against it. predicted it will fail based on his preliminary with counting. >> late this afternoon your article in politico, senators remain unconvinced on syria plan to read who is trying to do the convincing? >> it has been left the administration officials who have been kept secret from us in explicitlyo is selling get. john kerry has been doing convincing. diane feinstein of the intelligence committee and now she would vote for the syria resolution. i asked her if she would be trying to whip members, and she said she would be providing as

much intelligence. it has been left to the administration to amp up efforts as they ready for boats. >> the schedule has changed for the session on friday. what can you tell us about the schedule in the house? >> the houses shakier. i expect them to follow the senate's lead. they feel nobly to put this on the floor. expecting a closer vote on wednesday. they'll be followed by final passage vote next week. vote is successful, they will get more into play and you'll probably see more.

>> of the leadership, we have yet to hear from the republican leader among mitch mcconnell. any indication of what role he will play? he's staying briefed. he has staffers devoted to it. my question to his office about his position have gone unanswered. it is not exactly clear how he will go to read that could change. i'm sure as soon as he gets to the capital on tuesday, he's going to face questions about what has position will be. host: >> president obama's scheduled plan to stay for the debate, your colleague jonathan allen writing the headline white 3ouse reach has hit 1-

lawmakers so far. what can we expect from the white house? guest: the senate is going to go on an executive branch nominee. there'll be a briefing open to all senators after that. feinstein has been saying that there needs to be no excuse for not getting enough intelligence. this is unprecedented outreach. apart from that, it is not clear. i would expect we're going to hear more briefings. there will be some thing similar for the house next week. i think the ministrations goal is to make sure that no member has an excuse of saying they did here enough intelligence on this issue. .hey will keep that outrage up reportingcan read his

at politico.com. thank you for the update. guest: thank you for having me. is comingu.s. senate in tomorrow. they will dabble in for a pro- former session. it is c-span town hall tonight. let's go to anthony on our democrats line. caller: hello. i have a few thoughts pertaining to -- hello? host: you were on the air. caller: looking at this entire process, most of our presented , andhave more backgrounds

when we hear kerry speak in terms of the highest degree of confidence, that is short of confirmation that chemical weapons have been used by assad. i think we don't know because there is also with high confidence other theories or concepts that point in other directions. we don't seem to add weight before the evidence to come forward from an independent source such as the united nations. yet, i listen to our delegates speaking as if it is already confirmed that assad has used chemical weapons, when you look at evidence of opposition parties, i have seen the

decapitation of christian monks. and other atrocities that seemed to go by the wayside. hearings, orre putting out a case for military action, why isn't there an adverse series of people are witnesses to balance out all round out a proper way of viewing this delicate situation? one more piece on that use of chemical weapons. based in damascus, she writes, the german intelligence intercepted a call saying assad did the chemical attack. in california, good evening to michael. caller: good evening.

a couple of things. why don't the news media ask for pointed questions to our diplomats, and the second is, why did obama lie about the red line when he is the one who said it? i'm a veteran. i have been to war. .erry lied about his service he has no business being the secretary of state. we have no business starting another war. that is -- my vote is no. my congressman had better step them she and the rest of are out of a job. host: has she indicated how she is going to vote? caller: i don't know.

i call my office and she is never there. host: you mentioned a pointed question. do you see much of the hearings the -- caller: i watched both of them. host: if there was a pointed question you would ask of secretary kerry or secretary hegel, with that being? kerry lie about his vietnam service? --t: caller: i want my senators to know the united states is weary of war, and we do not need to war inolved in a civil another country that we know nothing about. there is no strong evidence of anything. even if there was, it is none of

our business. we need to stay out of it. the rebels are fighting the syrian government. that is what we do with the british. we won. whoever wins, wins. we need to stay out of it. i will my congressman and senators to vote no. host: roland, in florida. this is the c-span townhall. both the house and senate are coming back tomorrow for sessions. writing about what some members are hearing. many have returned this week. here is the headline in cq. positions --ort lawmakers report constituents largely opposed to syria strike.

their constituents are opposed by wide margins for authorizing military force against the assad regime over its use of chemical weapons. durbin talked about the rationale for the potential strike against syria. more of your calls, coming up. >> on saturday i was standing with a group of friends watching the television screen with the announcement any minute the president would make a statement. i said, i bet the missiles were launched and shot off hours ago and we will hear about it now. to my surprise, the president came for it and said i have that authority, i have made that decision, but i'm going to respect to constitutional democracy and give the congress, the american people through congress, a voice in this

decision. from where i was standing, that was good news. as long as i have been in congress, house and senate, have argued about that congressional responsibility. some presidents have respected it. some have not read of the time, congress insists on being respected and being given the authority, and then starts shaking when it is given. it calls on us to be part on historic life-and-death decisions. it is one of the toughest calls we will ever make. i salute the president for respecting the constitution and giving us that responsibility. the turnout today on short indication we are taking this seriously and solemnly. i will note to senator kerry and the secretary kerry, and secretary hegel, we served together 12 years ago. similar similarity --

decisions related to iraq and afghanistan. we solve those differently. i voted against the iraq he resolution. i felt that events that transpired afterwards gave me justification for my vote. but i voted for the war in afghanistan, believing there was a clear response to 9/11. we were going after those responsible for killing 3000 innocent americans. we were going to make them pay a price. i still believe that was the right thing to do. i did not the time that i voted for that authorization for use military force, i was voting for the longest were in the history of united states, and in authority to several presidents to do things that i -- that no one could have ever envisioned that moment in history. secretary kerry and secretary hegel, i take this very seriously.

i enter stan's presence. i understand his values. i take it seriously that the language be as precise as possible when it comes to this whole question of expanding this mission into something much larger. something that would engage us in a new level of warfare, or a new authority for this president, or a future president. i hope we can have your ward and assurance that we can work together on a bipartisan fashion to craft this in a way that carefully achieves our goals, but does not expand authority anywhere beyond what is necessary. >> thank you. an important statement. you have my words that it will not happen, but we will work with you closely, with the white house, in shaping this resolution. hidden agenda. there is no subterfuge.

there is no surrogate strategy here. there is one objective. that objective is to make sure we live up to our obligations of upholding the norm with respect to international behavior on the use of chemical weapons. that is what the president is seeking in this authorization. >> let me speak to the issue of chemical weapons. i do not know if secretary hegel or secretary kerry is the appropriate person. the french have done an assessment of what they believe the syrians have in terms of their chemical weapons arsenal grade general dempsey, are you familiar with it? >> with the french assessment? i'm dimly with my own. >> we have a copy of it here. it has been published. we've talked about staring gas and other nerve agents. what we hear from this report, i ask you if it is close to what you are -- what your assessment

is, the syrians have more than 1000 tons of chemical agents and precursor chemicals. several hundred tons of sarah and -- of sarin. it has been speculated they have the missile capability of delivering these chemical israel, portions of turkey, jordan, iraq, and beyond. what is your assessment of their potential when it comes to delivery? assessment matches the french assessment. you, in light to of the vulnerability of these countries, what has been the response of the arab and muslim world to this? you've listed for five who have stepped forward to say they support our efforts. it would seem that if this

danger in the region is so profound, we would have even greater support. i senator, this is something would be happier discussing in greater detail with you in the closed session. there are some countries for whom public statements or more consultative than others. i think we should talk about that in the other session. >> fair enough. general dempsey. we saw photographs earlier. heartbreaking photographs. page three of the washington post this morning by a group supporting the president's efforts has a photograph that has lived in my mind, as a father and grandfather of the children in the flooring shrouds, victims of this chemical agent. asking ministration is is for military authority to launch additional tax. -- to launch additional attacks.

>> the guidance we have received on targeting is to maintain a collateral damage estimate of low. up with on how we come our assessments of collateral damage, it is based on how much we know but a target through intelligence, its proximity to civilians structure is, and weapons of -- a collateral damage estimate of low means just that. we will keep collateral damage lower than a certain number. i would rather share with you in a closed session. even in that case, i could probably tell you more things in a classified setting.

>> i look forward to that. hall,s is c-span town bring you highlights of this week's hearings on syria. taking your comments on facebook by phone and by twitter. #cspanchat.is from fiscal cliff, while -- one more from cynthia, retweets the cost of invading another country is greater then if we stay out. here is more common in baltimore on democrats line. caller: good evening.

i have several responses. my expectation for more to votetatives would be their conscious. the reason i say that is because they are going to have access to information that none of us will have. you and i will not have it. data,on the classified and all the other information that is coming up publicly, the only thing that is reasonable to expect is that they vote their conscious and they do the best they can under the circumstances. i think of the servicemen. at the end of the day, they have to make a considered judgment. i'm willing to accept that. concerns are certainly reasonable. the issue about boots on the

ground. the issue about any possible retaliation by syria against american assets, and by serious against its neighbors. the only thing that i haven't aftera response to his the strikes, if they do go forward, what is going to be done by the united states or the surround thes that syria. to go in and secure that. serious quite a stockpile of chemicals. at some point, they need to be seized and taken out of their. beginning then program looking at highlights from the senate hearing.

the foreign relations committee passed the authorization five out of 10-7 yesterday. we have links that. you can click on the link. it will take you to the resolution the senate passed. back to calls, on our republican line. i think we need to take a look at the bigger picture. the bigger picture happens to be what happens when it it spirals out of control. one of the questions posed to general dempsey was is russia still a superpower. in light of that, general dempsey's answer to that question was well could have edited action against us.

he didn't want to answer that question in the room. he said he will have to take that question inside private quarters. i think that strikes very alarming. --n we have the donations when we have the united nations not in sync with the united states, and taking the securities, we are making a crucial mistake when we have russia and china and other nations that are superpowers to be able to take a police action against the united states when we take our own action, which is illegal action based upon the u.n. decision. believe we are war, a globalter nuclear war that would spiral out of control to the entire

world, and not just affect a few thousands, but multimillions of people on this planet. am a note to mr. obama with -- which i believe has other plans that he is deceiving our nation with. i'm just going to leave it at that. i believe that he is not putting inthe table exactly what is the best interest of the united states or the world. >> we're seeing videos of the president earlier this week. he is a g 20 meetings meeting with president briefly with president putin. they shook hands and exchanged pleasantries. -- headline and yahoo news, tensions overt as

the syrian conflict threatened to torpedo the working schedule the g 20 summit, putin made a last-minute announcement for the participants to air their views over dinner. russia has led opposition to the military action against the syrian president over a chemical attack on august 20. they accuse russia of holding the un security council hostage while british minister david cameron said linda had fresh davidce of chemical -- cameron had fresh evidence of chemical weapons use. it is not a simple. there are politics that are true. as a civil conflict, like a wildfire.

see it, some would argue we have obligations in the region. and ones nonmilitary -- we have not we have not heard a lot on the other side of it yet. thank you for your call. we are taking more of your calls coming up. also, your comment on twitter. the vote on the resolution raiseday, concerns were over the timing of the attack. here is part of that exchange with senator kerry.

it is good to see teresa here with you. thank you. teresa, i apologize for what i am about to do. >> there is a set up. >> when you tell the enemy you're going to attack them, they are going to disperse and try to make it harder great i am at a reportt here that syria is supposed to be hiding weapons in moving troops. theirthey may be moving assets into a russian-made -- naval base. it is ridiculous to think it is not wise from a military standpoint to not warn the enemy you are going to attack. in the wall street journal today, we have the following --

the big concern is the wrong groups in the opposition will be able to take advantage of it. that?re any truth to >> the president asked us for a range of options, and we did. >> is there any truth to the article? >> our options were not limited. >> is there any truth to that story? >> no. delayt same article, the in part reflects a broader u.s. approach discussed publicly but it undermines the decision- making. the current administration does not went to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear the outcome may be worse for u.s. interests and a current semi-. is that accurate? >> no. on the warning issue, i don't disagree with you about morning.

the general would also not disagree with you. we are --> >> the general said it would be just as easy. >> aleppo to say to you is that there were links, which is the bane of everyone's existence. the newspapers carry stories about a strike in targeting well before any decisions were made. that began a process of moving. >> i got it. i would like to move on to more important questions. >> all of your questions are important. [laughter] >> i will try to remember that. the president said that the purpose of a military action is not just to respond to the use of chemical weapons, to degrade assad's military capabilities. the president said, to allow syria to free itself.

do you agree with that assessment? >> i have said several times that there will automatically be as a result of degrading his for chemical weapons in his military capacity. i agree with the president. >> thank you. that, generalith dempsey? -- general >> yes. degrading military capabilities as you know is a significant part of momentum shifts. over the weekend, the washington journal ran an op-ed

i hope you saw it. deal of timegreat inside syria this bumper i want to read the assessment of the situation on the ground. the conventional wisdom holds that the -- are mixed in with a more moderate rebel groups. extremist wheeled control over distinct territories. contrary to many mutual counsel, when syria is not led by pretenders sleep almost -- predominately dangerous militants, they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern areas of the country. hasrate opposition occurred. the free syrian army continued to lead the fight against the syrian regime. while traveling with these free

--ies, and i watch them villages from forces. they refuse to submit to authority. they work closely with local councils. they were to make sure that their fight against assad will provide a civil society. do you agree with this assessment? >> yes. they have changed and improved. the fundamentals of the syria are secular and i believe they will say that way. >> i think it is important to point out that it is a secular state. they would reject radical islamists, and in some cases, people are demonstrating against them. when we see these commentators say that they did not know which , and they don't

know who the bad guys are, we know who the bad guys are. is that correct? >> for the most part. there are some worse. they tend to be in the northern area and in the east. >> thank you. ask --i would like to can you assure the committee that you do not see a stalemate? >> the goal of u.s. policy is not a stalemate. the goal is a negotiated solution which results in the departure of assad. , if would like to ask again , doesect this resolution

it not send a bad message to our friends and allies and encourages our enemies? not only in syria, but around the world? mccain, i have gotten to know my counterparts in the mideast well because of the number of crises and initiatives we have the within that region. -- we have dealt with in that region. i cannot emphasize how much they are looking to us now, making judgments about us for the long term, and how critical the choice we make your will be, not just to the discretion of stearic, but the support we may are 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 we have. there is no way to separate one thing from all of the rest. relationships are relationships. they are integrated. that is why this is important. kind of is the wrong resolutions, it can do just as much damage in my view. --back to your call sign, it calls and comments. the house and senate come back tomorrow for a brief session. linda in houston, texas. there is a load of dispute here about what is going on in the middle east and i would like for my congressman, al green, to support this effort the i think that our resources need to be

used here at home. to support this effort. i think that our resources need to be used at home. children's in houston are living in homeless shelters and try to go to school. that. widow of a vietnam -- vietnam vet. i am from a with the outcome in the cost. died as a result of chemicals used in vietnam. it is a bad thing to do this to children in syria or anywhere else. the time comes when we have to say, what is most important? they are not attacking our borders. they are not attacking our people. cannot savee everyone. we have to put our efforts into taking care of our children here but i have a daughter and lot who was born in columbia. i visited there. i have never seen such

devastation and hunger and poverty as i did when i visited columbia. all of the money wasted in this effort could be used to feed the children of the world. i am totally against it. host: thank you for your call. --e is a tweet host: one marv year -- -- one more view -- host: brady in arkansas.

good evening. caller: can you hear me? host: yes. caller: i want my congressman to vote, no. they want to spend all of this , tens of millions of dollars, and -- you can keep counting and put millions on the ends of the -- of it. i am not done. i would ask them what they would think the people of syria would one. -- would want. they were just gassed. do you think that one bombs on top of that? i don't think so.

if i got gassed, i would not want someone bombing me on top of that. host: thank you for your contribution. that hear from randy in alabama. -- let's hear from alabama -- randy in alabama. caller: we need to vote no on this. americans need to take a vote. let us vote if we want to go to war. we do not need to be our war with syria or russia. when it comes to john kerry, i don't think he is qualified third -- qualified. we have drugs running rampant in the u.s. it is destroying our country. we cannot even get help at that. no, we do not -- i do not think we need to go to war but the. it is a bad idea. if we do, it will be a bad deal

for all americans. they need to -- the politicians need to quit putting us in harms way. imx military. they need to stop doing this. thank you. host: he mentioned special forces. john in arizona. thank you for taking my call. i would like to make a comment about serious -- syria. it seems like our country has to be the first ones in and the leader on any trouble in the world. just stepped back and looked at some of the date -- these nations who said they would get involved, if they

wanted get involved, that would be up to them. i would say, no. john in illinois. how do you want your congressman to vote? i have article my congressman. however, i have a suggestion. u.n., there is an international court but it isn't quartered in -- it is headquartered in hague. destruction is a crime against amenity. bring the not evidence to the court and find out who is responsible and allow the world to participate in a

trial? you could have evidence presented. both sides could give their arguments. a judgment could then be made to make -- to keep the u.s. out of taking the lead. it would give the president to give an opera -- an opportunity to back out of this. host: would syria be willing to participate in that? >> i don't think it is. i don't think it is theory. if the u.s. does not take the lead, it would be viewed as a fair, impartial, and justified look at it. after declaring those responsible, then laying out penalties. the president seems to have a knee-jerk to this the. he seems determined to do distraction.

isn't people killed always happens. he will create more terrorists. -- it will create more terrorists. nation of justice and loss. the moral leadership would be a goal for international court were the world could you a fair whol carried on by people have no ties to syria. then we could stand back and watch justice go to whoever is responsible. i do not know why i have not heard that. i think it is something that is a fairway -- fairway to look at this from all sides. -- fair way. the house and senate will vote on separate, but ideally the same resolution.

here is a look at facebook. host: senator rand paul talked about the reaction across the country. he talked about that during his questions of secretaries. hegel in the foreign relations committee. >> it is not often that i get to come plummeted president. i can count the number of times on one hand. when i first heard that the president would come to congress , i was proud he was my president. i was proud that he did this. onas just about to stand up

my feet and clapped and give him a standing ovation, then i heard that if i lose the vote, i will do the bombing anyway. that concerns me. i want to be proud of him, but every time i am almost there, i get word that he does not mean it. secretary kerry said that if we win, sure. if not, what? .tand up if we vote you down, you will go with what the people say and not go forward with a war that congress votes against. can you give me a better answer, secretary kerry? >> i cannot give you a different answer. i do not know what the president's decision is. it should make you proud because he has the constitutional authority. i disagree with you. i do not believe he has the constitutional authority.

congress has it. madison, when he -- when he wrote the papers, when a constitution supposes what history demonstrates him a -- demonstrates, the executive is the most likely to go to work. it runs throughout all of his writings. this is a congressional power, not an executive one. they did not save it on the ground. they said, declare were. as the people wanting the missiles if they are involved in war or not. we do not say that we will abide by the vote. you are making a joke of this. you are turning us into a theater. we play constitutional theater for the president. if this is real, you will abide by the verdict of congress. you will probably win you just say it is -- you are probably win.

you will just say it is real. >> a couple of items. there is nothing meaningless, and everything real. >> only if a vote is binding is it meaningful. forhe responsibility telling you what the president's decision is, if and when it comes, he intends to win the vote of -- the vote. >> we have had discussion if we are going to make the world safer with this. that is an open question. it is conjecture at best. you can say that you think assad will be less likely to launch chemical weapons after this. we maybe be able to do greatest capacities rate -- capacities. we willorts say that

not directly bomb chemical weapons because of what might happen to the surrounding population. he will still have the ability. most people say that he acted logically. -- he release chemical weapons on his people? he is acting irrationally. now we are going to deter him, and he will rack -- act rationally. he either does it again, or he does not. you cannot say for certain which is better. you cannot say that by attacking them, he will not let -- launch another attack. will the region the more save -- stable or not? stability in the middle east is in the interest of our country. there are equal arguments on both sides. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack, or less

likely? there is a valid argument for less likely. will russia be more likely or -- who get to supply more involved in this? they may be more likely. iran? if iran gets involved, more likely or less likely that israel launches a reprisal attack? , but i cannotowns tell you absolutely to answer. i think there is a reasonable argument the world they be less stable because of this. they may not deter any chemical weapons attack. how are we to know? telle not had one person me they are for this war. nobody is calling in favor of this war. i went to 40 cities at home. i did not have one person come

and say -- people don't think it is going to work. they're skeptical about what will occur. i appreciate your response. the vote is meaningful and valid. also that you are convinced that these items will be there and not worse by this attack. >> senator, i would be happy to do that. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack, or safer, or less safe? israel will be less safe and less the u.s. takes this action. unless the u.s. take this action. are the twobollah biggest enemies of israel.

iran and hezbollah are advantaged by the united states nor curbing assad's use of chemical weapons, there is a likelihood that down the road, hezbollah, one of the principal reasons for the change in the situation on the ground, will have access to these weapons. israel will for certain be less secure. attack inwill response. israel kills confident that it's ability to deal with hezbollah -- israel has on several occasions seen fit to deal with threats to its security because of what is in syria. not once has assad responded. we should talks about in a classified session. let me make it clear to you that

you asked these questions about things that -- about if things will be more likely or less likely to happen. is it more or less likely that assad will do this again? >> i don't think it is known. senator, it is not unknown. >> if the u.s. does not hold them accountable, it is a guarantee that assad will do it again. go to a classified briefing and learn that. secondly, let me point out to you, that with respect to this question of americans wanting to go to war, you have three people here who have been to were. john mccain has been to were. does notf us understand what that means. we do not want to go to war.

we do not think that we are going to war in the classical sense. 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. announce inso you advance that your goal is not winning. i think the last 50 years of secretaries of defense would say -- >> do you want to go to war in syria? of course not. we do not want to go to war either. that is that we -- what we are here to ask. the president is not asking you to do that or to declare were. he is not asking to send american troops to war. he said that we need to take an action to degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking

a 100-year-old prohibition. going toconsider that war in the classic sense by coming to congress and asking for a declaration for war. presidentt what the is asking for here >> the senate foreign relations committee hearing on tuesday. we are asking how your members of congress should vote. you can participate by phone, by facebook, and by twitter. the hashtag is #cspanchat. here are a couple --

host: back to calls. dolores in alabama on our democrats line. i want the represented -- representative to vote yes. people over the there are suffering. myself or thee u.s., being that way, would want help. i don't think that quite understand that this is not a

war. people andhelp the to keep them from being hurt anymore. to be gassed. to be killed. shrapnel in their bodies, that is too much for me. i cannot understand it. all of the men in my family have been in wars. my father was in world war ii. by older two brothers were in vietnam. my youngest brother was in iraq and afghanistan. they served their country's -- their country to help. i understand you putting them in harm's way, but on this one, they are not putting our soldiers in harms way.

assad totrying to get understand that he has to be peaceful. says andconstitution congressmen have said is that when it comes to the red line, something has to be done. we cannot just leave it that way. the united states is always the leader. tweet.e have another host: the house is back tomorrow for a session at noon eastern on c-span. good evening to share and in texas on the republicans line.

-- to sharon. caller: i want all of my congressman to vote no. i think they will. we do not need to be in another war. no thinking person can believe that if we strike syria, there will not be repercussions. we have gone into all of these countries over there, and not one of them has attacked us. we are a nation of laws. if we do not follow our laws, we do not have anything. world.ot police the ron paul told us this would happen. it is coming to pass. we go into nations that have oil and resources that we want, and

these dictators have been in their positions for a long time. they kill their people, and that is ok pretty all of a sudden, it is not ok to gassed them and we have to get involved? i don't understand what the rush is. we don't have all of the information. nobody else in the world is backing us on this. host: i have to let you go. i am sorry about that. we go to florida next. ask a: i would like to question. countries, syria or iran, or more diggers or a threat to the u.s.? threatne is a greater

for the united states'national security? host: thank you. president obama is that the g- 20. this is a look at it. here is a piece from the washington post --

host: back to comments from capitol hill. the present team and other officials -- the presidents team and other officials have been briefing behind closed doors. diane feinstein spoke to reporters. this is what she had to say. >> hello, everybody. they made a case for the intelligence. i have had multiple really -- ratings. they get more inclusive as the intelligence community puts more together. i have been here for 20 years. i do not know a time, including

iraq, when there has been more access for senators to gain information outside of what they read in a report. briefing after briefing after briefing. based on what i have learned, i have no doubt that the regime used nerve agents. 11 to there are at least 14 smaller incidents, and also this larger one. i have no doubt that chemical weapons have been used. the unitedtant what nations team finds. i hope that will be as soon as possible. prepare a dvda to which would have specific instances of evidence, largely buried -- largely

victims. what a number of aspects would mean. we received that this morning, and it is karen this. horrendouing -- it is d. we are having that dvd set out. at what eachg instance means in making a determined -- a determination. that is new. there will be additional briefings. is one this afternoon. there is one at 5:30 p.m. on monday after our vote. cia has been good about sharing information as it comes in. >> is that enough for you to

decide to vote yes? >> it is enough for me. i think the prohibition on chemical weapons is well founded. happens, watch what you can see why that is so. tons and tons of vista. they have one of the largest storage base of chemical weapons. and as we know they are able to use it in large amounts, the devastation is huge. dead and20 children 1400 adults, that is a lot of people. we know they have used this between 11 and 14 times before, but in smaller amounts. it is a very serious situation.

understand,as to assad, that there is a penalty for this. tell everyone, whoever it is, that there is no penalty if you avoid these treaties. and if you go ahead and use this terrible news -- nerve agent. >> are you actively trying to get them to go back on the resolution? seeing i am try to do, -- is seeing that they have all of the information they need. we will keep doing that. hopefully, they will go to other briefings. undecided up to the vote. but there is a moment of truth in all of this. >> do you intend to try to rally support?

>> i will be as helpful as i can. factor is the deciding to your opinion? >> for me, i spent a lot of time on the intelligence in the iraq war. i voted yes. then i saw the problems with it. is seehave tried to do if the same problems are evident this time, and they are not. i think the intelligence is different. it is much better. it is conclusive on the fact that these weapons were used. the rest of it is a judgment call and what the administration made this -- once the administration made this call, there is a need for us to back it up. otherwise, and america becomes a paper tiger.

or it says to our ron -- iran. have thousands of american soldiers in south korea for a long time. needs tonk a president do more? >> i am not critical of the president. i think everybody is doing what they can do, including the president. -- his job isjob to talk to people at the g-20 and get help international. hopefully, that will be forthcoming. i think john kerry has stepped up amazingly and made passionate appeals. hour of testimony.

there is no lack of decision- makers getting the information. the information is coming through if you attend the briefings. what are your constituents saying to you, and thomas that how much does it -- and how much does it weigh on you? >> every day, and get a report on the calls. there is no question that what is coming in is overwhelmingly negative. but they do not know what i know and hear what i hear. years, i have some skill in separating the wheat from the shaft. we know where we are with this. i do not want to see nations

using chemical weapons with abandon. is that we are not the world's keeper. i agree with that to an extent. -- what comes to me is that we are not the world's keeper. oursion-making bodies like , and what these weapons to -- took videosink they , is that if you need something answered, you send a message by the lack of answer. we cannot do that. you can look at the children and adults and convulsions. believe this is a

civilized world. >> there is no international backing. do you still support congress and the president moving forward with military action? >> as president bush said, we must support him. i believe that. out limitedan all engagement. it has specific limits. last night ever the house resolution. read the resolution they came out of foreign relations. it is specific. scope limited. it said no boots on the ground. i think the effectiveness is up to the military, how they put this together to deter and grade e this chemical weapons effort that has been going on in syria. >> thank you.

dianne feinstein speaking today after a briefing on syria by administration officials. this is c-span town hall taking your calls and comments on how you want your senators and representatives to vote on the syria resolution. back to calls in a moment. first some tweets. the hashtag is #cspanchat. here is 1 -- here is a tweet -- host: dale in texas on the republican len.

-- republican line. caller: i want them to vote no. they do not need to spend money over there. we need to take care of our own people. thank you. joshua in richmond, virginia. are you on a speakerphone? can you pick up the receiver? caller: i got it. of theto vote no because state of our economy. who andeally trust where our intelligence is coming from? we have a future

for us to look forward to. congressman or to where the intelligence is coming from. can we really trust where it is coming from? we want to keep the future going on for the next 500 years. thank you. host: the house and senate return tomorrow, but a brief session -- only a brief session. not likely to see a debate in either the house or the senate. the 20 house numbers to watch is an article.

host: that is on roll call. fromext call comes georgia. how do you want your revisited to devote westmark -- to vote? caller: i wanted to think about it. if you do not have boots on the ground and you have chemical weapons, how do you get the weapons out of the hands of the enemy when everyone is our enemy? benderstand that this could something to show the world that we are a superpower. they should think about what we are doing. innocent people will be killed. it will be the start of world war iii. who wants that? host: let's hear from richard in

ohio. senator toill ask my vote yes. chemical weapons are a violation of international law. i do not see how a civilized people can sit back and allow something like this to happen. hitlerlmost like letting take the jews to the gas chambers and not saying a word about it. we need to stop being so cynical and trust our intelligence. we are talking about going in there after the chemical weapons . once they are isolated, the u.s. does not have to put roots on the ground -- boots on the ground. there are other countries like turkey and france, they can go in and remove the michael weapons. when it comes to financing, that is another ridiculous issue. you have saudi arabia and the

could -- aboutho the -- arguing about the finance problem. years downlook two the road when iran is capable of sending rockets over to the united states. if they have those chemical weapons, it will be in our own backyard. people, as a civilized we need to go in and take action. host: members are tweeting about their position on this. i want to hear your opinion. fitzpatrick mike just outside of philadelphia.

host: here is another tweet -- an article this evening in national journal had this headline -- host: three days of arm-twisting and long-distance loving lie ahead for while making. here is leonard and georgia on the democrats line. -- in georgia on the democrats line. caller: i am voting yes. america, we need to stand firm. we need to back the president. i may not agree with everything he has done. we need to stand strong. 9/10 of the law is position. this man is testing chemical weapons on his own people.

we need to be prepared. i have two children able and old enough to go to war. i do not want that for my kids, but i do not want this to happen in the future if we become weak and allow other countries to take advantage of us and other people. host: thank you for your call. up next, comments from elizabeth o'baggy. -- here is some of what she had to say at a discussion yesterday. >> we are discussing the possibility of u.s. action. i think it is important to address two questions. the first is, what will be the reaction.

the other is, who is the opposition? after two years into a conflict, we are still asking this question very it seems to be a narrative that is developed around the opposition that has beingrized it as an event into its with al qaeda. likely, the reactions from the and how the dynamics of changed -- starting with the reaction by this is nota lot of going to the exact objectives where tried to receive.

a punitive measure that strikes. assaduld see an empowered to come out and say that america has attacked us, and we are still here. they could have a psychological impact on the opposition and civilians. d -- doesat does the need to be taken into considers a test consideration. again, we have been tracking the and the costssets of any u.s. action. there is a strong possibility

.hat they would attack time we have, there could be a chance for a retaliation or escalation. a seriousere is escalation if the strike is punitive -- or limited. we could see reaction and more chemical weapon attacks against regional allies. there is a large u.s. embassy in iraq. there is a potential for retaliation. that is why we are considering the possible reaction. when you do look at degrading the military capability to reduce the potential for any possible escalation or retaliation great on the -- ortion side,

retaliation. on the opposition side, most people think there needs to be a response to chemical weapons. there has been no international response to the breach. that is a critical point. -- as abeginning to see result that chemical weapons are being used. standpoint,osition there are a lot of expectations. operations and redistribute resources, to that andee, it has been offset there has been confusion about

the potential of a u.s. strike and what the impact would have and how they opposition to respond. that explains some of the comments coming from the that aren't always in agreement with each other. going back to this idea that worried aboutn is a limited strike. commanders them out and openly say that if you are just going to give us a slap on the wrist, do not do it. it needs to be something that grading the weapon capability. and actually helping to empower the opposition. it is this focus on a more current rental strike because of the likely cause of something that a smaller attack would

have. opinion, even a anitive strike could have important psychological impact on the civilian population. that, the radicalization stopped over time has because of positive developments now starting up again as chemical weapons are being used. my own personal opinion is that if there is nothing else, the psychological impact of sending a message is important. opposition,e circumstances and missouri are fluid. they change fully -- frequently.

when you talk about the opposition or's and -- the opposition, you have to look at transactional legitimacy. i think that there is a real threat coming from iraq. from al qaeda alliances. this has forced the more moderate opposition to come together in ways they have not before. newe is a threat from this extremist threats. august, i saw much work as an organization -- i saw i sawore cohesion than before.

together, working on -- across provinces. -- see levels of it is a direct response moving in from the extremist groups. part of this speaks to the program that is underway. i cannot emphasize enough the impact that support coming from u.s. allies has had on creating and empowering a moderate opposition force. throughginning to see the well-known funded cia facility programs that are moving in through the south, we have seen what funding and resource support can do for

creating and empowering a moderate opposition. muche degree that they are more effective and are able to marginalize forces and come together in coherent in ways .hey haven't been able to do in in the past, one of the reasons -- we have seen such a huge the civilian population has not been welcoming all receptive to these groups. they have been able to give a more dominant position than they would have otherwise. once you see them able to compete at that same level in terms of resources, we have seen positive impact on the ground as

a result of that. >> that discussion in our coverage this week, he brings available in arbiter he -- the new york times today with the lead piece about one group in particular, the headline is " syrian rebels." prisoners were captured by syrian soldiers. they kept their faces pressed the dirt as rebel commanders recited a revolutionary voice. commander fired a bullet to the back of the first prisoner said. head.soner's this scene smuggled out of syria offers a dark insight into rebels who have adopted tactics

of the regin they are trying to overthrow. taking your comments and calls about how you want your representatives to vote in the upcoming debate on the syrian resolution. thomasville, georgia. caller: hello. at this point, i do not know if i want to say yes or no. there is a lot of information out there. i don't want the congress to take it likely -- lightly. it seems they want to make a strategic strike and they will be done. i don't want to assume it will be that easy. if we retaliate, if the

government retaliates or another country there, what do we do in response? host: who is your presented i -- who is your representative? caller: scott, i think it's his name. we just had a new one takeover. talk to youru friends and neighbors about this, what is your sense of how your neighborhood is feeling on this? caller: there is a lot of people who do not want to do it. i have a son who was over there. my heart is to say no. i realize that experience need help -- the syrians need help. i don't want to think we can attack a few places and we are done. i don't want us to think there is no retaliation. i like the things that elizabeth was saying.

it is a much bigger picture than a lot of people want to talk about. lex thank you for your call. the challenge ahead for the president, obama needs a game changer to win the vote in the house. his request for approval of a military strike is based in failure and could need a significant game changer to pass the house. the authorization request may pass the senate. carolina, republican line. caller: let me qualify. i think the use of chemical weapons is absolutely abysmal. especially human insecticide. we know what happens to insects only spray them. it kills them. --is a orphic thing for the

it is a terrific thing for the insight. ania, the united states has interest with syria, and little strategic interest with the exception of israel. this is probably the most dangerous thing obama has embarked on. there is about 1000 for ways this can go terribly wrong. in situations like this, can lead to things like world war iii. let's say that we attack them. hit ourcides he will proxy, israel. israel decides to go nuclear and syria. the russians say you can't do that because we will attack you. all of a sudden we have world

war iii, thousands of nuclear weapons on both sides. this thing can go terribly wrong very quickly. for that reason, i do not want to see us get in. weaponsof the chemical is testable. ok, are democrats on. caller: number one, it has not been established. there is no proof that assad used chemical weapons on their people. i have heard dianne feinstein and people talk about it is obvious the chemicals were used. there is not been any definitive proof showed to anyone except for these elites they keep telling us we need to act on it. that is number one. what we're looking at is libya. to the american people have do is look at what happened to libya couple of years ago. it was the same thing. a despaired band of

mercenaries mixed in with dissidents from libya. they fought against qaddafi's forces. they created a no-fly zone. nato took him out. if you go online and look at a video that a former four-star general clark went on record multiple times and said he was told by top brass in the pentagon that the u.s. was going to take out seven countries and five years. this is all about israel. this is all about taking out there in a maze -- their enemies. look at the people that are behind this.

do your own homework. look at different media from around the world. i'll just look at the mainstream media in the united states. look at other international media that is available on the internet and think for yourselves. your country has been hijacked. host: we've been looking at tweets for members of congress today as they get ready to return tomorrow. a week ago, john mccain was skeptical but the president's decision over the weekend to seek approval from congress. after a white house meeting early this week on sunday, both senators graham and mccain came out in favor of support to resolution. he is at a town hall this evening.

another spirited town hall in syria. lots of participation and great t-shirts. that is a photo of senator mccain with his constituents. coda in miami. thank you for having me on. what i have to say is i've listened to john kerry, saying all of this is going to be limited. know, it is not going to be limited strikes. we go over there and just strike turn oures, and then ships around and we're done? no. there is going to be -- i agree with rand paul very much so.

i'm going to vote no on this. i think we need to stay out of it. more of your calls and comments coming up on how your members should vote on the resolution. had a couple of callers mentioning libya. of course, the overthrow there over the last year. the issue was brought up in conversations in the house. here is jeff duncan talking with secretary kerry. >> i would say to congress marino, with respect to the body ,ags, we had a 28 day campaign maybe 30 day campaign echoes of oh -- in kosovo. none of which is contemplated here. none of which -- and there were zero casualties. >> we should go to south

carolina at this time. >> thank you. i cannot discuss the possibility of u.s. involvement in syria without also talking about benghazi. the ministration has a serious credibility issue with the american people. you not answer questions about the terrorists account -- terrorist attack in benghazi. bottom line is, there is a need for accountability and trust from the administration. i'm not upset of you not telling the truth. from now on, i can't believe you. the administration has a credibility issue. , thenary kerry and hegel gaze is germane to the discussions because the world was and is watching for a response. after a year of not bringing anyone to justice in benghazi, they are watching a response. your predecessor asked, what difference does it make now?

this is the difference. these issues: to question the accountability of this ministration. judgmenttment to the it uses when making these determinations. the american people deserve answers before removal were talking about military involvement in syria. section four of your testimony says this is about accountability. the mecca people deserve -- the american people deserve questions about benghazi before he moved forward. this is a picture. given to me by his father, charles would. the family deserves answers. he was killed in benghazi. america deserves answers before we send another man or woman into harms way, especially in another country's civil war is no clear indication that there is an imminent threat to united states.

i don't question chemical weapons were used. i've used -- i've looked at the classified briefings. where the other signatory conventions against this regime/ i have spoken to hundreds of constituents. this represents about 300 him as my office is gone. that have my district contacted my office they go to serious and fight this regime. they say no. do not going to syria. i spoke to eighth graders about it. they get it. we shouldn't be driving -- we should be drug into someone else's civil war. i can only envision an escalation of the current conflict buried the scene administration that was so quick to involve the u.s. and syria was reluctant to use the same resources at its disposal to attempt a rescue of brave

americans that fought for their lives in benghazi. that is never been one advocated for anything other than caution when involving u.s. forces in past conflicts. the same is true of the president and the vice president. is the power of the executive branch so intoxicating that you have abandoned past caution for pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly? the reason i say it is germane to our discussion is this, there have been -- has of any efforts directly rhythmically to provide weapons to the syrian rebels? >> have them efforts to/ --put hands in the weapons put weapons in the hands of syrian rebels ? let me begin by challenging

your position that i have never done anything but abdicate -- advocate caution because i volunteered to fight for my country. that was in a cautious thing to do when i did it. i am going to finish, congressman. i'm going to finish. when i was in the senate, i supported military action in any number of occasions. including, grenada, panama. i'm not going to sit here and be told by you that i do not have a sense of what the judgment is with respect to this. we are talking people being killed by gas. he wanted talk about benghazi and fast and furious. >> for americans lost their lives. i have simply thing -- i have sympathy for the people in syria. we should ask congress -- we should act cautiously. >> we writing so cautiously the

president united states was not acting because he wanted to have sufficient evidence and build a case properly. >> it has been 15 days. >> point of privilege here. i think this is important. i think it is important whether syria we are going into in a way that the congressman describes, which most people in america don't want us to do. we do not want to do that. that is why the president has said no boots on the ground. this is not about getting into syria. this is about enforcing the principal that people should be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity. if we do not vote to do this, assad will interpret he is free to do this any day he wants to. that is what this is about. not getting involved in serious -- assyria's civil war.

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 continue that, shame on us. >> secretary kerry before the house foreign affairs committee. taking your, somehow you will remember -- how your member of congress to vote on the syrian revolution. from kelly, who says i'm sure i've never seen a, stream on c-span with so many opinions in the same side of the scale. >> let's make this simple. no u.s. intervention. upes says they have made their wines. our government is going to attack the matter what the overall majority of the citizenry thing. the first call up, and hawaii.

caller: i'm going to vote no. this administration has been everything but transparent. the american people are fed up with this administration. dictatorshy of being a , if you will. we have no business in syria. we have no interest in syria. i thought people for the people who got gassed. but, we have no interest being in syria at this point. line.from our public in caller: i'm going to vote no. i hope that -- in illinois, we will have a lot of yes votes coming out of here. i hope some of them take the time to look this over. they are playing on our emotions.

400 children were killed. we kill children every day in this country. 3000 today with abortions. it is a horrible way to go, just the same as gassing. i'm sorry those children have to die. this happens. why read just now getting pressured into taking action? march was six months back. tothis was such a rush correct this, we should have done this several months ago. what we are planning on doing a striking a sovereign nation with tomahawk missiles. that isinactive for -- an act of war. you're going to commit an act of war. russia and china already have warships heading towards the locales where our ships are. i am very uncommon but with our ships being in that same area.

it would be easy to wipe that what is left of our navy. the people that we're proposing we are going to back are the same people who are murdering anybody who doesn't agree with them. there murdering christians, -- we had pictures where they murdered government soldiers. those were the rebels during the shooting. host: the video from the new york times piece? caller: i'm not sure it was clear. those were the rebels we're going to back. the rex a cute in the young man. -- they were executing the young men. host: the most recent attack, the focus of the resolutions of the house and senate, was august 21. i have already talked to

my representative. i told him no nationally and -- very passionately. the american people need to pay attention. do we have any idea how many no oneour government -- talks about the civilians we have killed in turkey and somalia, in afghanistan and iraq. host: who is your congressman? caller: randy homan. our government has killed children in our name. we have used chemical weapons in vietnam. we used chemical weapons in iraq. depleted uranium in bullets. we have the gall to say that possibly assad may have used gas to kill 4000 -- 1400 people. let's not forget about the

american people in waco that were killed by our government. host: one republican that is supporting the resolution is adam kinzinger. here is his conversation with secretary kerry. >> thank you. have had a couple of long weeks. i'm about to support this. i want to say the very beginning, my disapproval of the president's policies in the middle east. i believe that part of the reason we are having difficulty rallying an international coalition is they do not see the united states having lead on this until recently. as a veteran of the military, as a current serving military pilot if the international guard, i am war weary. i want to remind americans of all on -- of what one of my favorite president said. war begins when the price of aggression is cheap.

that is the situation we find ourselves in. listening to my colleagues, it has been amazing to me that we are seeming to paralyze ourselves and inaction. it makes me wonder, god help us, if we became a country that cannot do the right thing because i paralyze ourselves in action. what i have here attention everyone needs to see. a picture of syrian children, many of which the secretary said died in this chemical gas attack. you can ensure that maybe even the kids in this picture or other kids will die from the same attack. . want to read you the effect , drooling andts excessive sweating, chest tightness, diarrhea, vomiting,

confusion, drowsiness, weakness, headache, low or high blood pressure. exposes to large doses like we saw in syria, loss of consciousness, convulsions, paralysis, respiratory failure, a polite way of saying we suffocate to death while you are aware that you are suffocating to death. what we are talking about is a discussion of what international community in the united states america in the goodness of our heart has determined is the right thing. can we ban all artillery shells question mark we can't. can be more -- can we ban all war we can't. i last you to comment on this. maintained no-fly over iraq because of our

disdain for chemical weapons. most people would have agreed that what we did was the right thing to do. saddam hussein gassed his own residence. this is not the first time america has put on a red line on chemical weapons. i've heard people say this is the president's red line. it is not the right one of the nights is america. -- the red light of the united states of america. wasaid his one regret inaction in rwanda. i wonder in 2010, in 50 years, if we do nothing about the gassing of thousands of people in syria. say, hasard people bothered me, they say that if we go in and we strike assad and make him pay for the use of chemical weapons, more than any benefit to gains, we are acting as al qaeda's air force.

i believe that is a cheap line. not a serious discussion of what is going on. mr. secretary kerry, what is your thought on the common -- the comment about qaeda's air force in dealing with the opposition and punishing an evil man with using evil weapons? >> your comments have been very eloquent. i think, very important to this discussion. theconfident i join general in thanking you for your service and the willingness to serve in the guard and as a pilot. the intent of the president could not be more clear. if congress would pass this, we

can carry out this action, the impact will be not to help all qaeda. 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, and i said in my opening testimony, this is not just about folks in syria. american troops benefit from this standard being upheld. wars since of our 1925, we have managed to see it felt against -- we have managed to see it upheld. the fact is, the absence of our willingness to uphold this standard will do several things that are directly against our interest. completely undermine america's

validity, america's word in the region and elsewhere. it will embolden north korea and iran with respect to activities that will directly threaten the united states. increase thetantly number of terrorists we are already concerned about because it will force people who want to take on assad to go to the least common denominator of efficiency -- expediency, nobody armed and that will be the arm for people to get the job done. i would urge everybody to listen carefully to congressman kessinger. this, itsence of doing will be a grant of impunity for the use of these weapons. hearings this week's at c-span.org.

that will do it for the town hall on syria. we appreciate you participating in the conversation. the house and senate gaveling and for brief sessions tomorrow. that tweet earlier from john mccain at his town hall. here is the associated press reporting on that. signsn see the road test a reminder we will continue the conversation when washington journal gets underway. tomorrow we will hear from the retired lieutenant general david parnell -- barno. we will also does us the united nations and nato response. she will take your questions about what