don't know if you can answer secretary kerry's statement. but he says that of course they're waiting for the proposal. this is the one that we've been discussing all morning. but we're but we're not waiting long. is there a time limit that administration is willing to wait for that proposal? like a week? two weeks? >> i do not know of a specific amount of hours or days. i think the president mentioned this last night. i think it is clear that iroposal has to come rapidly. have not seen the developments other than what secretary kerry announced your on the agreement with some of the countries that he noted to go before the u.n. i would assume that this is on a

very fast track. the president has made that clear.thank you. >> secretary hagel, we know the issues of deter and degrade seem to reference the stockpiles of the chemical weapons. general dempsey says it would be a very limited and directed and tailored precision as always. they would limit the possibility of any kind of injury to the civilian population, but notwithstanding we could anticipate some kind of collateral damage. and i thought that was also aligned with the ultimate goal, which is that we all know that everyone is saying that any military action taken will not resolve the issue regarding that chemical weapons. it would just deter, degrade at

that will would be required would be a diplomatic resolution. your statement in your testimony, a political solution by the syrian people is the only way to ultimately end the violence in syria. secretary kerry is helping with efforts to help the parties in syria to move toward a negotiated transition. the word negotiated transition is what caught my eye. we have said that we are not engaged in any kind of quote on change."regime yet a negotiated transition seems to imply a regime change. it is my understanding that there is the potential regime change. are we looking -- we talk about a diplomatic resolution on this

limited resolution. are we looking for it diplomatic resolution on the use of chemical weapons? or are we looking for a diplomatic resolution for the negotiated transition for the syrian people, which seems to be regime change? >> two specific issues. one, the resolution is defined clearly and the language speaks for itself. i hope that cleared most of it i don't know if you've seen the senate foreign resolution that they submitted last week. it defines it. it is very clear. in the scope and the length, all that is necessary in the authority like this. and the administration can work with that authorization. the second part of your question

-- it is the policy of this administration, as stated by president obama, president assad has lost the has lost the credibility to govern his country. there is a specific request. it is not about regime change. two separate issues. >> the gentlelady's time expired.mr. cook. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know it has been a long morning. i want to talk about chemical warfare in general. going back many years ago, the ones who probably have a signature attached to that.and that is the russians. who wrote the manuals, who wrote -- dealt with saddam hussein, and i am just wondering if we are forgetting that leverage point militarily.

my second condition is -- both gentlemen were in the military. everybody has said, it is a limited attack. you're not sure what the response will be. if something happens, whether it is to those patriot batteries that are in within range and they have to go into the fully buttoned up conditions, which everybody knows that has been in the military, you are good for maybe half an hour before you pass out. if you could just -- since we are talking about chemical warfare, if the signature of the russians and their historical ties in terms of leverage to syria and those countries, that have been looked at. secondly, if you could address the capability of the military in terms of up-to-date training. >> we are well aware of the

expertise that the russians have in chemical weapons, and in fact i think we believe that this offer might have some credibility. in terms of protective posture mop, it is zero through four, it would be irresponsible for a commander to have people in mop four. you can't sustain operations and by the way, mop four is full gear, protective mask, gloves and boots. what commanders do is ratchet it up and down based on the threat. we are prepared to do that as the threat changes and we also believe that we have no -- good enough radar that we would also understand when the trend was highest. >> thank you, general. the other question i wanted to ask. you were talking about utilities and camouflage and changing one part to the other, and i raise the question, when is the last

time your chemical -- this was three or four months ago, when has your chemical protective equipment been looked at? i know it is expensive every time we do that, but now if we are talking about chemical environment, i think we have to look again at how we are going to outfit those individual soldiers, marines, anybody that goes there. i get very excited about it and congressman jones talked about -- it was a long time ago, but you never forget those troops. if you could just address that very briefly. >> thanks, congressman. you are exactly right. because we haven't dealt with this kind of threat in a while, your question is valid. i assure you that we are

constantly updating both our chemical equipment and our doctrine. and we continue to train to that standard of places like the national training center, so forth. also, as you know, chemical gear has a shelf life. it has to be replenished. the new chemical suit has a shelf life and we monitor that closely. >> i am always concerned about the readiness. they canceled exercises because of money. as you know, if you train to go to war, and when we start doing that and the balloon goes up, you never know what is going to happen. mr. secretary, we talked about this in afghanistan. both of you gentlemen have been in combat.

this is very serious and we have to make sure that we -- the troops have to be combat ready. we can't be stupid about this. >> thank you, mr. carson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general dempsey, i am interested in better understanding how a strike would be carried out with minimal risk to our servicemembers. i am particular concerned about anti-ship risks. could you tell us about the --ility to conduct a straight a strike with minimal risk from the assad forces?>> risk to our force. the strikes as currently conceived would be standoff. i won't say more than that. we would remain outside of the ability of the syrian regime to threaten us. >> secretary hagel, can you tell us about what resources and capabilities the arab league and other regional players can bring to an operation in syria?

>> secretary kerry noted some specific countries that we are talking to who are very supportive of our potential what want to participate in some way. those engagements and conversations are going on right now as well as our military to military with some of those countries. >> thank you, gentlemen.mr. chairman, i yield back. >> to why. -- thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general dempsey, i am going to refer to an article that was in army magazine. you said, once we take action we should prepare for what comes next. deeper involvement is hard to avoid. you also referred to use of force no less than an act of war.

we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the weapons we seek to control. the fuller quote in your letter to senator carl levin, i know that the decision to use force is not one that any of us take slightly. it is no less than an act of war.that is where those quotes came from. i tend to agree with you on those assessments. secretary kerry -- i am sorry had to leave but i will address this to him -- what we have to do is make we're two people -- make clear to people we are not going to war. that makes it very difficult for us to hear one comment that this is no less than an act of war and the secretary saying, we are not going to war. military actions are always going to have a greater chance of success if we have the backing of the american people which is difficult right now. it is difficult to make that case when you hear these two seemingly diametrically opposed opinions of what we are doing.

i will make this easy. it should be a yes or no answer for you. i pose this question -- i will ask secretary kerry for the record. if facilities in the united states were attacked by another nation in the same manner that is being proposed by the united states upon syria, which you know what those proposals are, and has been described as a severe consequence to the assad regime, would you -- if these were enacted on the united states, the same things we are proposing to do, would you consider that an act of war on the united states of america? >> i will answer briefly. i have said in previous testimony that the strike would be an act of war. i think the distinction the secretary is making is the connotation of war, the vision

of war is protracted long campaigns. that is not what we are envisioning. so then your answer would be yes, it would be an act of war -- >> yes. for a soldier, would you put them in conflict, it tends to be a war. >> secretary hagel? >> that is right. this is an issue of the definitions of war. we have not declared war in this country for a long time. in fact,been in some. two of the three longest wars we have ever been in, i think we agree our wars, but we did not clear them -- we did not declare them as wars. we can dance around definitions, but any time you use military authority or power, that is some aspect of war. >> thank you, sir. >> to i.back my time. -- thank you.

ms. shea porter. >> thank you very much for being here. i know you have had a grueling week. i have attended several of your briefings. we appreciate it. much. i do believe the intelligence. i am also concerned that we will swap chaos for chaos. assad is murderous, evil, all those things that we have talked about. the rebels have a problem also. they have up to 25% al qaeda and other extremist according to secretary of state. i am concerned about that. we said we don't than to topple -- we don't plan to topple assad, we just want to take out some capacity and degrade and deter. but what if it does happen? we don't really know what will happen in that situation. the best military plans sometimes go astray. who is going to get control of these chemical weapons? what is the plan -- perhaps you

can't say it, but i need to be reassured that there is some plan there. i am also concerned about the death of more innocent people. the united states will be blamed for that. we know that they will be posting just as they have posted the other victims. finally, how does this airstrike play out in the region? we have such a hodgepodge of different religions and causes and attitudes. how would this play out in the region for us and also for them? >> thank you and i recall your on thisns last night. issue. so thank you, congresswoman. i will give you my response and general dempsey may want to add something further. first, we recognize -- i think we have all said that there is always unpredictability anytime when a military strike occurs or

action is taken. we do everything we can as we have been to think through options, contingencies, possibilities. what are the options of retaliation? what would happen if the assad regime goes down? your note about the percentage of -- generally speaking, it is imperfect what our intelligence assessments are on the composition of terrorists for the bad groups in that 100,000 general group of -- who represent the opposition. that is all reality. there is also a significant percentage of pretty responsible individuals that make up the syrian military council and other dimensions of the opposition. there is no guarantee of any

outcomes. we think through these things and work with our partners along that border. we are very closely connected with all of those countries and their militaries and their leaders. the strikes and the options that we have given to the president are all options that factor in what you are talking about. that is one of the reasons it is noted in the resolution, and the president's requests, the focus, the objective was not to topple assad. specifically, to deter through destruction of his capabilities, a further use of chemical weapons. that also has a degrading effect on his military. >> excuse me, but what if is still sitting out there. >> that is a what if.

i don't know of anyone who can give you a 100% guarantee of anything, but i will also put the other side of this back on the table. what if we do nothing? we are pretty sure that he will continue not only to do what he is doing, but worse. >> i don't mean to interrupt but i am down to 30 seconds. i want to say one last thing. for the countries that are surrounding and saying that they support this, i would like to see them more visible. i would like them to say they plan to put their militaries there. i would like to see them say they will put their money there. i would like to see them step up i look atitarian aid. the numbers. the united states is leading the way and i am proud of that, but what we are also hearing from our constituents is, somebody else needs to step up and provide more humanitarian aid and provide more, whatever it is that they want in the region

always, of saying, -- good for you, united states, but we will not say our names publicly. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i represent the indiana second district.in northern indiana. we have heard like everybody else, the hesitancy and absolute -- in this mission.-- no in this mission. two questions, one is the urgency of the hour. why now? we have sat here and listened to you and other folks reading us every single time there has been a chemical issue. my question is, why now? if you could briefly answer that, i have a second question. >> i will start. my quick answer is, the scope of

this attack on the 21st of august, there is very little question now as the evidence continues to roll in that it was the assad regime who perpetuated this attack against their own people. the scope of this has shifted significantly from the earlier chemical weapons attacks. this last one was to clear an entire area. he used that as a clear military he had not done that in past attacks. that is one of the parts of this. >> i have nothing to add to that. >> my second question is, to me it was new information that we learned today that secretary kerry said that we support the opposition in syria. my question is, how were those opponents vetted? how do we know we can trust them? how many different factions are there? what criteria did we use to

decide to trust american foreign policy with folks who are considered rebels? >> i will begin and general dempsey may want to come in with more. we have been vetting through the syrian military council and our partners in that area. that is not new. the president announced in june that he was going to step up his assistance to the opposition, specifically the military council. we know, everyone here knows that the humanitarian assistance that we provide and the nonlethal assistance we provide has been significant. the president noted publicly in june that he would step that up to include military assistance.

in general, do you want to add anything? >> regional partners, the part of the opposition we have become familiar with, tribal leaders, make no mistake. i have done this personally in three different countries. it is challenging. we have a methodology. >> how do we know, back to chemical stockpiles, i asked this same question months ago. we talked about chemical stockpiles. we had everybody talking about this issue. i asked the question before, who monitors the stockpiles? how do we know today? we have briefings in here and folks talking about the fact that we don't know where they are all at. how do we know that hezbollah and hamas and al qaeda haven't taken those stockpile weapons and move them elsewhere? we can't track all of them. >> we both testified to the difficulty of having perfect intelligence about the chemical weapons. the risk of having some of that

capability migrate into the hands of extremist exists today. the risk does. but we have no indications today that any of the groups you have mentioned have any access to those chemical weapons. the indications are today that it does remain under the firm control of the regime. >> that goes back into the months before? >> it does. >> thank you, mr. chairman.thank you, gentlemen. >> the thank you, gentlelady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the short time that i have been a member of this congress, this is the most consequential issue we have dealt with. i sent an e-mail to my constituents last week and i have gotten thousands of responses. all of them asks very real questions about whether or not congress should authorize the president to take military action in syria. i appreciate your willingness to be here to answer those questions. we have repeatedly discussed the need to show the integrity of

our commitment with action and that iran and north korea are watching. what happens if we approve the use of military force and assad crosses the line again? how do we keep this from escalating and how do we limit further military action? >> that question is one we have dealt with here this morning as we have over the last two weeks. we believe based on our intelligence, based on our close coordination with partners in

the area, no perfect answer to your question. because of every contingency and option that we provide, if we in fact carry forward with the options the president may use, this will specifically address the clearly defined objective of degrading and deter his capability to further use chemical weapons. if he would choose to accelerate his efforts and use chemical weapons again, then certainly the president of the united its -- states has every option not just militarily, but other options available to him. i can't speak for the president but my guess would be, he would come back to congress and ask for further authorization. the president always has the option to defend the interest of this country. i believe he would. >> the only thing i will add is

that you asked what is it that causes us to believe we can manage the risk of escalation? i think it is a combination of the limited nature of the military operation as conceived, it is our ability to overmatch opponents in that part of the and it is our forward presence. back to the budget issues, it is why your word presence is such an important part -- forward presence is such an important part of our strategy. >> the other main thing that i have heard from folks in my neck of the woods is, they want to know that all other options have been exhausted prior to military action. do you believe that there are further opportunities to achieve a diplomatic resolution to this crisis? are there other tools that we ought to be looking at? are there any further sanctions that ought to be contemplated?

what other tools should be contemplated, if any? >> thank you. i believe secretary kerry did address that here earlier this morning in reciting an inventory that we have been doing in terms of diplomatic efforts. he went through the united nations. every generally recognized global institution, we have been working through sanctions. we have exhausted almost every diplomatic option in this effort. this is why i noted in my response that secretary kerry continues to lead this geneva to diplomatic resolution.

i think most of us believe, i do, most of our partners and the world believe that is the only way this is going to get settled, through some diplomatic political resolution. we are continuing to play that card out and stay on that track. the development of the last 48 hours, we are pursuing that track as well. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i am advised that we need to bring this hearing to a close. before i dropped the gavel, we are going to do two quick things. one is a clarifying question to general dempsey. as i understand it, your testimony has been repeatedly that you have been given a mission to develop military options to "deter and by that means is

chemical capabilities and so forth. you were not given a mission as i understand it to develop military options to demonstrate serious consequences to the neighbors for crossing an american red line. is that correct? >> i am not sure what you be my neighbor's. -- mean by neighbors.>> i'm severely talking about iran, korea -- >> no, the mission has never been didceived as aimed at the terrain -- detouring of others although clearly there is a relationship. >> i see another -- a number of members have stayed for several hours. i understand that some of them will be submitting questions for the record. i would ask witnesses to please respond promptly and with that, i think the witnesses and the members for being here. we are adjourned. if members will just hurled -- hold on until the witnesses can leave.>> mr. chairman, thank you, and members who have stayed, if they get us there questions, we will respond rudely and immediately. thank you. -- briefly and immediately.

thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington journal," reactions from

congressman mark matters -- mark meadows, a member of the foreign affairs committee. and the caucus cochair, the democrat of arizona. our spotlight on magazines features james bennett of the "atlantic." the anniversary of the assassination of president john f. kennedy. liveington journal" is every morning starting at 7:00 eastern on c-span. today marks the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the u.s. that killed nearly 3000 people. president obama, defense secretary hegel, and chairman dempsey take part in a ceremony at the pentagon where they will be joined to relatives of the victims and members of the military. you can see that life starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. , theon c-span3

congressional 9/11 ceremony. members will gather on the east capitol steps at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> 15 years ago, book tv made its debut on c-span2. money, theseand are the three main human concerns. we are all keen students of love. we are fascinated by every aspect of the matter in theory and in practice. maybe not quite as much as can starts, but fascinated. >> since then, we have brought you the top nonfiction books and authors every weekend, more than 9000 officers have appeared on book tv, including presidents. lex i wanted to give the reader a chance to understand the process by which i made decisions. and the environment in which i made decisions. the people i listen to as i made decisions. this is not an attempt to rewrite history.

it is not an attempt to fashion a legacy. it is an attempt to be a part of the historical narrative. >> also supreme court justices -- >> every single justice on the love has a passion and a for the constitution and our country. to mine.qual that if you accept that as an operating truth, you understand that you can disagree . >> and nobel prize winners would like -- winners -- >> do no harm, love somebody. and respect yourself. simplethat is reduced, five notions, the philosophers have spent their lifetime trying e tomagine what it is lik

live a moral life, what morality of, what existence is, what reality is. >> we visited a book fairs across the country -- >> and book tv was live at the annual "l.a. times" festival of books in west los angeles. >> there is our signature programming, and depth each month. to schools all over the country, more than 600. a child wouldme, pop, now you better catch the check. but that phrase is still magical. >> and every week, "afterwords." >> is job was to be press attaché. my mother wanted me to be born in prague, where her mother was. and then we will move back to belgrade. and then my father was recalled in 1938, and he was in

czechoslovakia when he not these marched in on march 15, 1939. tv has shown, book over 40,000 hours of programming, and it is the only national television network devoted exclusively to the nonfiction books every weekend. throughout the fall, we are marking 15 years of book tv on c-span2. >> former secretary of state hillary clinton spoke about the situation in syria, saying it demands a strong response by the international community led by the u.s.. her remarks came during an event at the national constitution center tuesday evening. you can see this event in its entirety wednesday on the c-span networks and at c-span.org. >> as you know, the president will address the nation shortly about the assad regime's use of

lethal chemicals against men, women, and children. that violates the universal norm at the heart of our global order and it demands a strong response from the international community led by the united states. this debate is good for our democracy. as our founders knew, fervent arguments are the lifeblood of self-government. how could a republic last if citizens have no opinions about the issues of the day? or were too intimidated to express them? for example, the delegate that because additional convention debated passionately about how to balance the need to provide for a common defense with their fears of excessive executive power. thrownere men who had off a king's cure any and were and of standing -- tyranny

were wary of standing national armies. yet they had also seen how the articles of confederation had failed to unit of -- provide a unified foreign policy, putting their aspirations for unity and sovereignty at risk. as benjamin franklin famously said at the signing of the declaration of independence , "we must indeed all hang together or most assuredly we must all hang separately." in the federalist papers, james madison argued that america united with a handful of troops are without a single sold ier exhibit the more forbidding posture to foreign ambition to vann and america -- than an america disunited with 100,000 troops ready to combat. address, we were

warned against interest group sim internal revelries. -- rivalries. we have had plenty of moments of partisan combat and our past, including some that make our current cable news squabbles fight -- we'veht had to fight a civil war to keep the union from splitting apart. even in our darkest periods, we have been less with the leaders who put our nation first, above personal or partisan advantage. ,resident lincoln, a republican chose a southern democrat, andrew johnson, to be his running mate. he also asked his rival, william stewart, to be his secretary of state. imagine that. [laughter] and then there is another great political odd couple whom i particularly admired, george arthurl and senator vandenberg, a republican from michigan who shared before and

relations committee after world war ii. -- the foreign relations committee your when senator -- committee. when senator vandenberg heard about this, he was skeptical. why should the americans who have shouldered the responsibly of former adversaries like germany and japan, my father, who you saw the picture of looking so handsome in his uniform next to my mother, had returned from the navy to its small business in chicago, and he felt exactly the same way, and so did many other americans. marshall, the war hero who served as both secretary of state and secretary of defense, sat down with vandenberg and fully to allpect of his argument. then the general explained why america's future security and prosperity depend on having

capable allies who would share our interest and buy our goods. and even more importantly, that america had a responsibility and obligation to lead the world. to vandenberg's patriotism. this will only work, marshall said, if it was truly a bipartisan, national effort. andenbergberg -- v became a champion of the marshall plan and deserves a share of the credit for its eventual success. now the senator and the secretary had many more disagreements. they debated strategy and end, but it hours on was always in pursuit of shared owls. -- goals. erg, free debateu

is indispensable to unity. the goal is to put national security ahead of artisan advantage. those are what wise words for today and for everyday. as secretary of states traveling around the globe, i saw firsthand how american unity leads to strength, and discord leads to perceived weakness. the world watches so carefully the decisions we make in washington. sometimes, they watch more closely than we even do. our finest moments of any era, we achieved great things and provide a model of democracy that inspires people everywhere, but when we let partisanship werride citizenship, when fail to make progress on the challenges facing our people our standing

in the world suffers. theresident obama push for syrian government to turn over its weapons international control. with the potential for military action is not off the table. he spoke from the white house for 15 minutes. >> my fellow americans, tonight i want to talk to you about syria. why it matters, and where we go from here. over the past two years, what began as a series of useful protests against the assad regime has now turned into a brutal civil war. over 100,000 people have been killed. millions have fled the country.

in that time, america has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support to shape a political settlement. i have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force. particularly after a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan. the situation finally changed on august 21, when assad's government gassed to death over 100,000 people.including hundreds of children. the images from this are sickening. men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. others were foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. on that terrible night, the

world saw in gruesome detail the nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off- limits, a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. this was not always the case. in world war i, american gi's were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of europe. in world war ii, the nazis used gas to inflict the horror the holocaust. because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and an infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. in 1997, the u.s. senate approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98% of humanity. on august 21, these rules were violated, along with our sense of humanity.

no one disputes that chemical weapons were used in syria. the world saw thousands of videos and cell phone pictures, and social media accounts of the attack. humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas. moreover, we know that the assad regime was responsible. in the days leading up to august 21, we know that his chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. they distributed gas masks to their troops. then they fired rockets from a

regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of rebel forces. shortly after the rockets landed, the gas spread. hospitals filled with dying and wounded people. we know figures in the military reviewed the results of the attack. they increased their shelling of the same neighborhood in the days that followed. people tested positive for sarin. when dictators commit atrocities, they depend on the world to look the other way. until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. but these things happened. the facts cannot be denied. the question now is what the united states of america and the international community is prepared to do about it. because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it is a danger to our security. let me explain why. if we fail to act, the assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. as the ban against these weapons

erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using it. over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons. and use them against civilians. if the fighting goes beyond syria's borders, it could threaten our allies. a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden assad's ally iran, which must decide by ignoring international law or take a more peaceful path. this is not a world we should accept. this is what is at stake. that is why, after careful deliberation, i determined that it is in the national security interest of the united states to

respond to the assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. the purpose of the strike would be to deter assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. that is my judgment as commander in chief. i am also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. even though i possess the authority to order military strikes, i believed it was right to take this debate to congress. i believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of congress i believe america acts more effectively abroad when we act together. i know that after the toll of iraq and afghanistan, the idea

of any military action is not going to be popular. i have spent 4.5 years working to end wars, not to start them. our troops are out of iraq. our troops are coming home from afghanistan. i know that americans want all of us in washington, especially me, to concentrate on the task of building our nation at home. putting people back to work. educating our kids. growing our middle class. it is no wonder then that you're asking hard questions. let me answer some of the most important questions i have heard from congress and that i have read in letters you have sent to me. first, many of you have asked if it would put us on a slippery

slope to another war. one man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in iraq. a veteran said that the nation is sick and tired of war. my answer is simple. i will not put american boots on the ground in syria. i will not pursue an open-ended action like iraq or afghanistan. i will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like libya or kosovo. this would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective. deterring the use of chemical weapons. degrading assad's capabilities. others have asked if it is worth doing if we do not take out assad. some members of congress said there is no point in doing a pin prick strike in syria.

let me make something clear -- the united states military does not do pin pricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. i don't think we should remove another dictator with force. we learned in iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. but a targeted strike can make assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons. other questions are about the dangers of retaliation. we don't dismiss any threats, but the assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats we face every day. neither assad, nor his allies, have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. our ally israel can defend itself with force, along with the support of the u.s. many of you have asked a broader

question. why should we get involved at all in a place that is so complicated? and where those who come after assad may be enemies of human rights. that is true. some of assad's opponents are extremists. but al qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being -- being gassed to death. the majority want to live in peace with dignity and freedom. the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. finally, many of you have asked why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions as several people

wrote to me, we should not be the world's policeman. i agree.and i have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations, but chemical weapons were still used by the assad regime. however, over the last few days, we have seen encouraging signs. in part because of the credible threat of u.s. milirary action, as well as constructive talks that i had with vladimir putin. russia has agreed to join in pushing aside to give up chemical weapons. assad to give up chemical weapons. the assad regime has admitted

that it has these weapons, and said that they joined the chemical weapons convention, which prevents its use. it must verify that the assad regime keeps its commitments. this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force because russia is one of assad's strongest allies. i have therefore asked the leaders of congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. i am sending secretary of state john kerry to meet with his russian counterpart on thursday. i will continue my own discussions with president putin. i've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, france and the united kingdom. we will work together with russia and china to put forward a resolution at the u.n. security council, requiring assad to give up his chemical weapons and to destroy them. under international control. we will also give u.n. inspectors the opportunity to

report their findings about what happened on august 21. we will rally support from allies in europe, the americas, asia, and the middle east to agree on the need for action. meanwhile, i have ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on assad.and to be in a position to respond. i thank our military families for their strength and fellow americans, for nearly seven decades, the united states has been the anchor of global security. this means doing more than forging international agreements.it has meant enforcing them. the burdens of leadership are often heavy. the world is a better place because we have borne them. to my friends on the right, i ask you to reconcile your commitment to america's military might with a failure to act when the cause is just.

to my friends on the left, i ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people. those images of children writing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor. sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are not enough. i ask every member of congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack and ask, what kind of world will we live in if the united states of america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way? franklin roosevelt once said our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when

ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged. our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in syria. along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used. america is not the world's policeman. terrible things happen across the globe. it is beyond our means to right every wrong. but when with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death, and make our own children safer over the long run, i believe we should act. that is what makes america different. that is what makes us exceptional. with humility, but resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth. thank you. god bless you. and god bless the united states of america.

>> today marks the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the u.s. that killed nearly 3000 people. president obama, defense secretary hagel, and chairman didn't see take part in a ceremony at the pentagon where they will be joined by the relatives of victims and members of the military. you can see that live starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. also on c-span3, the congressional 9/11 ceremony. members will gather on the east capitol steps at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> c-span -- we bring public fromrs offends -- evidence

washington directly to you putting you in the vermont congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of right industry. we are c-span -- created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now, you can watch us in hd. >> on c-span this morning, "washington journal" is next, life with your phone calls. then, live at noon eastern, the u.s. house considers a bill that will create an income verification program before subsidies in the health care lockerbie implemented. the white house has threatened to veto the bill. meant, reaction to president obama's speech last night from congressman mark meadows, republican of north carolina, member of the foreign affairs committee. progressive caucus cochair, ofresentative raul grijalva

arizona. later, our spotlight on magazines featuring james bennett of the "atlantic," talking about the 50th anniversary of the assassination of john f. kennedy. >> what kind of world will we live in if the united states of america sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way? president obama addressing the nation last night from the east room of the white house. he laid out his case for military strikes in syria, but also asked for quickly moving diplomatic effort to play out before taking action. good morning on this wednesday, september 11, 2013, today marks the 12th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. there'll be observations in new york and washington