director of the cia's national clandestine service discusses how the cia gathers and uses intelligence. plus, your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets on "washington journal, co. coming up next. ♪ host: president obama plans to address the nation tonight on syria, and address that will occur after 9 p.m.. this comes after growing support for proposal that will allow syrianian web -- allow a chemical weapons stockpile -- a procedural motion to begin a formal debate authorizing the use of force. our first 45 minutes this morning, we want to get your thoughts on the president's address tonight and specifically what you want to hear from president obama on syria. a number of ways you can join

us. if you want to give us a call -- you can join us on social media as well. facebookrespondents on . if you want to send us an e-mail you can do so at journal@c- span.org. it's the section of the "capitol journal" in "the wall street journal," the headline --

the questions for the speech are picked up in the editorial pages of "the washington times." they say --

for our first 45 minutes, as president obama is set to --ress the nation tonight you can see the address and 9:00 on c-span. we want to ask you for the first 45 minutes what you want to hear from the president and what information you are looking for from him regarding syria. the lines, again -- starting off the conversation that he new york

on the independent line. -- becky on new year -- betty from new york on the independent line. caller: if people remembered there was an open mic when putin addressed the united states. the president said we will take care of it after the election. they have known about syria for a long time. they know it was the protesters and eventually the people rebelling against the president of syria. clinton was screwing up with benghazi. they a -- they knew this was coming down the line. that he was in st. petersburg only a week ago, i believe that this is all preplanned to get him out of this mess. host: that goes back to looking

at the truth, as you started your statement this morning? caller: yes, i would like to know the truth. they have never told us the truth about anything. host: john is from annapolis, maryland on our republican line. good morning. caller: i would like mr. obama to take heed at pope francis his letter that was addressed to the g20 summit. i think it would be great to hear him speak about diplomacy and working with the other cheek 20 nations to impose other means -- other g20 nateiions to impose other means. it's something to aggravate people. what do you think about

the news of secretary of state kerry addressing -- caller: i think it is a great tactic to take. i would like to see that in greater detail. i'm sure that was not just a faux pas on his part. and of us are pretty bright intelligent people in this country and around the world. that has been thrown out there numerous times by many people on many of the social networks, requesting that kind of action. it's hopeful. i'm glad it came forward. host: that's john from annapolis. joe king is joining us off of twitter -- you can tweet your comments, @cspanwj.

facebook -- leading up to the address tonight, the president is giving six interviews to network anchors, talking about syria. this is in light of the news that came out yesterday. he you -- fox news is where talked with chris wallace yesterday, talking about syria come a talking about these new developments. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> i think at this point it is easy -- it is hard to say we

would be credible without a military strike. think we should explore and exhaust all avenues, a diplomatic resolution of this. but i think it is important to keep the crack -- keep the pressure on. to quote a former u.s. president, and ronald reagan, it is not enough to just trust. we are going to have to verify. host: to that last phrase, senators john mccain and lindsey graham put out a statement on syria -- from lawrenceville, georgia, democrat line, good morning. [inaudible]

like to hear the president talk about diplomacy. why you think it is important for the president to address? caller: since this case involved , we need to see what they are going to put on the table. are just trying to get through these two wars and we still have money. we need to keep -- take care of our own down here. i just pray he does that. we need to hear something from him. it's not something we have to take lightly. we have to make sure we do something about that in the

palms is very important. about that. diplomacy is very important. host: on that comment -- we are taking a lot of information from the federal government, congress, and other sources on syria. we compiled the today page on our website. if you want to find out more information, this is our syria page. it is located on c-span.org. it coincides with the house and senate debate authorizing the use of military force. it includes house and senate hearings from center first that from september 4 -- from september 4. this is willie from cleveland ohio, democrat line. i think the united

states should stay out of syria. look how they armed bin laden when he was fighting against russia and great written. and now he wants to go in syria. ofhink we should stay out other people's wars. the presidenthink will give what you are looking for. what information are you looking to hear from him tonight? i think the president should say that assad should take care of his own and we are still america. i would have never voted barack obama if i knew we were going into another war. go to sean from virginia. caller: i think this whole thing

is to diversion -- is a diversion to distract from sequestration. i want to know where we are going to get the money to even strike syria. also i wanted to know if canada will consists -- will assist us in helping. host: why is that important to you? caller: i've been in the world long time and canada is never involved and i would like to know other people's aspects on dealing with world issues that affect them also. anything that affects us a fax canada. there always -- a fax us a fax to canada -- affects us affects canada. an op-ed in "the wall street journal" this morning.

joining us from woodbridge, virginia on the independent line. apologies, we go to new jersey on the and -- on the republican line. caller: the president said he was going to try to come under the pretense of getting all the wars -- bringing all the people home. we know he is going to do just the minimum as possible. -- hengress will ask him

gets approved to do the strikes or whatever the case. i would like the president to say the truth about exactly what he said when he got elected. all itssyria and entourage of people, that they are lying. they are going to get rid of the weapon. of course we have to be participating as we are one of the major superpowers. they are not posing any threats, they're just putting up becauses on themselves they want another help.

they want another situation that the united states is going to the pouring money into middle east. we have our own borders here. we have our own country, we are our own people that needed a lot of help. i'm not saying that we are having problem here with our own people. the economy is getting a little bit better. that is known co from new jersey. jersey.o from new again, you probably heard this as of yesterday, a proposal from the russian governmenta about seizing chemical stockpiles. under the headline --

we probably expected to be addressed tonight in the interest of the nation that takes place just after 9:00 this evening. in alabama, democrat line, charles. caller: good morning. thatybody who is thinking the surrounding nations aren't would like the president to maybe make light of

the fact that they have accepted millions of immigrants who aren't soldiers, if they are and what diplomacy actually means and how can be camps, and those millions of tense we have been seeing on the news -- in those millions of tents and we have been seeing on the news. what good has come out of that, not just the bad. host: focus on the humanitarian side of what is going on? he has tos, i know focus on the military strikes and things like that. really beplomacy can used because those people, they are going to be going back, they're going to go somewhere. done and lot can be

has been done and it does not have to be a secret. of peoplebeen a lot who say let's get the arab league. there's a lots of arabs in those countries. that's my comment. him to make light backat they're going to go -- what they're going to do when they go back to syria. host: this on twitter -- vic, illinois, independent line -- caller: i would like to hear how he's going to reason our attack. the polls show the american people are not for it. they are supposed to represent us. i want him to explain to us what

part of "we the people" he does not get rid i'm 52, that he does not get. i'm 52, i have cast my vote in every election. -- that he does not get. there are several polls this morning, one in "the washington post" -- 64% opposed. it is i watch a guys every morning and i hardly hear anybody call in and say that they are for it. i'm using you guys as a poll. obviously that poll is really skewed. host: as far as the president tonight, is there anything that he says that sways your opinion, in your mind? caller: i don't think he can. i watched the thing was george bush and i ought we should go to iraq.

learned it was more than -- it was no more than a scam. i cannot see why bashar will want the world to come in there. he knows that will occur when using chemical weapons. maybe there is some chemical -- maybe there are some hidden factor. maybe i can catch something that he says that can tell me what i believe is true, the we do not need to go there. the address on syria is shortly after 9:00 live here on c-span. barney from georgia, republican line. caller: hello. was wanting to know why we don't hear the whole truth from our government. old vietnam combat vet and i believe in our government but i do not believe in what they say because we have to go to other countries to find

out the whole truth. all we ever get his half-truths. host: what do you mean by that? caller: i mean we don't have faith in our government anymore because they try to take religion away from us. like somebody said earlier. we like to be the police over the whole world. it's none of our business in israel. somebody over there should take care of it. host: "new york times" also --ducting a poll with cbs

based on what you see or read, do you think the syrian government probably did or probably did not use chemical weapons against syrian civilians. 75% said they probably did. chris is up next from new haven connecticut. caller: good morning. i'm 62 and i did not serve in vietnam, although i had brothers who were in the service. i want to hear whatever the president has to say. i think what he has been doing so far, and that is threatening an attack, has had an effect did the soviets and even though effect.gime -- had an the soviets and even the assad regime responded. more importantly i think it is having an effect on iran.

the new president is talking about negotiating about the nuclear capabilities that they have. i think that's the whole point of this. an effect on diplomacy by making a threat of violence. a credible threat of violence, even though it it is not fulfilled, has an effect on diplomacy. is part of the diplomatic toolbox. i think he is doing a great job. besides, when he talks, i find him to be very boring. -- when he talks i find him to be very boring. host: you support his proposal for serious? -- for syria? has never done the violence, he has found ways to put off the violence. i think he will go to the u.s.

because he is affecting the way the voters go. all we have is china to worry about. host: that is chris from new haven, connecticut. a sense of some of the headlines when it comes to both of those things happening on capitol hill. "the washington times" takes a look at veterans and the , and then talks about the senate. the story about what they are dealing with at home.

if you have been washington this program -- if you have been watching this program you know "the hill newspaper" -- joining us for the discussion and the release is the congressional reporter for "the hill." before we actually look at the numbers that you got there to my has their been a change you got there, has there been a change in thought because of the information that came out yesterday? certainly members in both parties, particularly democrats, or warm to this idea that was andd by russia initially secretary of state john kerry. they are looking for a way out of this.

in particular they simply do not want to vote on this. forstall the would need for a congressional military strike -- some democrats later yesterday were asked where they stood on the strike and they said, i hope the russia plan works. taking a look on the house side, in the leading yes category, 32 house members. no.saying no or leaning 100 and five republicans, 37 democrats, and 127 still undecided. i suppose those, especially in that category, looking to the president's seat -- president's speech tonight. some of them certainly

say they are going to be listening closely to the president and what they say he could say to change their mind. we asked some point blank if there was anything that would change their mind and they said no. we see by the numbers, about half of the house has come out one way or the other and said which way they're leaning. of those people the vast majority are against it. host: the latest information as of yesterday, 8:30 in the evening, compliments of "the hill" newspaper. taking a look at the senate side, where people stand, $.26 or so far in the leaning yes category -- 26 senators so far

in the leaning yes category. 19the leaning no category, republicans and six democrats. category, leading to a total of 49. let's talk about where people stand. harry reid announced they would not hold the first procedural vote on wednesday. they're going to give the president more time to make his case. with the assumptions that they want to wait and see how the plan weight -- how the plan plays out. although it is not as bad in the house, the vote is very much split in the senate. the president actually lost -- he met with several republicans in the senate over the last couple of days but he did not have much success in winning

support. the republicans who came out with their position for the most part in the senate, in the last couple of days have come out against it. that includes mark alexander from tennessee, mike in see from wyoming, they all said they are not supporting. host: senator feinstein weighing in on the idea of the chemical weapons being held by the international community. guest: right. there is a widespread hope that a diplomatic solution, at this point, could be found. even the democrats who may be supportive of the president but not supportive of the strikes does not necessarily want to see a vote. it is overwhelming against him in the congress. it would be seen as undermining his leadership. [indiscernible] give us a timeline on the

house and senate action. where do we stand? guest: who knows? the senate is expected to vote first, if they voted all. -- heis a harry reid delayed it a bit. we are going to see if we are going to get any procedural votes by the end of this week. by the house, it is even more uncertain. they are going to wait to see the senate passes the resolution and then taken up in some form in a house. is if theida -- it senate votes are does not vote -- if the senate does not vote it is unlikely. more if you want to see about the specific people who are weighing in, we can only show you yes, no, and undecided numbers. hill has the information. where can they turn to that? guest: hill.com. the article is headlined "whip

list." host: thank you for your time. the president's address oakeshott -- the president's address will come shortly after 9:00 on c-span. compilingen information on syria. you can go to our c-span website later on and catch that address. a couple of e-mails to show you, a few people weighing in on what they want to hear from president obama on syria. from tracy, california --

phones, this is kevin from fort lauderdale, florida. caller: thank you. canada has helped in the past. we actually bombed a couple of their men. we had to civil wars, -- two civil wars, the first was the revolutionary war. if we didn't do that we would still be drinking tea. i'm not a big fan of violence but what i want to hear from president obama tonight, and a little bit of the history going back to involvement in civil wars around the world, people

involved in our civil wars. if it wasn't for that we would not be the united states of america. african-americans would not be human beings today, according to our constitution. it would still be 3/5 of a human being. an economyoing for and everything else. we have a big issue in the middle east and that affects the world. going on lot of things with israel, egypt, palestine, and we make commitments. i think he needs to bring some of these things up. this is going to be a little bit of a hit to the pocket. but are we supposed to let human beings die for that? i would feel more comfortable if he got something from the united nations saying that there is stuff there, we say something has to be done, that would help. i think he has made a pretty good case right now. that is on our independent

line. susan rice talked about syria, concerntalked about her about the future use of chemical weapons. say.s what she had to [video clip] use ofescalating chemical weapons threatens the of the unitedity states. and the likelihood of that left unchecked, he will continue to use these weapons again and again, take the syrian conflict to an entirely different level. by terrorizing civilians, creating an even greater refugee flow, and raising the risk of deadly chemicals, it will spill across borders into neighboring turkey, jordan, lebanon, and iraq. use ofiously the

chemical weapons also directly threatens our closest ally in the region, israel. , once again, have ready to gas masks. every time chemical weapons are and loaded on the battlefield, it is likely they ofl fall into the hands terrorists active in syria, including assad's ally hezbollah and al qaeda affiliates. that puts americans have -- americans at risk of chemical attacks, targeted at our soldiers and diplomats in the region, and even potentially our citizens at home. we also want to let you know that on c-span three amity house armed services committee 3 themeet -- on c-span

house armed services committee will meet. span3.oday on c- richard from louisville, kentucky. democrats line. theer: this past weekend president flew back from russia. it is kind of coincidental that a couple of days later he flies back from russia. i thought he was going to -- i thought putin was going to throw the hail mary pass to bail the president out. he was week, he should have artie gone in there. as far as these new -- he should have already gone in there. that youry to them votes against the strike, which has already happened, maybe those children over there that , maybeutally murdered

the republicans can send some flowers and say, "we are really sorry." thes a tragedy, i think country looks week, i'm with and lindsey graham on this military action. i think they are absolutely right. america is still waking up from a hangover from iraq, where we -- totallyy live in lied to. that is when we don't get the truth. host: will you be watching the president tonight? is a done, i think it deal. russia has come in and bail him out. we are not going to go in there. as far as your twitter response earlier, the guy saying

something about israel having to pick up the ball and run with this,in believe me -- believe me israel will do what they have to do. host: if you want to give us your thoughts on that, @cspanwj. from reuters --

john from florida, republican line. caller: i am definitely against this war, and i think lindsey graham and john mccain voting for this war and the illegal , they are traitors to the united states. i want to know what the voters are getting. host: because our attention is on the president, any plan on watching the speech? mark from hawaii, independent line. caller: you do an amazing job on c-span. theo back 90 years ago when hawaii governor went to iraq. the only place that was safe enough to lay her head at night was syria.

this is history. billy carter was there on the runaway. we were allies then and then it went sour. to start warming up to him again. his own people took him out. he made saddam hussein just as in panama and indonesia. this lady on c-span a few days ago suggested very emphatically to provide gas masks to the syrians create that sounded like the most logical solution. they wouldn't be able to take i juste threat of -- but hope the secretary of state john kerry doesn't become a guy like: powell did with the -- like coli

n powell did. in the washington times -- caller: as if our congresswoman, i think she's the best thing that happened to our leadership. she is a bright shining light to me. i think she's a hero beyond belief. again. and justin saying goodbye, these are member we cannot always kill forever. thank you. -- and just saying goodbye, these are -- please remember, we cannot always kill forever. host: glenn is up next.

caller: i don't think there should be a vote at all. who should beist punished for war crimes. the concept of international criminal court is a topic later on with senator chris smith. some details and analysis of the russia proposal you have been hearing about in "the financial times," -- it talks about what possibly could go forth, saying --

all of the serving as context as the president of plans to address the nation tonight. we are talking about what you would like to hear from him when he speaks to the nation. mike from richmond virginia, republican line, let's pose the question to you, what would you like to hear from the president? caller: i could give up on that because i would like to hear the truth but that is not in his vocabulary. , theat as it may

difference between starting a war in iraq and afghanistan and this particular contemplated action -- the united states of america was attacked on our own soil in 2001. the military response was appropriate. it is a shame they have not been able to engineer a war that produced any results, any concrete results. it is just as likely that the sarin gas attack was carried out by the muslim brotherhood. it is a false flag attack. this happened during the clinton administration. they were sucked in by the same strategy in bosnia. on wordthere is more investigation that needs to be done and undertaken here before the united states decides that this constitutes a direct threat to u.s. security.

-- letat a point now these guys get out and do with whatever is left standing. , weruel as it may seem don't use the united states military to carry out humanitarian missions. think --meant to kill kill and break things. have you run into those that disagree with your philosophy and how do those discussions go? caller: everything is motivated which isal loyalties, a terrible -- by political loyalties. i think we are beyond politics. you can say what you want about way heriot act and the

handled the war. this is not something that should be a political argument. the united states and national security is not threatened by this. host: we have to leave it there. again we will take up this discussion from syria. -- says

look for that on our c-span website, we plan to reported. especially the ceremony honoring the 1963 bombing victims. we will continue with our discussions about syria. up next, representative barbara lee. we will hear an alternative plan she is drafting. also joining us later on the program, republican representative chris smith of new jersey will talk about his .lans we will have those discussions as washington journal continues. ♪

>> it was different from earlier presidential helms because it did not try to be self- sufficient. what edith wanted from sagamore hill was offset the expense of living there. they did maintain grains to feed their horses and reduce the cost of having horses here. i had a lovely garden and that produced everything from corn the strong berries. they had in our board that had eight different kinds of grapes. strawberries and blueberry fields. that hadad an arbor eight different kinds of grapes. >> watch our program on edith roosevelt on our website, c- atn.org, or see it saturday 7 p.m. eastern. we continue our series live next

monday as we look at first lady helen cap -- helen taft. span, we bring public affairs events directly to you from washington, putting you in the room at congressional , and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry or's -- private industry. were c-span, funded by your local cable or satellite provider. and now you can watch us in hd. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us's representative are really, democrat of california -- joining us is representative barbara lee. what you hope to hear from the president? guest: i hope he will talk about the fact that the world cannot tolerate chemical weapons.

the world cannot tolerate nuclear weapons. in fact we have to really address the use of chemical weapons in a very forthright way. however, this means we have to look at all options in addition i want to hear him talk about wh effor of diplomacy -- we are beginning to see some of them pay off. he has to make a case to the american people why he believes diplomacy will fail and military strikes are wanted. he made the case to the congressional black caucus? guest: yes. he has been very forthright and it was a candid discussion. he laid out why he believes the intelligence is accurate, which i also believe that the assad

regime used chemical weapons against its own people. i think we have all seen the horrific images of that terrible assault. and so he made the case. many of us believe, myself included, that to achieve a political settlement, to recognize that there is no military option, military strikes could lead us further from a political settlement. those are two different points of views that are credible. ,ecause the president rightfully, has come to congress -- he did the right thing for coming forward with the debate. the country now is engaged in this debate about what the appropriate response is to the risotto -- is to the assad regime. i personally believe it is not

appropriate at this point. i do not believe the use of force can lead to a political settlement. can not believe that we know for certain what the collateral damage could be. i know the administration is mitigating against that. we are not sure what kind of retaliatory strikes or efforts would occur by home. and also i'm not certain that striking, even with targeted thates, i'm not certain that would insert this country into a regional war or insert us and the syrian civil war, which is over 100,000 people already being killed. host: our guest with us until 830 to talk about syria -- until 8:30 to talk about syria. you can call on our lines --

you can also send a thought or question two twitter -- to twitter. the last proposal from russia. what do you make of it? i say we have to be cautiously optimistic. i am writing right now an alternative to the use of force. of this is one step in that alternative, in terms of putting chemical weapons under international control. forink this was an opening a diplomatic initiative, even though i am aware and very confident that the president continues to engage in diplomacy . we have to see. for those of us but do not support a military strike, we

have to be cautiously optimistic and hopefully this moment is a defining moment in this tragedy. proposal, is your what does it have to say. guest: it provides a variety of options. in terms of political and peace talks, the geneva conference on syria -- we often want to look at the mandate, the united nations mandate on inspections and make sure the u.n. is involved. i worry about the united states moving forward without the international community with us. the chemicalabout weapons convention. in the 100 89 countries convention. we want to make sure there is a meeting and that all signatures

in this convention respond to what has taken place in syria. we need the world with us on this. i also believe that while we know what would happen or could happen with the security council, i think that the general assembly should pursue a way to try to figure get him to the international criminal court. some have talked about the war tribunal in this resolution. i think we should push for that. i don't know anybody that believes assad is a fair player and that he has not used chemical weapons against his own people. my alternative actually lays out how he -- how we hold him accountable in terms of an international criminal court. will this proposal see a vote? don't know.

it is important that we have an alternative. those of us that are reluctant use ofng no on the force, we have to explain to the public, given what we know about what has taken place, what our options and alternatives would be. so we are laying this out, we are asking members of congress to cosponsor this, and we want the public to understand that there are political and diplomaticprep -- approaches and solutions short of military action, it provides dire consequences. host: we have people lining up to call you. as it stands, how would you vote yet so guest: i'm not voting -- how will you vote? i'm not voting for use of force. i believe there are options worth exploring, such as what is laid out in my alternative. i believe this could escalate and more people could die. more violence would take place.

i worry about a conflict breaking out. and i worry about retaliation. damage, ofral course. we cannot be certain what that looks like. i believe in what secretary kerry and the president continually remind us of, there is no military solution that we must get to a political settlement. we have to do what it takes to get to that settlement. i think military action set us back. first fromell is up chattanooga, tennessee on the democrats line. you are on. it seems like we have a man hair that has given us things that we need. he is ending two wars. he said the same thing about libya and now qaddafi is gone.

the man is doing great in his job up there. what is wrong with everybody yucca he has given us health care. against changeg and change is what we need here. change is what the world needs and that is what they are fighting over there for. host: let me say i have supported and continue to support the president. i have: let me say supported and continue to support the president. quite a bit ofng restraint. as a member of congress i did not support the authorization to use force after 9/11. that was a blank check, a horrific moment for americans. you see what has taken place in terms of that policy. now we have drone attacks and other attacks that have been used as a result of that.

there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq. during that. offeredg that period i alternatives. of course, that was defeated. i think what is very important is that the country debates the war on peace. we are committing our resources and possible troops or military hardware and personnel into harms way, it is very important that we deliberate this and we need to debate this and know exactly what we are doing. this has nothing to do with any disagreementsical with the president in terms of .hat he is doing this is a democracy. we have a right and duty as members of congress to put forward an alternative and talk about going to war and what that

means in terms of our constituents, our country, and global peace and security. host: from west virginia, republican line. that i do comment is agree with your guest on some things as far as not using any military force, but i think that all of these people out here saying that we should be going and there and should be doing something, that we have this obligation, they need to also think about reinstating the draft. goof high-school graduates into the military. that is it. these men and women are stretched too thin right now and money is tight. guest: well, sir, i do not support reinstituting the draft. we have some of the finest troops in the world. yes, our armed services and armed forces are stretched, but

i think we need to make sure that the role and mention of our military is existence is what the threats are and we need to support our veterans. we have many veterans who have come home who need the type of economic security that we, the democrats, are trying to provide it. do the righto thing by our veterans and by those in harm's way as we speak. the draft takes us backwards. we have a volunteer force now and young people who want to join the military. i applaud them. i am the daughter of a 25-year military officer, i know the sacrifices they are making and i know that they deserve our support and we need to really focus on how we continue to support our veterans to make sure that they continue to receive the kinds of benefits, economic, and job security that

they read it -- that they deserve. host: walter, new york, democratic line. caller: the country's most involved, like syria, saudi arabia, turkey, why aren't they not at the front of this with the possible help of the united states? why not bear the cost that we will incur? i would think that they would be the first ones to take their own interest in hand to solve this problem in syria with our support. thank you. guest: clearly, some countries have stated their outrage at what has taken place. , theyou look at jordan are stretched thin with refugees. all these ingredients -- incidentally, i think we need to provide as much humanitarian

assistance as we can now because of the flow of refugees into turkey and jordan, as they are very overwhelmed. that is a part of my alternative. our position, my position has been that this country is going to use military force and if we have to have the world behind us, we have to have the international community saying not only do we condemn what asat sad has perpetrated on his people, and we need to put our money and troops where our mouth is. the president and the administration are trying to put that together and we should not, i believe, move unless that takes place, because once again we do not need to take on this terrible, terrible issue if, in

fact, the world is not with us, but we also have to recognize that we have a duty as leader of the free world to hold the assad regime accountable. host: there is a photo here of nancy pelosi and her role in supporting syria -- supporting the move on syria. guest: she has been working to make sure that one, the diplomatic option and political settlement are achieved, as well as backing the president to make sure that because he has come to congress, rightfully so, that the president that she's the that he has asked for. our leader is doing what she needs to do in terms of her caucus in trying to help to

negotiate the votes that are necessary to support the president. that is her job and i think she does it. care act, all the legislation she has championed, she is very successful. host: what an -- had she spoken with you directly? guest: i have. host: what are those discussions like? guest: very frank, we talk about what needs to be done to get to the negotiating table. the benefits, i would say the pros and cons of the use of force and the difficult position the president is in. also the fact that we need to hold the assad regime accountable for what he has done and the horrific crimes that have taken place. she understands this very

clearly. diplomaticrefer a and political solution, but obviously her job is to also support the president. democrat guest is barbara lee, representative from california. we are discussing syria. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for independents, 202-585-3882. rep., there is a story going across the ap right now out of moscow, according to the syrian foreign minister they have not accepted the notion to surrender control of their chemical weapons. caller: let's hope that that is thick -- guest: lets hope that that is the case. it would be a game changer. we will have to wait and see. force as an option has to be

maintained. host: how do we verify that? guest: i am sure that the administration will be able to verify a news report very quickly. but they need to have a system established where the international community can verify the facts that syria is going to do what they say they're going to do. host: capitol heights, md., republican line. caller: good morning. i think that would be with you 100%. we should stay in a peaceful road. that is the job of the united nations, you know, to sort these things our. we should be talking about americans in a war. as far as the stock market, you know, people make big money behind these wars.

this is why they are so quick to go to war. we need to have a real serious discussion about that. thank you. guest: thank you. i think that the american people want to see us invest our tax dollars in creating jobs and infrastructure development in education, developing a world- class educational system so that our young people can be the jobs of the future. people are weary. i also think that the american people understand that we are in a new world and that peace and security has got to be part of our agenda. we have to figure out how to maintain a balance without neglecting our own country in terms of nation building here at home, and that has got to be a priority. unfortunately with the party,

congress cannot even get a job bill passed because there are these priorities of the tea party. i think the democrats have put forward a major effort to support our president in creating jobs and turning the economy around. host: the syrian foreign minister set forward a meeting that the government quickly agreed to to "de rail foreign aggression." guest: again, if this is accurate, and let's hope that it is, this is a deciding moment. host: are you skeptical? guest: i am partially optimistic. there are some who are skeptical because we know oftentimes that the united nations, especially, has had arrangements in deals

negotiated where they did not happen and russia has backed down. as someone who has to be very focused on a diplomatic initiative and a non-military approach to political settlement, i have to be cautiously optimistic. but these facts have to be verified, monitored, supervise, and the world has to step up and insist that this be enacted appropriately. host: how much of your thinking today is shaped by decisions made about iraq 10 years ago? guest: my thinking comes from many years ago on foreign policy. i work for the former chair of the armed services committee, who was a tremendous leader on foreign policy and international relations.

much of my analysis and thinking when from that era, nuclear weapons were involved, when the nuclear freeze effort was unacceptable, it was a part of my life's work. i truly believe that we are going to see a world that is worthy of our children. we have to think about a world where peacefully people can coexist, whether or not we disagree with someone's political perspective, where they live, i think it is important that we respect differences and always seek alternatives. it also comes from being a military brat. was in two wars. i understand the impact of war on families and our troops. i support our troops fully and

want to see them out of harm's way, i do not want to see them in harm's way when they do not need to be. votedthe only one who against afghanistan because i thought the resolution was too broad. now it is still being used to justify the use of drones. i saw that coming and i could not support that. i voted to repeal the 2001 resolution. with iraq, my amendment just said -- let the un inspectors complete the process before we decide whether we will take military action or not. if congress had waited, we would have known that there were no weapons of mass destruction. i think we have to be careful when we move forward on issues of war and military action to be sure, to be certain that it is in our national security interest.

i am not isolationist, but i also believe we have to be very prudent. the american people deserve debate. aty deserve for us to look non-military means as we decide how to go into a world where we insist that global security is a priority. indianapolis, indiana, on the independent line. tony, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i agree with the representatives of the one syria, but my comment would be that i never would have guessed that russia would be the ones to support diplomatic causes eye and getting everything done. i think that if the president would have taken assad out,

maybe he could have played golf rather than do something else. thank you. thet: i do not agree that president plays golf more than anything else. he works very hard. he is a bold leader, very thoughtful, very methodical. talk aboutt when we international support, i cannot see russia or any other country wanting to allow the use of chemical weapons. that affects everyone, everywhere, every country, every nation. part of what we have been saying about the alternative is that we have to push russia and make sure that the entire world comes together to ensure that we rid the world of chemical weapons. again, i am cautiously optimistic on this opening, but i think that the administration

sees this and is going to be very careful to make sure that what is taking place is accurate and will actually be followed up on. we need to give it a chance. line,f republican florida. i dor: number one, rep, like you as an individual, but i wish the wall would stop the platitudes. i heard you take a stab at the tea party. the speaker, nancy pelosi, doing things for the president, what ever -- the voters represent you to -- an elected to represent them. i know that those in the same party like to work together, but the fact is that apart from the president, democrat or republican, you need to carry of the will of the people and that is part of what is wrong here

today. the other thing you're trying to do is give the administration credit for going to congress. you know that he went to congress because of the polls in the tide that were taking place. relates to what happened with john kerry, who gave his speech yesterday, he has no idea, he just put something in the air and vladimir putin came out of the blue and said -- let's do this. the reason we are choosing syria is not because they have chemical or biological weapons, it is because of what they did with the weapons and the people there. the question would become of those people are still dead. if it was about weapons, we would have gone in a long time ago when we knew they had weapons. it is the fact that you have thousands of individuals already dead. that is what the president said

he would do something about. host: let's let our guests respond. guest: i think the president did the right thing by going to congress. we are a separate branch of government and we must exercise our authority and oversight responsibility. over 60 of us on the democratic side voted for the president laying out going to congress being the right thing, the constitutional thing to do. there were republicans also who said that this was the course of action and that the administration should take. the administration explained over and over again that they needed the backing of congress, that this is a democracy, and yes we do represent the people and we know exactly why we won the debate, so that the voice of the american people will be heard, can be heard on the floor congress.

host: democratic line. caller: quick question for you. my concern is i do not agree ,ith the idea of a deterrent even the association with russia and syria has been about a longtime partnership. a couple of months back to the russians evacuated an embassy with military personnel there, and i think we hear a lot from the russian government, and we have been allies for a long time and i am wondering if the american people understand that russia is very staunch about defending this country. that is one part that worries me. the other thing as far as the republican side of the house, i find it curious when they say they will authorize a strike but are willing to impeach the president. i do not understand how they can

authorize a strike but start a war in their own conditions. if you start a ground war with troops, we will impeach you? i do not get that, i do not understand. thank you. guest: i do not understand that, either. what is important at this moment is to not politicized. we have to come to some kind of move against another. doesicizing going to war the world a disservice. there are some that want to see a broader involvement in syria by supporting the opposition, but this administration has been very careful not to insert our country into this civil war.

so, it is a very important moment for us to engage in this debate with the american people. people that the american understand what is taking place in this discussion and the debates that are taking place. i think that there is more awareness now on the dangers of the use of chemical weapons, but also on what the alternatives could be to the non-military solutions, payments, or diplomatic solutions. this is one of those moments where people in our country have risen up and will continue to do so and we have to really applaud democracy and the american people doing what they are supposed to do, so concerned and so clear on where they want their country to go. host: to his other point, how does the diplomatic solution handle the actual use of weapons?

chemicalr example, the weapons convention, the united states could convene a meeting of the 189 countries so that we could really look at how to rid it not only syria, but the entire world of chemical if that is real, if can put it under international control, i think that is a lot -- there is a lot to do their, beginning to look at how we rid the world not only of the ability, to use chemical weapons, but to get rid of them. do you think that they intend to move forward with military action even given these new developments? think the president last night did a good job in explaining his decision. military action, as i said, it

will always be on the table as he has decided that is the course of action. that the not mean administration is not willing to look at diplomatic alternatives, i think that is the preferred path. it appears they will be giving this a chance. the possibility seems real. they will decide then. host: a comment from twitter -- guest: the president will have to decide how he moves forward. i do not believe that going to war today means political settlement. if the president comes to congress to back this, we do not know how that vote would take place and, in fact, i am hoping

that this next phase is a diplomatic opening that will help us to back away from the use of force. the day today, never knowing in this world what is next, we have to kind of calculate every day what the next step will be, but personally i think that the use of force would not lead to that political settlement that everyone knows is at issue. host: miami, florida, independent line. caller: first of all, i am a very strong supporter of anything that can save an american life on the ground. in the last three weeks russia seemed very adamant, but then i that you seere russia doing what they can to

get out of this spot, is there any proof as to where the gas came from? i will take my answer off the air. thank you so much. guest: i am not certain with regards to where the poison gas came from. i am sure that the administration and cia has that information. the evidence that has been put out by the secretary of state and un ambassadors, what about the evidence they put out to the public? guest: the evidence is credible, this is not iraq. in many classified briefings. we've met with the president yesterday and spoke with the national security advisor, senator kerry. i would not discount the evidence in this instance.

i do not think that many are saying that this regime was not responsible for the violence, even of the united nations, i do not think that they mandate a report back who they believe used the chemical weapons, but i believe that the administration has made a fairly compelling case that it was the assad regime, so i am not questioning the intelligence. host: steve, florida. caller, how are you doing this morning? caller: how are you doing this morning? after plannedoing parenthood, we gave that money to those people to put hillary through benghazi there. we need to get to the bottom of that.

they need to answer some questions. guest: thank you for your comment. so, virginia, republican line. taking myank you for call. i appreciate you coming on today, ma'am. guest: thank you. am curious, when we bring up our children, quite often we teach our children children to take action very soon after a child does something they should not do. in this case, we knew about this, the president knew about this, so i am wondering why we are down for months now, five months, perhaps, and we have lost the impetus, i believe -- i

do not know, i think that people toit naturally, the impetus make assad stop doing what he did in april? have lost will we have had. air and whatf the to go ahead and give your response. guest: thank you for that. i think that the administration has been very restrained and to theo be as it relates use of force. there have been many things that have been necessary to get to this point and part of that has been coming to congress for annual debate. when you talk about possible retaliation, when you talk about possible collateral damage were ,ore people could be killed

there is an action that could cause a reaction and put america in the middle of a civil war. outcome the possible with the possible outcome could be regional conflict? i believe it is very important to be very careful and very methodical. as you work through what the final out book will be and i think that is what the administration has done. i do not necessarily agree that the conclusion is a use of force with the regime accountable. host: littleton, colorado, tim, good morning. caller: thank you, i know you are almost out of time. it seems like the solution is

right in front of us, it is what jennifer -- what senator mentioned proposed. one, condemn what they did. two, commit ourselves to a diplomatic resolution with , anda, syria, and so forth three, if he uses chemical weapons he has the authority to .trike out there i would love to hear your comment. guest: i think you have laid it out. thank you for being so thoughtful of this. i think that that is what the administration is doing. i do not believe that there will be a vote, because of what you just said. workve to let this process its way through. again, the administration is very careful with its proposals,

but they are allowing that dynamic to take place. in the meantime myself and writing alternatives, seeking co-sponsors for support with an alternative laid out to the american people to understand of what a non- military solution would mean and how they would hold the assad regime >> the president addresses the nason -- the nation tonight on syria. we are going to continue on our conversation with representative chris smith. later on, we will take a look at the topic of intelligence. the cia intelligence gathering process. we will get a news update from

c-span radio. : 30 a.m.. state secretary says the russian government has seeking to help syria because they believed the u.s. is serious about taking military action. the content came in a classified briefing of the house last night. other comments by obama officials state that the threat of the military attack is working to bring the negotiations -- the russians to the negotiation table. defense secretary hagel and speak. dempsey will you can hear it live on c-span radio or watch the hearing on c- span3. syria has accepted russia's proposal to place its chemical ref -- typical weapons under government control. toy agreed to the initiative

derail the u.s. aggression. russia work on a plan to turn over the chemical weapons, france will float a resolution in the united nations security council. it will place it under international control and dismantle it. france will start the resolution process today. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. i can remember the day that it happened because my father was the minister and we had gone to the church. my mother was the choirmaster and we had gone to get ready to serve -- for service. there was this loud thud. we knew a bomb had gone off. -- ms. florence rice

the 16th street church had been bombed. a little while later, we knew the names of the little girls who had been killed. denise mcnair, one of those little girls, was one of our family friends. there's a picture of my father graduationa diplomacy from kindergarten. it was sad and terrifying for our community. >> a 50th anniversary commemoration of the 60s street baptist church bombing. live, sunday, 11:00 a.m. eastern. host: our next guest serves the state of new jersey here he is also on the subcommittee on

global human rights. christopher smith joining us. what do you think about the latest coming out as far as syria excepting this proposal? the white house is correct in being highly skeptical. dhis is the same putin and assa who said there wasn't any proof that his people used it -- used chemical weapons against individuals in damascus or near damascus. he also suggested that even the intelligence that the russians had showed that the missiles were being fired from the rebel nd hisreas of the city at troops were the ones that were -- this will by a significant

amount of delay, but i think being a realist, assad is not to be trusted. host: what you expect to hear from the president? guest: i don't think he has made the case to take the united states to war. firing offat tomahawk and cruise missiles and other kinds of weaponry does not constitute taking this country to war -- i have asked what next steps are contemplated. what happens if there is retaliation question mark i -- i rememberwere when, working with nato, we fired off bombs at serbia. about 500 civilian deaths. milosevic said i cannot fight those nato bombers, but he launched a strike, an invasion

of coast of oh that killed that0 people -- of kosov killed 10,000 people. they kept asking me, what was the plan when you attacked belgrade for what happens to us? there was no plan, whatsoever. i am not sure we have thought through the next step in this lethal chess match that the president is playing. i believe he needs to work with congress. i'm glad he is asking for authorization. i don't know if it means anything. they have given indication that they will go right to a -- they might do this anyway. ishink this russian putin them pause. host: so you would vote no? guest: yes. host: susan rice is making the case for the president on military invention -- military intervention.

[video clip] >> failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate that the united states is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure. any president, republican or democrat, must have recourse to -- recoursed all elements of power to implement our national policy. limited military action that president obama strongly supports would raise questions around the world as to whether the united states is truly prepared to employ the full range of its power to defend our national interests. ability to rally coalitions and lead internationally could be

-- undermined. global hotspots might flare up. the united states needs to be able to -- the national more. it would send a verbal message whohe world who needs -- want to use these weapons that they could use them and get away with it. this whole episode has a race question about president obama's judgment as commander- in-chief. appears, based on the evidence, that chemical weapons were used, but there are also 100,000 people who have been slaughtered in syria over the last two plus years. the administration has been

asleep at the switch. a week ago, tuesday, " the new york times" wrote an editorial that there was an alarming lack of leadership by president obama in dealing with this. the belief is that assad has used chemical weapons before, and the slaughter of innocents to, yes we would raise the and -- raise the issue with united nations, but did the president raise it in a profound way to scrutinize what is going on in syria? i think not. he has not made the case as to why we should go to war. he presents us with this is what we are going to do without congressional approval.

the house of commons ails to follow davidls to cameron's ideas to go along with president obama. it is clear that there is no attention -- no intention to get congressional approval for this if he had cameron joining in as a supporter. believe, calling for the of a war crimes tribunal for syria. we had three very effective war crimes tribunal over the years. they had flaws, but there were 67 convictions and yugoslavia. in the case of s loan -- sierra leone, there were convictions. it put on notice that people who commit crimes against humanity

will be held to account. who can forget when charles taylor, the president of -- ,ormer president of liberia sitting as part of the sierra leone sentencing getting 50 years for his crimes. do with a serial war crimes tribunal is to set it up immediately and apply it to both sides. the al qaeda component are committing atrocious crimes against lots of people, including and especially christians. i held a hearing last june focusing on the genocide that is being committed against christians. , notare being singled out as collateral damage, but because they are christian. they're being beheaded, women are being raped, men are being

slaughtered because they're christian. the administration from the human rights bureau would not call it genocide. the nongovernmental organizations who testified said it fits the definition of what a genocide is. group of people because of their religion and ethnicity. that is what is happening. that is happening by the rebels. a war crimes tribunal would say toa sod that you were -- say assad that you were -- -- >> if you want to ask our guest questions please call.

caller: last time you were asked about controlled demolition on 9/11, you said there were aspects that remained unanswered. -- how was it not congresses place to reinvestigate the biggest mass murdering u.s. history? i think 9/11 and tom kane -- a bipartisan commission him i was part of the legislation to establish it. i believe they did a fantastic job in fleshing it out. following up to their findings as they said in their report, the united states is safer, but it is not safe. i think it will always be some remaining question that will never get to the bottom of. many of the questions they raise, including a lack of intelligence that lead to

dysfunction within our own capabilities to detect and mitigate this terrible threat -- we are all in the process of trying to overcome it and make it work. much of what was recommended is now law. it was the speaker who offered hr one that took the findings and put them into law. some were done administratively. mr. smith, what i would why is syria so important to people here in the united states? me tell you what is important -- the money that you are going to spend. the military complexes are going to make money off of this. ingrained ino sending these so called fighters

overseas when the united states -- you voted against martin luther king for a holiday. you are spending the african- american's money to help these people overseas. we do not have the money to do this. i voted for martin luther king's holiday. the leader of the republican conference gave one of the most passionate speeches as to why this is part of advancing the civil rights movement. recognizing discrete man and died a martyr's -- recognizing this great man and died a martyr's death -- i voted for it. in terms of why do we care about syria -- we care because we care about human life, writes. subcommittee has

human rights. i chair the china commission and the helsinki commission which singles implement health -- helsinki final act. we care about human right all around the world. i am chairing a meeting at 3:00 today. the missing girls in india, there are tens of millions of missing girls as a direct result ion abortion as well as infanticide right at birth if the baby happens to be a girl. it came out of the population control movement right out of this country back in the 1960's. planned parenthood, the population council crafted this idea that we should eliminate the girl child while in your .row -- while in utero

mother whot rid of a will not be a mother when she is in her 20's. i wrote the trafficking victims protection act. that is the united states landmark law, i am the prime prevent, and ao human trafficking -- to prevent common day human trafficking. we're country would speak to human rights -- i speak like no other. when the people in serial are -- when theyed people in syria are being destroyed -- i believe the country made the switch because they had a false notion as to who assad was. back in 2011, hillary clinton could not have made it more clear.

i watched it. i read watched it recently. she said, she left the impression was a reformer. when she got criticized for that and try to say many people think he is a reformer, i didn't. kerry had just been there. it looked like there was this big grand opening to syria. post" to itson credit looked at it and said she clearly left the impression that she thought assad was a reformer. that kind of thinking leads to disastrous consequences over when the arab spring began his crackdown and were nowhere to be found. host: here's barbara. caller: good morning.

my -- one of my favorite republican presidents. i think it was teddy roosevelt who said speak softly, but carry a big stick. i believe if you vote this resolution down, you are breaking that big stick. i think the president has and will do everything he can to alleviate the situation in syria. i think he has so much working against him here at home. host: you support military efforts or no? caller: if the president says that is what we need to do, that is what we need to do. speak softly and carry a big stick is a great phrase, but use that stick with unbelievably prudent ways and war should always be the last resort with

exclamation points after it. last week, secretary of state john kerry -- when i asked him d orderns, did assa the strike with chemical weapons, he did not answer it. he defined ahow limited strike -- we were told the strike in libya was only supposed to last 78 days, 78 days, 70 days is not a few days. miscalculation in the fog of war, and unintended consequences -- we don't know what iran might do. we don't know what russia will do. i believe we have an opening with putting chemical weapons under international jurisdiction. it is unclear will they be honest about it, transparent, a trusted verification mechanism.

there are all kinds of unanswered questions. coming from the lips of the people of putin, but especially rose's showcharlie last night, there is not a shred of evidence that chemical weapons were used by his troops against anyone. they distort, lie, lie, lie. they say this is how we are going to resolve it. we have to take it with a grain of salt. i give the white house high marks for saying there is high skepticism about this, and john kerry has said that as well. i am hoping there will not be a bombing, a hosing off of missiles which could have disastrous consequences. we need to work this through diplomatically and find a solution. oilave not burned the night and worked this so a griffith -- aggressively to stop this bloodshed.

crimes tribunal would make it very clear, if you commit crimes against humanity, you're going to prison. some have suggested -- what about the criminal court? syria nor the united states are parties to that. that doesn't mean a referral cannot be made, that has happened in the past. has 18 situations. all of them are in sub-saharan africa. and 18ountries prosecutions in 10 years. one conviction. the yugoslav court has had 67 convictions. there is nimble mess. nibleness.is a it will be effective.

i think putin has over this last year, while he has seemingly friend, they sell them weapons and he has been in the russians have slowly -- there was an ap report last june, taken a lot of their people out of it because they thought assad was crumbling. terrorist organization and the iranians have stepped up and that has put assad in a more offensive front to the point where he may be winning this battle with the syrian rebels. putin has not been enamored of this man who embarrasses russia. russia is a great country. it could stand democratic leadership that would be far

more consistent with the universal declaration of human rights. putin would want this to work out. not veto thedid yugoslav court, even though they were very close to milosevic. it was both sides. the bosnians would be held to account, the croatians, and any other war criminal so that equal approach -- we need to take that same approach. christmas of new jersey joining us for discussion. this is jack from minnesota. caller: good morning. said putin lied and that bashar al-assad lied. let me tell you who lies. my government.

democratic or republican. they lied us into a war in vietnam that cost 58,000 american lives. the tonkin gulf was admitted to be a lie by mcnamara. iraqlet us to a war in that cost us a million lives. i think that should have concerns you. my government lies repeatedly. propaganda, and you are part of that effort -- to bashar al- assad to killing people. it is not him who is cutting the next off of a catholic priest with a saw. .hat is our opposition we have gone in there, use our -- and our money to

guest: you just agreed to me as to why a syrian war tribunal needs to be applied to both sides. people are committing genocide that need to be put into prison for the rest of their lives. frankly, i am asking tough questions of the obama administration because i am not persuaded that going to war is the way to do this. questionsnswers to my as to did assad order a chemical attack near damascus on august 21? no answer. we need transparency without compromising sources and methods as to how it is collected. needs to be on the table if you

are going to make a case to go to war. the telephone conversations with lyndon johnson immediately after the incident in the gulf of tokin -- he was talking mcnamara and others. you can see that there was the beginning of deception. there have been deceptions other times. there wasar in iraq faulty intelligence. the lady before talk about speaking softly and carrying a big stick -- i think we need to speak honestly and use a big stick if it is warranted. it is not warranted in this case. the security advisor, rice, in this situation -- and the clip , we talkedwed before about people questioning us a broad peak -- people questioning us abroad.

it is not a panacea. erected, cobbled together immediately, no waiting till after the hostilities have indict-- in diet -- assad right now. begin the process of bringing him to court. i met with another leader face toface and his ability travel is very limited for what he did and are for. it is a matter of when and not if -- i believe -- he will spend time for the crimes he committed. in syria, we have not had a criminal court. it could set a precedence for the other barbaric behavior that

has gone on. it could put the iranians on notice that they are trying to achieve nuclear capabilities -- that they will be held to account. felt, new jersey, republican line. caller: congressman smith, i sent your letter this week to which he responded. my main concern is something you brought up that -- with a very good point. that is the troubling stories about whohearing supply these chemical weapons to the al qaeda rebels. 9/11 is coming up, why are we supporting al qaeda on 9/11? thank you tom a congressman smith. we had her hearing around the same time with secretary

kerry. they put out parts of a report that they gave to the united nations about a march and killed the couple dozen people. we have got to get to the bottom of this. this could be just a delaying tactic. inspectors come in and look at the evidence. my hope would be is that they had untethered access. they were not able to determine last time who did it. they were just, to the best of my knowledge, looking at what happened, that people got sick and go to the hospital and the ofe, but there are a lot questions. chance toyou have a look at that? yes.:

i read it, and i remain unpersuaded. host: because? i cannot talk, and that is for real, because i would break the law. the one question i asked, did strikerder this chemical ? ?o we know, or do we not know secretary kerry failed to answer that question. and then it would be a very little strike. it may be a game changer, but we are not in regime change. why are we not targeting assad? we are targeting a lot of young people who could literally lose their lives. i am sure assad has taken all of his weapons and could the next wherehools and places

innocent people act as human shields. he has been given a month to do it. not a month, a few weeks. so, it is like, i do not know. if we are going to do this, we do it right, and i think the president has changed his mind so much. chief, hemmander-in- talks so, what is the word, it openly about chemical weapons. where are these chemical weapons ? they are so despicable weapons of mass destruction, and to say we do not do this, we are doing nothing, set up the court. as a diplomatic solution. host: let's go to macon, georgia. al, democrats line. i am a disabled veteran. i agree with obama 100%.

i am a disabled veteran, and i agree 100%, and i think we should leave this in the hands of the military and the veteran to know what to do and how to do it. why military over a diplomatic approach? because i think this is the situation right here. guest: and that is why americans are great. leave it to the military. the military is not making this decision. let's be very clear. the testimony, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff follows orders. he is directed to come up with target lists and parameters. it is not his call. he may advise, but it is not his call. it is the commander-in-chief, barack obama, hopefully with concurrence, whether we go now or in the future, without

congress. that should be enough that it does not happen. it is still unclear, and they floated this repeatedly. no, he may still do it. i think it is a lack of being persuaded based on what we have been given, taking military action. firing missiles and who knows what else, bombs, whatever. it is an act of aggression. for somese aggression purposes. we have done that in many wars over the years. is thisght back, but the preferred avenue to use? the preferred tool to use? when we do not know what the outcomes will be, what the targets are? these capabilities.

i am not sure what that means. with the free syrian army and the rebels. there is an article this morning on sky news. they are helping to pick fights. i do not know if it is true, but there is some speculation out there. strike, of the military john kerry, if it is true, we , andot talking about war unbelievably small strike on syria. well, that is counterproductive, as well. the shot across the bow that president obama talks about. what is that all about? .ndict them anyone who has been involved in in trust is for the rest of their lives, put them in jail. that will send a message. we are here with our guest, chris smith. good morning.

what i'm trying to figure out is why since obama democrats, office, republicans, no matter what decision he makes, you all are against him. he cannot make a decision correct without you all dragging him through the mud, saying he did wrong. host: caller, as far as the president's approach, where do you fall on this? chemical weapons were used, and we also know that obama pulled our troops out, because he did not want them doing any more fighting. therefore, if you think about it, it seems to me -- i am sorry. i guess, do you supporting

military action, i guess is what we are asking? caller: yes, i do. we do know that chemical weapons were used. ok, thank you very much. have: the differences i are on substance. i mean, with obamacare, you have got high level democrats who are now calling it a train wreck. is it willming in very clearly be increased. many labor unions that got behind it, including the teamsters, have now said it is a disaster, and they want a major fix for their members. "chicago tribune"

article a few weeks ago, and it said not only would it incentivize the part timing of america by employers, but the employees themselves, it will take away the incentive to work extra hours. people will be looking to get the benefits from the government, the tax credits, to subsidize their health care, particularly in the $30,000, 40,000 dollar, $50,000 range. i find that outrageous. this has been one of the staples . you go to work, a good company, work hard to make sure you have a benefits package including health care. now, more and more people are going to drop their employees. announced that the family members, the spouses will not be covered. these are all consequences. this has nothing to do with president obama as a person.

it has to do with their policy. i do judge people by the content of the character and not the color of their skin, and more than the contact of -- content of their character, i do look at them and say look at that policy. i can be for or against it. was whiteent, if you on this, we would be rallying against him. lee,previous guest, barbara- i am more conservative, but she does not like it either. there is a huge coming together of left, right, and people in the middle. the current members are about 238. those that have yeses in the house of representatives. it has nothing to do with obama as a person. it has everything to do with obama's policies, and i think we should keep that very clear.

arming rebels. there is intelligence on that. if they are true, they have done so, and are in the field. says, does that not create hatred towards us? for those of us in congress, it does not. we have been generous. whoe are k many people now are refugees, and they are crying out for help. them, but many of them, have left because of the genocide being directed towards them, and when you talk about getting m-16s, and the president says he is for fighting guns. we are not sure what that means yet. the brady bill, the ground

checks, to make sure that guns do not feel -- fall into the hands of people who are felons or have serious mental problems or other problems. what kind of vetting are we doing to the people that we say, here is an m-16? toin, part of my job is raise questions, because i want answers. there is proper vetting, and secretary kerry used the term "v etting" several times now. look at benghazi. we are at the anniversary of the slaughter at benghazi. the people guarding them outside, some of them just ran away from their post. ,e need to do a much better job but to give weapons to people without vetting. without defining that. get a couple more

calls for you. from michigan, the republican line. thank you. over the last few years, our president has contradicted himself many times. on obamacare, you can keep your policy if you like it. field, i havee been in for 25 years, for blue cross for management, and i can tell you they are changing their policies. my policy changed. syria, my problem , he did notnghazi fire the weapons, you are not totally convinced that he was the one who fired the chemical weapons, but -- look in the will world? is that what you are worried about? the world,re

congress, or the american people have faith on what the president is counting on. i watched him draw a red line on tv, when he said he did not draw a red line. guest: it is benghazi. it is obamacare. it was even public financing. campaigned, he talked about that, and he raised so much more than anyone ever in u.s. history. saides krauthammer something very important. obama is basking in a perceived notion. we have got to be careful about being a tough guy. we have got to be right and wise and focused on consequences and consistent. you know, when he went out to play golf right after a very lasttant statement

weekend, it sent a very poor message, on-again, off-again. this is the same administration that for months, including secretary of state hillary clinton, had suggested that assad was a reformer. post,"ad "the washington when it was said that it was thought that assad was a reformer. he was never a reformer. he is not one now. he will not be won in the future. his record on human rights. i had the human rights report from the tiananmen square anniversary, when they were gone down in tiananmen square when they were seeking democracy. go toot get a visa to china because they have barred me now because i raise human rights issues all the time now. including with a lawyer. we asked the president to raise publicly, the nobel peace prize

got it one year after sayingnt obama got it, that the president, xi jinping, let him out. let the nephew out who has now been put into prison and has been tortured. we saw nothing of the kind. a brief mention of human rights as part of a talking point. no focus on the horrific human rights abuses that china has been committing and continues to commit. it lacks credibility when it comes to human rights policy. i would have thought that being a nobel peace prize winner, he would be uniquely positioned and empowered to speak to human rights issues consistently all over the world, and he has not. chris smith has been joining us from new jersey. thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much.

sano is going to join us, taking a look at intelligence, particularly what is put out to congress and those who need to know. we have that discussion up next, but first, do not forget, we have the president tonight, and here is an update on the news from c-span radio. on the idea of putting syrian weapons under international control. it was written that the syrian opposition is dead set against a brand-new obama administration policy to pursue a new diplomatic solution with russia in order to avoid a military strike with syria. delayo want to say the and possible cancellation of the strike would only embolden syrian president bashar al- assad. meanwhile, republican senator john mccain speaking on "cbs

ofs morning" says the idea syria turning over their chemical weapons leaves and skeptical. a new diplomatic offensive, needs time to play out. he does call it a potential breakthrough. lawmakersent briefs today on capitol hill before the address at 9:00 p.m., live on c- span, and they will be sharing remarks on the senate floor. times reporter just moreed that there will be on the floor. those are some of the headlines on c-span radio. >> sagamore hill was different because it was never a commercial venture.

be self-not try to sufficient. what edith wanted from sagamore hill was to offset the expenses, ,o they did raise a -- hay grains they could feed their horses, to reduce the cost of having horses here, and they did have a lovely garden, which produced everything from corn to strawberries. typesad eight different of grapes and strawberry and blueberry fields, but the idea was for the staff on site, also to reduce cost in maintaining a property like this. >> watch our program on edith it saturday atee 7:00 p.m. eastern, and we continue our series next week as we look at first lady helen taft. >> " washington journal"

continues. sano is our guest. welcome. idea of how us an the cia gathers intelligence? there are other intelligence collections efforts. a number of others, but cia focuses primarily as the lead for the united states on human intelligence, which means out and spies that go collect information for the u.s. government, and that information is brought back to cia headquarters from stations overseas, and then it is scrubbed, re-scrubbed, and put into analytical pieces and then

put into policy. word we heard the "scrubbed." what does that mean? in the intelligence community, that means validation, and we get that on three levels. confidence, medium confidence, and high confidence. i have not seen the classified intelligence, but from what i have seen in the white house reporting, it is listed as high confidence. that means it is considered to be particularly strong, vetted, and then validated. normally, we have to validate information from a source. ones, ass to the other well. other types. you always try to get fromborating information preferably an additional source or sources, so it is very rare

that you would take a single piece of intelligence and categorize that as your futile proof. you like to get as many sources as possible on a specific item. -- you categorize that. corroborated with sources inside the united states, or is it wider than that? cia operates all over the world. with otherroborate intelligence relationships. we have close relationships, in this case specifically the british intelligence service, and their information, and, again, not having seen it, the classified versions of it, does corroborate the information that the cia has collected. host: when you talk about the

collection of information, we are talking spies. guest: correct. host: it seems cloaked and dagger. as in theis not movies. the military services, in general, each branch of service has their officers that conduct involves aty, and it rather lengthy process in terms of acquiring the information. to validate the source. in other words, determine what that individuals motivations are. have agendas, and motivations vary according to individual, and then the information that they collect is dependent upon a number of factors. one, of course, is the access. do they have access to information that we find of value and that feels intelligence gaps, and two, are

they trustworthy, and there are exercises the agencies go through to help determine these levels of accuracy, excess of -- accessibility, reliability. and it is not a one-time process. required byat are any intelligence service, be it the united states or others, go through a series of validation exercises, so you are always testing your source to assure that they are reporting accurately what they heard, and you have to discern whether or not they have an agenda of their own, and occasionally, that is the case, so you have to be able to discern that, so it is not as easy or quick as it may be seen in the movies. aboutour guest is talking intelligence gathering, and you can talk about it with him on one of three lines. democrats, 202-585-3880.

formrepublicans, 202-585-3881. , 202-585-3882.s guest: human reporting, although they are technical issues, as well. these are put into intelligence reports that are finished intelligence, by the director of intelligence. also, the reports are put into various different formats, the highest one being the president's daily brief, and that goes to a very small and select group of individuals. the president cap did, in

essence. and that is delivered every morning. it is a relatively thin document that has encapsulated a most important issues that have come up over the last 24 hours. he gets it every day. pieces, more finished and one is the national intelligence, and those take more time to compile. it involves the entire intelligence community. it was previously done under the auspices of the cia, but then it fell to others. they determine who gets access to it. now, certainly, the intelligence oversight committee in the house and senate will oversee all of that, and they can get, as the congressman mentioned in the last segment, that classified notrmation is provided to just the oversight committees but to select members of congress who have a need to know, and that is done in very controlled ways. host: is it hand delivered?

e-mailed? hand delivered. i think president obama is more tuned, but generally, it is a printed document that is handcarried by the intelligence community briefers, who then sit with the individual, be at the president and other members of the cabinet, and will respond to questions. the president will read it and review it, and if there are questions, the intelligence community generally responds in a 24-hour or less time frame. host: what does everybody need to know? the president's daily brief, if we are talking about that one, that covers events that have happened over the past 24 hours, for his members of senior staff and cabinet, and request follow-up, and if it is a more lengthy, finished intelligence piece, a report, then that is basically focused on intelligence gaps, and

current issues, so, for instance, you take syria as an issue. there will be a range of questions that come out of the policy makers, in terms of what they need to know and, of course, how soon do they need to know it. that goes out to the intelligence community, not just cia, but, again, when you are looking at humans, if it signals intelligence, some of the assessment that was done on the syria assessment was done by intelligence, and other information was gathered by geospatial intelligence. satellites. imagery. signals intelligence is communications. the ability to intercept the communications and decrypt it is thessary, and then reading white house statement on the intelligence they have. , one, that they had communications between military leadership and the

individuals who actually fired the rockets. they had geospatial or satellite imagery that was able to determine where those rockets originated, and then you have human source reporting, and, again, they could not go into detail for understandable reasons, that said they had resources on the ground, and you also have open source information, which is a major just in thenot united states, so you are competing with social media to acquire this information. host: our first call from west virginia. this is joe, democrats line. joe, you are on the line. go ahead. yes, sir. my question is, in your professional -- yes, my name -- my question is -- i tell you what, i will put you on hold.

this is sarah. sarah, good morning. the question i was having. shoot. go ahead, caller. the question i was having, i have always been told is the result of a reaction. what would be your point of view if we would strike syria, the recoil of that? the recoil of taking a military strike? host: yes. guest: that is the big question everyone is debating. is there a plan b. said, thisy kerry would be a very limited strike, and secretary kerry's words, i

believe, was an insignificant strike. there was the assad interview just a few days ago that said we can't expect everything. now, i think part of that is bravado, and as president obama has said recently, they really do not have that capability, but they really can cause damage locally. uponnk assad, depending the type of strike that was done, how much damage it inflicts, it would be very difficult for him to launch an aggressive extended response, but i can't expect that we would see some repercussions in the area, but our personnel in the area, our military, in particular, have been preparing for this. that is part of their responsibilities, so i think they will be able to handle it. whether it escalates beyond that, that will be an ongoing debate that not only congress but the american people will be having for some time.

michigan, the independent line. you are on. go ahead. if assad says he has nothing to do with the chemical attack, and then the second we ask him to hand over their weapons, "oh, sure. i got them." when he hasm over been murder weapon in his hands, will we take action then? not think so,o and i agree with you that it was rather comical that his repeated statements were, no, we do not have any chemical weapons. host: actually, we have a little bit from charlie rose. take a look. >> attacks on american bases in the middle east if there is an attack? >> you should expect everything. the government is not the only

player in this issue. we have different parties, different factions. so you have to expect that. >> tell me what you mean when you say to expect everything. >> expect every action. >> including chemical warfare? if the rebels or region or in this anywhere else have it. it could happen. i do not know. so he turns to the rebels and the terrorists. his words. to answer the caller's question, it is rather chemical, to be denying it all along, and then saying based on the russian proposal, yes, sure, i will do it. i think it is a stalling tax on their part, and i think it would be tactically difficult, because you first have to find and verify where these wetjen -- weapon caches are.

fractured.e whether they would be willing to lay down their arms for an extended. of time, where syrian forces or u.n. forces or other forces were to come in and do an inspection at those sites, but to answer the question, if they were, in fact, to turn over everything, and we could verify that, i think a strike would be out of the question. host: good morning. i was wondering if the u.s. has undeniable proof about assad using atrocities on his we not go inhy do and get the tribunal in order and arrest him for these crimes, rather than waiting for him to leave office or go into exile? thank you. good point.

the difficulty with that is, as we have found with other very difficultis to convene the international tribunals. you look at individuals who were placed into the docket based on war crimes during the bosnian conflict, or war crimes in africa. andakes an and seemingly -- exceedingly long time. i think the time involved makes it prohibitive. not to mention that you have international jockeying with the international powers, most notably like with russia or china, that would likely use their efforts to stall is not completely disrupted that type of a proceeding. somebody asked how long it takes to declassify something. average, 20 years, but that is on average. in some instances, they go well beyond that, to pending on the sensitivity of the information.

aboute also talking technical sources, and on that subject specifically, the main requirement in terms of declassification of any information, be it for human sources or technical means, is the perennial protection of sources and methods, and sources and methods does not just mean human sources. it could mean a technical capability. that would determine roughly how long, so i would say at a minimum, it is 20 years. from pennsylvania on our line formrepublicans, go ahead. skeptical that there are forces there that are not tied to the muslim brotherhood, and i am concerned that the muslim brotherhood or the wrong rebels would win. sunni government that

makes no distinction between the koran and the state and would like to go to palestine without and thatf course, assad is unfit to rule over the islam, and that kind of dynamic, i think, would infar more at destabilizing the region than anything assad would do. we have serious you have and we areack there, scared enough that i thought might lose, because then their families would be governed by seventh century koran interpretations. they would all be wearing burqas and under sharia law. >> i think that is a very valid concern.

this is certainly the case in syria. that does not mean that i am arguing for it, but we understand the system there to a degree, of course, and you are absolutely right. is replaced, and it becomes a much more fractional life society, as we have seen in other parts of the world,sunni, shiite, it depends on who has the most power at the time and in the region, that these are very legitimate concerns, and i think that is what causes the american public to have more than a degree of hesitancy in terms of wanting to move forward , and not just in this instance but in other areas of the middle east, as well. mentioned several times leading up to these discussions, who do you pick, and you are right. there are some affiliated with the muslim brotherhood. there are some affiliated with .he taliban and al qaeda

how do you validate these people? and with congress, as we mentioned earlier, how do we know who to give arms to? it can come back to bite us, as it did in previous instances in the region. what about manufactured or compromised? netherthat is a question. that is one of the first questions. as i mentioned earlier, what is that individuals agenda? do they have an objective, that while they may seem to be working parallel with our american interests may have a subplot that supports their own goals and objectives? has to one of the keys be that sources has to be validated. the individual has to be validated and vetted, but you always take a look at the

information, regardless of the source, even if it is a long- had,source, that you have and you have reliability issues there that you are concerned about, you have to make the whatmination, ok, alternatives could this represent? is this individual feeding me something to benefit his or his organization's own goals, so that is a very important question that the intelligence community looks at in depth whenever they require information. part of the information that was put out by secretary kerry and others is part of the video. some of this is graphic, so if you need to look away -- how do we know about this? it is very hard to fabricate, not that it is not possible, but the accusation has been that the opposition groups have put this together.

one, it would first presuppose that the opposition has the capability to launch these types of chemical strikes, and we have, and, again, not having seen the classified information, we believe we have your refutable proof of where the rockets were launched from and that they were under government control. isther a side or not, that secondary, because he is the head of the country and is responsible. you dr. the type of material that is presented in the videos? yes, you could, but you're talking about a large scale fabrication effort in a very short amount of time probably bite people who do not have the technical expertise. social media parts that they have put into the evidence, as well? guest: yes. host: independent line. were just talking

about this, and i think it was senator grossman who brought up that they had intelligence that the syrian's were surprised, the commanders were surprised, about the attack. i also heard a report that the cia in saudi arabia, in training you know, the ones that is thist, and that it is going to be more of a problem than going in with tom strikes? guest: you mean in terms of arming rebels and using them as surrogates? caller: yes. we did that in libya. and it ended up in mali, fighting the french. guest: i am unaware, nor would i traininged to serious any rebel groups, and while that may be an assumption we can easily make, you're absolutely

right. in terms of creating problems, and, again, going back to my earlier comment, you have to understand what their motivations are. so idea that it is fractured, it is going to be very difficult to discern which group, and you also take into account which group would and these prevail, are tribal issues as well as religious issues, and even if they were not to claim ascendancy, are there going to be effective leaders? it is a very shortened time frame here. the civil war has been going on for two years. it is very difficult to pick sides and who do we support. from new jersey, joining us. for john sano, on the independent line. the u.s. government has

been caught lying and using bad intelligence in a lot of modern conflicts, including iraq with the weapons of mass destruction and even benghazi, where it was like a bunch of bs, really. accomplishing their goals and almost every military conflict. i am sorry. that is my dog. the american government and the intelligence community has very little credibility. ?an our guest talk about that you are right. the issue in terms of the iraq war and the weapons of mass destruction does weigh very heavily, and i think it has actually helped in terms of getting a better assessment on syria, because everyone in the intelligence community, and

certainly everyone in the administration, not to mention in congress or the american public, are aware of the difficulties encountered in the intelligence community and the policy arena when we talked about the iraq weapons of mass distraction. part of that intelligence process was, unfortunately, politicized, but it created an atmosphere, as you point out, that it created mistrust. ,nd for lack of a better term that motivated the intelligence community to make sure they have gotten everything as right as they can. no 100% solution here, but i think you are right. the credibility issue is one that needs to be addressed at every opportunity, and in terms of every piece of information, so i have confidence in the intelligence we selected. part of it is also based on what we have seen in social media. and i think it is very good that the american public and not just congress, but the american

public in general, questions their intelligence immunity, calls them to task. how do you know this information is correct? and a certain degree of transparency, keeping in mind that you must protect sources. this is an ongoing process, and you are right, it will always be a credibility issue. host: how much of intelligence gathering is with contractors? provide additional support, not to mention experience. the defenseork in community have decades of experience, in general, in the intelligence community, so it is not like they're coming in from a private corporation and do not know anything about it. contractor cannot make a decision on the recruitment of assetividual, what that may be paid, how that asset may be tasks. he can perform some of those

functions, and, again, they have considerable experience. with decisions must rest staff officers, be it with the central intelligence agency or another area of the u.s. government. edward snowden. guest: snowden is a rather interesting case. i think he is an unfortunate young man who is more than a delusional, but keep in mind that a lot of this information that is coming out is not completely new. it was diebold many years earlier back in 2005 in a book on the nsa. he spoke about a lot of these programs. obviously, snowden has provide additional details. he has got people concerned. it is the big brother mantra, but if you look at the actual numbers, and, again, i do not have all of the numbers, but the

sheer massive amounts of data that have been looked at by nsa, the percentage that sort of falls into that area where they should not have seen it is, and i am not trying to justify it in any sense, less than one percent, much less than one percent, so you have got a 99 99. something. not just cia, they do not wake up every morning and say, you know, i am going to try to find a way to disrupt, you know, the privacy of american citizens. that is not their job. that is not their intent. they are doing, as president obama said himself, they are doing great work, helping to defend the nation.

will there be some instances where there were some errors made, i think that is what we are talking about. there were some errors made, of course. a society, and mistakes will happen, but i think you have to look at the intent, and the intent is to protect the american public. leave after the intelligence gathered. how do you know that stays secret? you sign agreements that are in perpetuity, and if you are fine violating that, at the minimum, you would lose your security clearances, but people do not join the intelligence community to just learn secrets. you could probably get as many secrets by social media as you can from having a clearance and operating in a classified so what they are looking for is individuals have

integrity. it is not just a job, to coin the old navy ad. it is more an individual who is looking to serve his country, very similar to what our young men and women are doing in the armed forces today. toledo, ohio, independent line, good morning. caller: i am curious, and if it is true, i understand, that there are no documents being declassified because of sequestration, and they are increasing backlog of freedom of information requests that are not being processed, and sequestration is not giving us the openness we need in our government. we need to investigate the past 10 years, starting with 9/11 forward, or earlier. i do not believe that aside launched the weapons. i think it also came from the man who launched 9/11.

thank you for your time, and i will listen off air. guest: that is a valid point, and you are right about the classification going on now. they cut back on staff. we are talking about individuals who are sitting down and review page by page, line by line documents and making determinations about whether they could be classified, and it goes much, much further than just 10 years. 9/11, youigation with will see that. it is going on now. looking for the investigation to be made public, you are looking

at some time if not longer. it will extend the timeline even further. thank you for being on, sir, and i have not heard this question asked. do we know who developed and sold the gas to the syrian's, and if we do, should they not be held directly responsible for what is going on in syria? if we have not know that information. we very well may have, but i do not have that information. i agree that if we determine who sold it, they should be held accountable, as well.

the minimum requirement is a bachelors degree in any field, hopefully with a gpa of 3.0, and additional classifications, but not mandatory, is a second language or the ability to learn a second language, overseas experience. the military is certainly welcome. a non-english- speaking environment for at least six months. i do not know if that is an ideal candidate, but that is generally what we look for. we are certainly an equal opportunity employer. andent 28 years at the cia, it was an exceptional time for me. i enjoyed every moment, and it would not change. host: what is the background check like? it is expensive, as you would assume. you go through the process of

being hired at the agency. it is a very time-consuming but , and itocused process took me eight years to get into the cia. i kept trying from a time i was a sophomore in college, applying missingrent areas, deadlines and not having enough qualifications, and eventually, i think i just wore them down. host: north carolina, democrats line, for john sano. caller: how are you, sir? host: i am fine. what happened with the wmd in a rack -- in iraq. somebody and the russians, not to admit where

they were exported to, some jet aircraft flying across the line, if you had any information on that, i would be interested, and i will hang up and listen to your answer. no, i do not have any information on that. these intelligence gaps are probably covered as much in the technical realm as they are in the human realm. of course, if they are classified, i would not have access to that. a fascinating topic, but i am not cleared for that. host: what is your clearance? guest: i have a top secret clearance. host: is that the highest? guest: yes. caller: i will try to be quick. the other question, if we were to go in an attempt to destroy

the weapons that cerium might have, are you not, in fact, going to be spreading the gas at the same time? it is not like we can pick up the bombs and take them away and detonate them someplace. how do you destroy something without spreading the gas right in the area? well, to answer your first part of the question, the relationship between the fbi and the cia, you are right, it was more than a little bit of friction, and it was 30 or 40 years ago. again, i retired several years ago, the relationship could not be

better. it was almost impossible again,d several years ago, the relationship could not be better. it was almost impossible to have effective lines of communication between the organizations, and today they work literally, physically, side-by-side. there are people in the fbi that work in the cia counterterrorism center. there are individuals in cia who side in fbi field offices. the coordination, i think, is exceptional, and a lot of it has to do with individuals who are in charge of these organizations. when robert mueller was the director of the fbi, you could not ask for a better calling on not just the war on terror on foreign intelligence and counterintelligence issues, and that permeated throughout the organization, so today, i think the organization is acceptable. they do great things together. the second part of your question, and come again, i am not a technical expert by any stretch of the imagination, there are safe ways to acquire , to include not just chemical weapons, but other weapons of mass destruction, so there are mechanisms there that we have, particularly in the military. we have some phenomenal young men and women who are capable of

doing that in the iraq theater or the afghan theater of war, so i think the american public can be pretty self-assured that these weapons will be handled appropriately, if we can get to them and determine where they are. upper darby, pennsylvania, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. a lot of people have been with a in and are saying strike on the syrian's, it would , and therepresidency is no doubt that the united states is the most powerful force in the world. nobody is arguing that. president set this red put his word out so

he should act upon it. if he does not act upon it, it will weaken the presidency. what we see after the united states launched its attack on lot ofthat would kill a innocent people, and they would lose their lives. host: we are running out of time, caller. does the u.s. maintain a role with intelligence gathering? guest: absolutely. the cia in terms of collecting intelligence and providing it is the primary. objective, --y independentlorida,

line, go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. all of these agents leads chemical traces on the ground, and it seems to me that somebody , canome in and find out any of these be traced back to the united states? they actually banned the weapons. the treaty they signed, they got .id of it guest: there is always that possibility. it would be highly unlikely for those two have left the country. in terms of determining this, you have to keep in mind that the syrian military bombed

extensively the sites that were hit with these chemical weapons, with the sole purpose of destroying as much evidence as possible, so that is going to make that process more difficult. 2005 to 2007, served as a former deputy director, looking at intelligence gathering, john sano, thanks for your time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., september 10, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable ileana ros-lehtinen to act as speaker t