we have to pull the wagon together. this is a serious american problem. not a republican-democratic problem. you can understand our frustration on this. admittedly, we do have a difference in what the rules of each party -- the founding fathers were very wise when they put in the hands of the first branch of government the power to declare war and not give it to the second branch which is the military -- one of their responsibilities is military. we take this seriously and i think the american people take this seriously. -- if senators

passes, it is resolution passes, with the president signe tjhahat? \ >> i haven't asked the president because he is hopeful we can work through the differences that do exist and the president wants to have -- once the preserve the flexibility that he believes we need and within the prerogative of the president but he is prepared to work with you to say we are all prepared to work to try to arrive and understanding of how we can do that. >> we have some disagreements in that regard. if he believes the 2001 solution gives him the authority, we have a basic disagreement and that's why i think it gave us the first branch of government to do this. i guess the question, what would

be your opinion as to whether or not the president signed the senator's resolution if we pass this this week? >> i'm not going to suggest that i share the advice with respect to what his choice is if it came to the president. i think we are missing the point that that's the road we go. from the moment i opened my mouth, and i mean this, as does the president. we don't want it to be a bare minimum majority. you want one that way. we agree we have it and we are committed to working towards that. this shouldn't be a partisan vote or hopefully divided. i am convinced we can get there.

the term proposal as i say covered a lot of bases. we think the president needs plexibility that is not reflected in it. i think he is owed that constitutionally. we are not here to make the argument and get into a place where we find a way to have a level of flexibility to meet the needs of something you are not voting for and creating the loophole for the president. i don't think anybody wants to get into a long-term ground operation, but we don't want to hamstring the generals and the commanders and the president who is commander in chief from their ability to make a decision they need to make and that doesn't need to take you into a long standing operation.

>> are you concerned at all about the mechanics of this? it's highly unlikely we will be able to pass through both houses during this week. now then we are gone until the first of the year. what message does that make? i'm with you. everybody needs to get behind this. in fashion or another and get to express their continues. here we are now where the request is before us and it's probably not going to get done. how does that affect things? >> to be truthful, i don't believe that's going to be read except for what it is to get the right end result. the fact is that we will continue this operation because the president and the administration are absolutely convinced that and i respect your opinion, we have the

authority. no question about it because the 2001 resolution addressed itself to al qaeda and the taliban and associated forces. the courts have decided this in the cabuous decisions that have been made. all three branches of government have been in agreement. fundamentally that the aumf applies to al qaeda, isil -- i prefer dash because the arab world as a real meaning with that. the fact is that they fully understand that we are on the track we are on. in my judgment everybody knows that this group merely changed its name. it was al qaeda in iraq.

it has been from 19 -- 2004 or 2005. wherever they were we are doing that now and those are all part of the same. that authorization fits, but we agree. we have an argument here. we agree with you that it's better and i have come to you and said we will absolutely scudle and refine the 2001 for the period of time we need and we will show that this particular authorization is not based on 2001 any longer. it is based on what we are doing here. that's i think a major statement. >> just to remind you that amendments are in order. if those believe that there is a better way to perfect the present text, we can take it up

and consider it and debate it. senator? >> thank you very much. i think your testimony has been extremely helpful. i thank you for that and that the terrorist organization that we are right in the campaign against them and with the use of force to stop this and stop the funding and to stop the ability to cause the type of instability in the region. always stronger when we speak. we are in agreement that we need the military force. the president stated he is doing. i think there is agreement on that. there is agreement that the 2001

and 2002 authorizations and 2002 needs to be repealed and 2001 needs to be motified as it relates to dash. we are in agreement that. i do think there is a great deal and i thank you and your testimony has helped us. understand that there is a fundamental difference. i do think there is fundamental differences with the separation of powers and branchs of government. i do believe in the war powers act and that congress has the constitutional authorization of force. there have been too many months that have gone by and they have a support to weigh in. i would love to have your response. the reason why i am so concerned

about the language that we put into this authorization being too broad, the explanation you have given at the 2001 authorization. several members of this panel, the force against those nations and theyed aed the terrorist attacks 2001 or harvard such organizations and prevent further attacks against the united states by such nations and organizations or concerns. i go throughed reading that and i think back that after coach of our military battles, this could be used in a way that could be used, they drafted that authorization differently.

i think it's our responsibility to make sure we draft him appropriately and recognizing that they have to deal with the uncertainties. they will give you the authority. you can always come back to seek the authorization. i would like to get your response as a former member of the committee and former chairman. we want to work together. we agree on what we are trying to accomplish. in the authorizations that they passed. they allow you to do what they need to do. they won't cover every contingency in the world.

the two areas that seem like they are in disagreement and geography and the use of forces. i would hope that you would gave us clarification so that we can be together. i respect your position and your long history of clarity on the issues in the senate. and the work we did together on these things. i disagree with respect and very respectfully that the 2001 aumf authorized this. what started in 2001, 2002 and you kind of get going. we had a presidential race in 2004, a debate about this issue.

the fact is that it was in 2004 that isil came into our focus and was targeted. as what it was. and at that time osama bin laden publicly endorsed the group as the a failiate in iraq. so we had a formal affiliation with al qaeda and that's when we began to take it on. the troops took it on. we were fighting it all that time.

it's late to come bang and say we didn't have the authorization to fit it in 2014 when a punch of folks died fighting it and we put our efforts into it. they changed their name. are we going to suggest that any groups can veto because they changed their name. they gave the terrorist organizations the right to get out from under by changing their name. these are the same people. with the stamp and support by bin. we have been fighting them since 2004. i don't think there is a question about 2001, but we are wasting our time to go back and fight about it. we agree we have to refine it. number two, we need an aumf. number three, we want the exclusive vehicle of authority not relying on that.

>> we agree that where we need help are the two areas where we disagree. >> on the geographic location. >> there is no communication in one area. it's one area then. it seems like. i'm confused then. that's the only area we are in disagreement. >> two areas. one is in the definition with associated forces. we believe that that requires to you make a definition of ideological association or other affiliation. we believe that gets complicated certainly for a commander in the field or instant decision about retaliation. that's the language used in the interpretation of the 2001 eumf. that's in the application of force. the biggest challenge here is

what is the appropriate level of restraint on the president of the united states as commander in chief and congress's micromanaging of what the military can and can't do in the context of the fight. that's all. none should challenge the prohibition that he doesn't plan to send forces in to be part of this battle against it. do you think there is a way to protect you with notification. >> that's appropriate. we agreed that it's time that they get clear about the authorization. >> we thought it was appropriate

that they gave whoever the next president is a year to be able to get in place and get all the people in place. then have some kind of trigger that requires it to be evaluated. let's work on what they ought to be. that's a restraint on the open endedness. they can do this properly. that's a great constitutional balance. just for the record, i think they recognize this. i shared your concern about the release of the cia report put out by the committee and i'm sure that the state department

is taking all the appropriate measures to safeguard the security around the world. you outlined a clear objective to degrade and destroy isil and all the groups. you also out lined what you seek. your point is you do not believe that you require authorization. you think we act stronger when we have that and i agree with that point. you outlined what they should have no geographic limits. you agree that in a minimum you don't want to telegraph the limits we have. third is that you don't -- you are hoping a time constraint and last but not least it's important to find out that they

are broad enough to encompass alongside isil. that is critical because of the group in libya. they are operating in an ungoverned space. there is no one to fight there. not to mention the emergence or any other groups in the area. here's my question. such a clear idea of what it should look like. as others have done in the past, as least as a starting point to debate, what happened in the ak absence, three proposals that tend to micromanage. i oppose all three. that's not congress's roll to micromanage the tactics. the role is to approve or disapprove or fund or not fund

if you don't disagree. the other problem is that it clearly telegraphs to isil and the enemies what we won't or will do. where we will or won't do it and how long we will do it for. that takes a lot of the advantage away from our engagement. i blame all of this on the lack of presidential direction and leadership. i don't understand why with such a clear idea about what it should contain. as far back as september. here's the other thing that is problematic. this is a complicated conflict. as you talked about repeatedly, it involves a coalition. this includes people that wants to target assad. they think it will extend to getting rid of assad. how does that fit? these rebel elements are being attacked and they may not be able to take the beating.

how does that fit in? we heard testimony that these militia are going into communities and attacking sunnis, burning down the homes and wiping out the influences. last but not least, the kurds. we heard testimony talking about the role they provided in playing a safe haven. they have been highly effective fighters. all the pieces they failed to put together a strategy that we can understand about how it fitsing to and for the life of me, i don't understand with such a clear idea of what they should look like, you don't have anyone that can type that up real quick so we begin a debate? this committee seeks that presidential leadership on the

matter and previous administrations drafted such damage. all of these proposals. when does the white house intend to send it to us as a starting point for the discussion that you seek? >> senator, i was around here long enough to know even if the president set up language there would be just as many bills and just as much debate on what he set up. let's not kid each other. that's the same debate. if you say the president didn't show leadership, they said they could have drafted it two or three months ago. it can go both ways. >> the president is the commander in chief. >> he is beginning to win the fight. >> he has the authority to win

the fight, he has to tell us what the fight looks like. >> the sole basis that we would make this. we would make the current state-of-the-art basis. as i have said to you, the president doesn't need to have the authority to do what he is doing. he believes and i believe he has the authority constitutionally and has the authority with respect to the 2001 aumf as i have shown you. that aside, he is going further to try to provide the precise clarity that you are looking for. saying he will make it clear that the aumf has passed and will be the designated thrd with respect to what we are doing. >> where is the damage. i said we have a couple of differences. they are not incidental. it's fundamental between the two sides of this, i think.

what we are suggesting is we try to work that through in a way that balances it adequately for both sides that we could be important. this could in fact with the proper effort become the preliminary down payment on what happens subsequently. that would be a good out come if it were possible. my respectful suggestion is that in answer to your comments about the strategy there and the president has a strategy. the general is leading that effort. and they are doing extraordinary jobs with respect to the military. the delegitimatization with respect to the religious claims

and the financing. there a series of efforts that are under way. >> the administration position, the amf they would like to see is the chairman's language with some amendment. >> with some changes, that's correct. with efforts we work on hopefully to try to work this. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, mr. secretary for all of your efforts on behalf of this country. much has been around authority of the congress versus authority of the president. this is important for another reason. i think it's about the people to

know what's entailed in the use of military force against i till including the scope and duration. we weaken our country rather than strengthen it when we begin a loss like the discussion we are having today. this debate strengthens resolve in this country and our enemies should not assume that this is weakness that we are having, but it's our ability to debate issues of war and peace. if the committee worked and oobd what the administration wants,

we could agree to. i agree with that. we have caulked about a process that would have this hearing today and have time this week to discuss among ourselves and we were hoping to work with members in a classified setting to hear more about what is currently under way with respect to that if we are committed to having that discussion, should we assume that there members from the it was and the communities

who could be part of working with us on that kind of a back and forth and is that something that we could get set because my understanding is that one of the challenges has been what the committee had. i can't imagine that as i said, the administration is prepared to work with you and see what's doable. >> i appreciate that and it is

very important to have this debate for the committee to act and work and see if we can find an acceptable language in a way that is not open ended so that we have as the committee said in the past, we rare waiting for language that may never come. let me ask what's going on with the current operations with the fight and recognizing that you may more may not be able to

answer this. can you talk about the extremists and the reports that that opposition is in the process of totally collapsing? is there intention to expedite the training and assistance to the moderate syrian opposition groups? >> the answer is yes, but the opposition in the south is actually doing fairly well right now. it's a problem for the regime because the fight is critical in the north.

they are a challenge and it's that we are very, very well aware of. we are, wooing with the turks right now having long discussions in order to work through a number of different thoughts about how best to deal with that. there is isil up there and the opposition and then you have the regime. the president is considering a number of options with respect to the north, but we are working through the details. the general was trying to focus in and narrow down who could do what how. everybody understands the app sigz. there a number of different opposition groups did not fare about well in their battles.

one or two folded in and that is disturbing, but they survived. they are holding on. they have been the entity that has been fighting and we are doing a number of things to try to make a difference. some of which are a part of the training effort that we want to get underway. the base is complete and ready and we have to get more going and the saudi component needs work to be ready. people are seized of the

urgencey and it's important to get a number of things in place as rapidly as possible. while they are doing well, the north is a challenge. >> i don't want there to be an impression that we have not tried to engage with the administration and have withins and witnesses. they have been here on several occasions and we appreciate that and we -- i don't think he has the wherewithal to talk about this no matter how well he tries. there military questions and

this is what we have. for time purposes, let's understand that the first powers notification came to us in june. then on september 23, we made it clear. the president requested the congress request isil. going back to that president of time, this chair engaged the administration going back to october when we met with the white house counsel toil go overdraft of language. in fairness, we did not get

specificity of responses. the same as the we talk about. let's work together. there has been an effort to try to achieve that. i don't think anybody to think there has not been an effort to think wow, it seems like they are doing rambo by themselves. there has been an effort. requests remain for this hearing as well as classified hearings for others for them to be able to further inform. they were not for whatever reasons, logistics and travel, they were not being pursued. senator johnson. >> secretary, i wanted to back up and we talked about an authorization of military force and at that point they wanted to engage with the congress and a number of us discussed that and

the white house council was finding a 10 jus connection to previous authorizations and they were after all that time, why hasn't the administration sent us a proposal. the commander in chief would want to pursue the actions he thinks are necessary. why have they given us a draft. answer the question of why? >> i think we have get draft. why doesn't he write it up?

>> there have been about seven meetings. i wasn't present at any of the meetings, but the seven meetings discussed the draft with the chairman himself who went down and talked about the draft. there is no requirement for the president to send it out. as i said earlier, would it have made life easier and changed the debate. it's the same debate. you have language in front of us which we are working with and the president said by and large, it's good. this is the first time that the committee has exert leadership. the president asked for it.

>> won't get an answer and that's fine. the reason we need to review past authorizations is there is differences as to whether or not the authorization justifies right now. it's all past tense. committed or harbored. there is nothing describing him. there is legitimate concern. my understanding in the white house, they have the section between the current use of force and the authorization. world war i and world war ii. they had two and we had six. they gave the president what he needed to defeed the enemy. to bring it to successful termination. even in the 2001 authorizations,

they are authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force. that's what they wanted. the authority to be commander in chief and accomplish the goal. has president obama deviated from the goal to defeat isis? >> not in the least. >> what are is the goal of his process? is it to have a bipartisan authorization? is it to have members put themselves on the record, or is it to produce an authorization

that gives the president the authority to accomplish that goal. >> the purpose of the aumf is to authorize in the new context, the challenge we face with a different extended threat. the discomfort with the reliance on 2001, the discomfort that exists should be clarified. and the american people are a 2014 commitment. >> another thing they are owed is a draft to work from. what i would argue is we need an authorization.

this is not what it will look like. we need a discussion about what does defeed lock like? we need an authorization that is good not only for president obama, but a future president. this is not going to be a war or a conflict that ends quickly. i'm looking for what he believes he needs and what the suck suszor might need to grapple with to keep the nation with this grand new threat that is not a nation state, but ideology that wants to till americans. i look forward to the draft. it would make it a lot easier. >> we are close as we sit here.

we have to sit down and work through the differences. in general terms. >> does the president really believe that isis or the new name dash will be defeated in three years? does he believe that's the case? >> the president said this will take a long time. >> why would we limit ourselves? why would you want to hamstring his successor this disfunctional body. we had this hearing in may. this will not be concluded. we will take a show of vote, but this will not give president obama the authority he needs.

>> first of all, look. it's hard to have the argument both ways. there is no way he didn't send it up. that's not the reason. i don't mean to make fun of it. that's not the reason and it's not where it is. the president for 2 1/2 months now have been precouped in trying to focus on putting together the strategy and implementing and building the coalition and doing what we need to do. >> why not? >> i'm not in those meetings. >> they are not giving you a briefing or sending you a memo? >> let me come to your other question. you asked about the time frame, would we limit it.

why would we limit it? if you listen carefully, i am not in favor of that limitation without the ability, but i'm trying to balance. what we are trying to do, all of us must not get dragged down. we want to see if we can meld the differences into something that is acceptable to both sides. we did that. we ought to be able to do it now. some have an interest in protecting the open endedness and others who by virtue of experience and bad experience, they want to give a fixed

president of time where you take stock of it. it's not open ended, but so it's a responsible process that it won't end and work out. how does that work? what's the appropriate way to do that? what's the trigger? so that there's a respectful assessment of where we are, how it's been implemented and that it isn't, in fact, open ended and dangerous and dragging us on into an open ended war.

so i think that's what we're trying to balance. a lot of that comes o out of the experience of iraq or even afghanistan. people are worried about it. they don't want it to be that again. everybody is sensitive to that. we're just trying to find the appropriate balance between those thing its. the chairman's mark is a good starting place. we should work off of that. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, ranking member. >> thank you, secretary kerry, for your hard work and leadership in assembling and helping the coalition. i believe the american people deserve and our values demand this sort of robust debate. we have raised important and difficult issues. as you just commented, it's in large part because of the difficult history, the lessons learned from the cost and the

reach and the scope and complexity of our conflicts in iraq and afghanistan and the 2001 and 2002 authorizations that were the foundations. and this is the sort of debate, the sort of give and take between executive and legislative branch. that our founders imagined. we have to re-examine and reset that relationship. let me also just put on the table an important issue that hasn't been touched on so far. and issues that are important for congress to consider. the wars in iraq and afghanistan according to a report that just came out, there was a total of $1.69 trillion requested to pay for the cost of those two wars. as other members have commented, the congress has two ways to restrain the executive in the conduct of long wars. first, the authorization or declaration of war or how we fund them. and it is my hope, my

expectation that we cannot write another blank check for war as was unfortunately the case under previous presidents and previous congresss for previous conflicts. paying for war is the not just fiscally but also morally responsible. it's not right to expect that the only people who sacrificed would be our troops and families. so expressly having a conversation about how to offset the cost of this war through a reduction in spending will help americans have a more direct connection to the conflict and an awareness of its impact not just in terms of our spending, but our steadily growing national debt. i'm aware this responsibility doesn't fall just on this committee, but the duty of congress as we debate the strategy for this conflict to also look squarely at its cost and how to pay for it.

so i will continue to raise that issue as we move forward with the debate about the iumf. if i might just bare oun down on an issue that i haven't heard a concise answer to. if we're trying to come up with an aumf that recognizes the challenges of the 2002 and that puts some restraint on the use of ground troops and that strikes you as unacceptable in this effort to balance a restraint against an open-mended con applicant while allow inging the commander-in-chief to prosecute this conflict successfully i think one of the reasons their there remains resistance to an open-ended commitment at the conduct of any kind is we haven't had a full debate at the strategy. we can't go home and clearly defend what the strategy is. although you laid out the five core areas in which there's ongoing and effective activity. could you accept that initially

had a limitation on large scale ground combat. but required an examination of strategy and reconsideration to remove that limit nation on the scope to conduct this and prosecute this one. >> i think by implication the way the administration is looking at it, there's some restraint because the president has been pretty clear and there's no current scenario he would imagine that if you're putting a restraint in time you're not getting into a long-term activity. so the three years is, in fact, the best automatic limit nation of long-term. and if you have the right kind of formula for the trigger or for the -- i can think of several of them, but we could certainly sit down and bang out the ways that interest that

create a sufficient level of review so you're certain you're going to get your whack at it but it's not self-limiting to so the wrong message is sent and you're not going to prosecute the war. some people still have struggled with that terminology. that's where it is. so i would suggest there is a balance and i think we can work that out. i don't think you have to have the ground troop limitation by virtue of the three-year peace. >> mr. secretary, i join many of colleagues in express inging a desire for a bipartisan aumf and a proud discussion and debate about strategy and what the direction is going to be, but i want to make it clear that i support the conduct, but i think they are a real and present threat to the united states and i do think we should be supporting our armed forces. but weeks have turned into

months since the notifications came up here and i think this congress needs to be more actively engaged in being accountable for authorizing this conduct. it was announced today that 1500 will join 3100 americans in the train and mission in iraq to train. how else will they assist in a previous conflict in the region, many of our partners contributed significantly to the financial cost of the operations. will we be complimenting them? i was encouraged by your comment that many of our allies and the administration believe that ground troops are most likely to be effective in this conflict and in this context.

>> the answer, senator, is that -- the answer is yes. a number of countries are committed to providing financial input as well. some of them that depends on what we choose to do. but the answer is yes, and already are in some ways. for instance, the training facilities in some of their territory, they are taken care of. in addition to that, there will be a variance as to who is doing what. five arab nations are flying with us in the missions over syria. saudi arabia, united arab emirates, bahrain, jordan and qatar.

and in addition to those five, countries all over the world -- whether it's to training, providing direct assistance, providing humanitarian assistance, providing equipment, providing arms. and in some cases presence on the ground in the case of a number of our close allies in the actual training activities. australia is a case and example, great britain, others are doing that. there's a full fledged broad based engagement. >> thank you, thank you for being here, mr. secretary. you're a very good diplomat. you've mentioned that the president doesn't need to outline his own aumf because we have one here. but then in your testimony, you state pretty clearly, at least, diplomatically, that we need to do far better than that.

and senator johnson, if you go beyond that, i'm looking at a few of them here, 1955 with defense of taiwan, president authorized to employ the armed forces as he deems necessary. look at 1957 in the middle east. authorized to cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations. 1964, southeast asia, take all the necessary measures to repeal any armed attack. then we come to this one, where the president is authorized subject to the limitations to subsection c. i would submit that's not just

very comforting and not very strong aumf. more accurately may be an authorization for the use of not too much military force. when you signal to our enemies and to our allies that we're not going to use ground troops. we certainly don't want to. we may not anticipate that we will. but to put that aside and say we're not going to doesn't strike me as wise. the commander-in-chief can have that policy, but he can change his mind as conditions warrant. it's far more difficult once the congress has spoken to go back to the congress and say now conditions have changed on the ground and we need a new aumf. what do our enemies do in the meantime? what do our allies do in the meantime? i would respectfully say that when my colleagues here are saying that the president needs to show more leadership and actually put an aumf together and present it to the congress, one that is in keeping with the history and what we need for the

future -- i've drafted my own. i'll be glad to give you a copy. that doesn't substitute for one that will come from the president. for him to make the strong case to congress that this is what we need, that's what we need as you put, our allies deserve it. our enemies need to understand it and we need this country together. so again, i would ask you why in this context can't we get the president to put his own bs aumf and all do respect to the chairman and others who tried to put something together here that can pass, i would submit that it's not worth it to get something that so limits our president and his options that it's not comforting to our allies and it is too comforting to our enemy. >> senator, thank you for your comments.

i said at the outset that the problem that the president and the administration has with this is this question of the limitations and restrictions. but i also said i think there's a way to try to work with you. we don't want to sit here and stop all capacity to be able to get a strong resolution by simply being we're not going to accept any kind of appropriate calibration of this. so we think that there's a way to try to figure that out. now i don't disagree with you. i don't know what your second example -- what did you say? you went back. >> 1957 in the middle east. >> at least from 1964 on to iraq

and others, i think there's been a strong reaction in the country that unfettered openness has resulted in some bad judgments that have cost the country an awful lot of money and other assets. and i think with the tension in this debate, obviously, is between those who are willing to provide that bloated constitutional authority that the president can make those decisions and shouldn't have any restraint with those who are cautioned by the past and want to have some adequate congressional restraint with the american people to get into another open-ended deal. so how do you balance that? part of the balance comes in

this three-year duration notion with congress's preordained and defined input. that's a pretty measured way to try to do it. maybe there's some notification requirement that we can work through here. i do think, and the president feels, and i know that the members of the military feel very strongly that in terms of actually implementing -- i mean, we all decided we have to defeat these guys. everybody has agreed we have to degrade and defeat isil. i don't think the congress is going to sit here and tell you exactly how you're going to do that. that's what we have the professional military for. >> if i may, we need to make sure that there's a balance here between the president's rights as commander-in-chief and the military's ability to implement and achieve our goal. that's the balance we're looking for.

>> post-1964, there's been an attempt to balance this because of some situations we have had. those have been more on any conditions that have been with the aumf, we can only authorize use of force after all diplomatic measures have been exhausted. that's typically what's done on the front end, but once we commit ground troops or our military forces, i should say, then in every case that i have seen unless i'm not aware of others, we have never tied the president's hands, or as you put in here, that we have not preemptively bind the hands of the commander-in-chief. i just don't think it would be wise to do that here. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. chairman and mr. thank you secretary kerry. senator mid and is, you pushed to get us here to this point. and i know the ranking member

did too and so that is important and secretary kerry, we would not be here without you because we needed at least one witness to try to address this and i appreciate you helping us works or it. i have a couple of questions just about how things are going now. maybe you cannot answer them but the success of our u.s. strategy in iraq appears predicated on the shift of sunnis away from the islamic state and into cooperation with the government. to what extent is that shift occurring if it all right now and what factors will determine the extent of the alteration in allegiances? >> it is a good question and an appropriate one. because essential to the ability to be able to be successful in iraq will be the inclusivity of the sunni population.

the commitment of the sunni and the tribal leaders to take on this fisa -- fight and join the national army to push isil out. there are a number of italians that are in training. they will allow those that are experienced and held together to go out into the field. there is work being done with the tribal leaders right now. the tribes, a certain number of people are coming together to provide a sunni fighting force as part of it. there is a plan to be implemented to be put into place a national guard which will be more reflective of people and where they live so cut there is an inherent investment by them in defending that community which there did not exist --

>> is the shift taking place and to what extent? >> it is beginning to take place. i do not want to promise you something that is beyond where it is but it is getting and it is legitimate. and there have been successes. refinery has been -- it is not complete that it is a success so far. the relief effort that took mosul dam,ozilla -- that are areas successes. we believe that they are .romising signs

moving in the right direction and we feel confident it is the right strategy. >> when we announced that we were going to when the president announced to degrade and destroy isil, a number of groups around the world alleged you know i believe that. . how should the authorization of force treat groups who have pledged i realize we may not get their allegiance to the islamic state including there overnight. as of december 2014 groups in algeria, libya, egypt, yemen, and saudi arabia. >> they should be associated forces. have outlined here the three areas of the authorization of force. one of them is duration.

you mentioned in your testimony that provides for an extension under certain circumstances so you're willing to go with three years. senator paulser to with one year but assuming you're willing to go with the three years, who is the choice of, ishe that the administration or congress or do you want a provision that allows the administration -- >> that is the precision of the language that we have to sit down and work through. i would want white house counsel and others to weigh in very heavily. is a policy question. >> it is always a policy question. congress always has the ability to cut off money. you have the power of the purse and the president has the power of the commander-in-chief and executive authority and he will make his decision and that is

the debate. if you sit down and work this through it, with an equation that works effectively. >> you will not say that provision should be congress revisiting in three years or the administration. >> there is no question. it ought to be done in a real way. >> you want -- >> i do not think congress will sit here will say that you ought to continue it and the executive says i will not order troops to do that. the commander-in-chief will make a decision as a matter of the administration's foreign-policy and its war fighting policy but there needs to be i would assume for you some manner of weighing in on that and how that is affected and the language is what we ought to be working through. it is not for me to casually throw it out here. that is inappropriate.

i know there is a way to balance this. >> the important thing is that ingress needs to re-way back , be involved, be engaged in terms of where we are at that particular point. you outlined,reas my opinion is what we're talking about is an open-ended authorization. there is no geographic limitation. i think there should be a geographic limitation. i just think we should allow the administration to go on to libya or a number of other countries surrounding this area. this language, and a hotel the ground. the president has. language very specifically over and over again. that should be sufficient, it if you wantrong and to have its on the ground you

should come back to the congress american troops on the ground. as far as the duration i mentioned that earlier. one year would be more appropriate because it has been very difficult for us to get the information we need in order to find out whether we should leave him not. and just as the final issue, i want to mention the issue of paying for this. there is node doubt that we are in this a third war particular region. you do not have to look for a to know that it is a war. the cat -- look at kobane and the troops. war?o you pay for the generation that fought a war paid for the war. and i believe we started a

policy which was a very misguided policy. we put afghanistan and iraq, week with them on the credit card. as the president prepared to present the plan to the congress to pay for this war, the president said it will be lengthy and it will be three years. ware willing to put forth bonds, a terrorism tax, is he willing to put anything on the table to pay for this? >> the president has put on the for $1.52request billion was additional resources for department of state, usaid to degrade. >> i am talking about paying for it with like all the other wars have been paid for. >> it was paid for within the context of current budget.

and that is what we are doing. in addition. let me say one thing. i respect the motion -- and the strongat you have feelings about the geographic, but i will say to you if you limit this geographically you are saying and we did not limit al qaeda geographically. we have been able to do very real damage to al qaeda and keep that and i respect your opinion, . andchristmas bombing plots other bombing plots. one came out of vehement, --ther out of a northern another location and one out of northern africa. i will tell you that we have a much bigger problem today if we were and it would be terrible to send a message to these guys, you have a safe haven over here and if we do not take this

seriously, this is bigger than just where it is in iraq in syria. secondly, let me be crystal clear. we did not start this. we are not about to start third war. some of been lot and started this in 9/11 and he has continued it in censure through what what al qaeda does. that is an extension. it is part of the same thing. it is clear what they want to do which is why they have -- we have this extraordinary: russian. it is not the u.s. trying to start something and there is not a country in the region that is leadership.for they are at risk. ask any of them. that is why they publicly stepped up and they are part of

this effort. i think we have to understand this is the fight of a generation. that is what i believe and president obama believes it. we understand need to understand what a big challenge it is and it will take a lot more than trying to do with it through this military component. there is no ultimate military solution. if a lot of young kids are left to their own devices and do not have options for jobs and education and a decent life and respect and dignity, this will continue. the u.s. and our allies need to work at that side of the ledger also. that is something we agree on and i know my time is up. >> i agree with your comments about the parameters of the a your math -- aumf. will act in the next

couple of days. i have been involved in many aumf's and not a single one were generated from the congress. the reason the constitution calls for the commander-in-chief is because he is supposed to lead. hehe wants an authorization should lead intel of -- and tell us why he wants that authorization. we go through this charade whether we have a vote or not in the next day or so before we go out is -- makes it all irrelevant. hope we are working with the new chairman and ranking member that the president would aumf but it has to be

led by the commander-in-chief. that is how the system works and that is how it has worked every time. i would like to switch gears. new post. time is running out for obama in syria. western backed syrian rebels are in danger of collapse before helps arrives -- help arrives. all of these are well known media experts and they are on the verge of collapse and they are being beaten very badly. one of the major reasons they are getting eaten very badly is because they are subject to barrel bombing and era tax from assad. ambassador james jeffrey says time is not on our side. we consider the decision.

you may have to renege on that or you may have to follow up your important mission of destroying isis. isis is not something which drone strikes or f-16 strikes is going to contain because the islamic state, it is a state. you do not just -- destroy a state. you will require boots on the ground. what you are saying is the theementalism that i saw in vietnam war. we're seeing decisions made in a tight circle. we are seeing them incrementally in fermented. and additional troops and than 1000 more. our syrian rebels honestly why you willtand bashir'sct them from campaign. we're asking these and people to is a and die and assad

major enemy and we not doing anything to stop him from barrel bombing them and slaughtering them. this is the guy who has killed 200,000. this is the guy that has 150,000 which he his presence has treated with great atrocities. one of the mysteries are these out.s that were smuggled they got no response from the president or frankly from you. villiuld have in a casas -- causes beli. -- belli. the version of collapse. now you're telling me we have a

strategy to defeat for sure side ssad even though we are treating them as two separate battles at least as far strategy is concerned. maybe you can respond to that and tell me how you justify morally telling young syrians to go and fight in syria and yet allow them to be barrel bombed by assad whose intensity of airstrikes increase those greater than u.s. airstrikes on isis. >> thank you. i think everybody, there are certain frustrations here. syria in oneack to quick moment. in point of fact, if i can correct you, you are not correct. the have not been instances

where authorizations did not originate here in the committee. , andear before i came here lebanon it did. in 1991 when i was here, it originated in the committee. sent --alker bush >> it has been led by the president. i appreciate if you would go on and justify how we continue the massacre of right young syrians. >> i will come back to it. >> i did not ask a question. it was a statement. please move on to the slaughter in syria. >> i will not sit here like a ping-pong ball. i think your statement was incorrect. everybody is accountable for what they say and so are you. the fact is you are incorrect. 1991, there was a

request to adopt a solution and congress gave him what he asked for. >> i was there and he came over with a proposal. he did. we can argue that. he came over with a proposal. not and the record will show that. >> the record will show that he did. >> the committee likewise did it. i served on the committee. i think i know what happened back then. we can let the record speak to that. ath respect to my think i was front and stated in the narrow -- north, they are seriously challenged. the fact is more is being done and more is being gunned i can talk about here in this hearing. there are greater capacities being provided to the opposition

, and our hope is when we work things through with the turks and over the next days, certain decisions will be made that in fact will provide greater capacity. but yes, they are challenged today in the north but here is the reality. what we are doing to train them, the opposition and was being -- theyh respect to the regime.ghting >> we are allowing them to be barrel bombed. >> we're not. >> is the committee ready to vote? >> that is in my answer. my answer is to give them the weapons they need. they do not have those weapons. it has been three years. and on theon syria

palestinians and now you will hit it on iran. they're still nuts. giving the support they need and 200,000 have been butchered. >> we are in the process right you know this, there are certain things that are happening and it is a little this ingenuous to suggest that nothing has been considered and nothing is happening when it is. the fact is any classified precisely you can go through what is taking place. >> there are people dying who are please to know there are things we cannot talk about. >> the rules of the senate. classified information is classified information. if you want to fight about that, you can. >> i want to know why we have not help them for the last three or four years. >> the time has expired.

>> we are helping them, there's a lot of for help being given to them. >> thank you. thank you for taking this process so seriously. i think whether or not we pass this through the house and senate, this has been a forcing mechanism without a submission from the administration for whatever reason they may have. we needed these the liberations in order to get to a text that while it may not pass, it will be much more easily passed because of the work that this committee has done and the discussion that secretary kerry was two-part to -- proud to be part of. we are talking about the distinction what the administration believes to be preferable and what many of us

believed to be necessary which is an authorization. i think there is a difference in terms of what we believe isis to be. many of us respectfully do not believe this is a matter of a name change. organization whose name is different but who had a very specific tactical and with alc difference qaeda. there is a change in hierarchy. many of us worry that if a change in name and tactic and strategy and a change in hierarchy does not prompt us to pass a new authorization, we are sure however get out from underneath the original 2001 aumf. on this question of limitations. ofy rattled off a list .uthorizations

i can rattle you off a similar list of authorizations that the that haveas passed limitations. you can start in the 1790's for authorizations against the french navy. in 1993 in somalia. 2013. the authorization passed by this committee. all had different kinds of limitations. it should be in statutory language. it is referable to have a bipartisan bill and it is preferable to grant substantial damage but there are

considerations that are deserving of a statutory limitation and that is why we have the struggle over this question of ground forces. many of us believe that the deployment of ground forces in the middle east today would be fighting a fire with gasoline. itwe have learned anything is that the massive deployment twicerican forces creates as many foreign fighters and extremist fighters as they and they provide a crutch for governments to stand down and let us do all the work. stew in theirto dysfunction. part of our worry is the reason we do not have a department of is there isess substantial disagreement within the administration. there is an element of the military that would like to have a serious conversation about the deployment of ground forces area -- i jotd you have

have a doubt that you are committed to keeping ground forces out but many of us worry that the balance could tip. my question would be simple. it would be helpful to hear why you think, when the policy is such that you think it is a bad idea, that it would be counter to our policy of degrading and isil.ing that is a debate happening in foreign-policy circles. howould be helpful to hear strongly that view is held within the department of state house.hin the white >> thank you for a very

articulate statement of what the tensions are here. what is at stake. i do not disagree. it is important for congress to have that statutory statement of some kind or another. and i assure you president obama, who saved -- served on this committee and senator biden , now vice president served on this committee for 30 years or both are huge supporters of the war powers act. they lived by it. even in situations where he did not have to set it up. moved on the side of caution and compliance. believe it is important to have an appropriate authorization of military force.

as president he also believes that this constitutional authority is vital and his ability to fully empower his military to be able to effect what he needs should not be micromanaged and restrained in a somehat might eliminate option they may need at some point in time. it would be hard to imagine given the experience of iraq and all that we learned about our forces on the ground and these reactions that you talk about. have a major ground force for a long time. what we are talking about is exigencies,gainst emergencies, certain circumstances that may or may not arise. like a rescue effort tragically that did not work the other day.

there are other circumstances that may arise. we cannot predict them all. nobody can. so all we are trying to do is preserve and i say the duration, the time frame is such and you have to trust your own power. i cannot imagine it being funded. there is not going to be a hue and cry that would be overwhelming and reaction to that. absent some extraordinary circumstances that merited that kind of response but do you want to pre-guess that, do you want to predetermine, then you are statutory nota and try to get out of it it is the better part of wisdom to try

to maintain an adequate level of flexibility but at the same time , preserve your purgative -- prerogative. the president is prepared to carefully,ople's it work through this language, try to see how to balance these equities. what he wants is the broadest vote possible. get everybody in a place way they are comfortable if that is achievable and it out to be. >> the more that you review the draft you will see that specific hypothetical is covered by one of these exceptions. i would imagine almost every hypothetical will be covered by revisions in the draft. there is a reason to be scared of these limitations as you may

be. >> if you're covered maybe it is varying during activity. maybe there is a way to cover it in one sentence. agree to try to find a way to talk this through without posturing. issue, pagey on the and transferraft provide for the protection of members of the armed forces or citizens. you do see the language of that can be envisioned. hearing is critically important. declaring war authorizing the

use of military force is one of the most serious responsibilities of congress. i believe president obama has an obligation to congress to spell out the direct threat posed i request the authorities he needs to successfully complete the mission. i believe it is a threat to the homeland and i support efforts to eliminate this terrorist threat. has been taking offensive military actions for months. he has not submitted a request outlining the authorization that he is seeking. normally when the executive branch wants -- they formally request that authorization and is involved in negotiating over

the language and advocating its passages. we see no similar effort on behalf of the obama administration. in the absence of the administration costs specific requests or proposal, so members of congress are more interested in placing the limitations in and tying the hands of our president and nations generals. the limb tatian's -- limitations are misguided. congress should be authorizing the use of force or not. congress should not try to micromanage a war through an authorization. the administration had provided military and intelligence witnesses and the chairman has made a comment about your willingness to come forward but not having all the abilities to ask -- answer all the questions i would ask how the use of ground troops would

impact the ability to respond to conditions on the ground. how do we ensure that any could respond. >> that is why we are trying to work out this question in the limitations. >> you believe there should not be limitations. a we are prepared to embrace clarification by which there is an understanding of how we can balance these equities. it may require some kind of restraint which would not abrogate the commander in chief responsibilities. ahink example, what about

non-u.s. hostage or prisoner? that might be a situation. you can run through all kinds of things here. we're trying to preclude sending restraint messages to folks we're trying to defeat and degrade and balance the equities the concerns people have about the open and didn't miss that we have lived within the past. everybody ought to try to help find a way to work that through and in the doing so, we can ensure that we have the kind of broad-based bipartisan resolution that we deserve. >> do you think there are additional authorities that the administration needs that they currently do not have to degrade and destroy isil? >> no.

the president feels he has the full authority. we acknowledge that it needs refining. we acknowledge there is a gap in time and a sufficient differential. that is what the president is saying we should have. >> your predecessor at georgetown university stated that america needs to show respect for our enemies and empathize with their perspective and point of view. terrorists are not going to simply go away. we certainly cannot empathize and show respect to people who have really murdered brave americans. do you believe that a key solution to our enemies such as isis and al qaeda is showing

respect and "empathizing with there were -- perspective and point of view. >> i missed the first part of the quote. hillary at georgetown said the american needs to show respect for our enemies and empathize with their perspective and point of view. >> i know she was not referring cash. -- dash. was referring to those out there with whom we are not actively fighting or engaged in are behaving in ways that are clearly opposed to our interests and there are plenty of people in that status whether it is in the middle east or in other parts of the world. we have a lot of tensions with russia.

it is clear that any analysis of what is happening in ukraine and how you deal with it requires at to look very carefully all their posturing and where it comes from and what may be involved and how one might be able to diffuse it create i have no doubt that does not include a dash.like been made about replacing restrictions on aums. that most aumf's have committed the type of harm's way.yed in it's declarations of war which is not what we are doing nor what the administration has asked us for that have typically

authorized the president to use all military means available for unlimited duration. my texas not a declaration of war. several of my colleagues have noted this. aumf's that have included restrictions is the somalia aumf. aumf thatebanon prohibited offensive actions and aumf, they did not express the use of ground forces for the purpose of combat operations. we have a span of nearly 30 years to take recent history. in which they have had no

limitations. it is a historical operation. that is not the case. senator mccain who has been greatly involved with this issue , their amendments have driven us to this moment. >> you have not been before us to receive the thanks of this committee for some of your diplomacy. the efforts to help reform the government in iraq. i want to thank you for those because those efforts were important. i wanted to thank you for your efforts to build a coalition to an airbasewent airwent to the combined operations center and we witnessed the cola should an action. full-screen videos, data coming in.

all trading information in making decisions together. very impressive. you deserve our thanks create we cannot do military action without congress and we are currently in what the administration has described as a war against isil. the embassyed from in an effort to take it back in the middle of august, we have gone on offense against isil. five. on month assistmbat train and advisors on the ground in the theater and another 1500

authorized to go. to taxpayer is in excess of a billion dollars. why out to mention their names. october 1, marine corporal jordan spears. neal and23, sean an air forcebois, captain. we are at war and congress has not done a darn thing about it. i respect the comments that the ranking member, senator corker said earlier that the process is not ideal. congress has been silent about this. i do not think we weaken our

nation so much with an unwieldy process as we weaken our nation when we do not take seriously the most somber responsibility that congress has which is to engage around the declaration at the beginning. not five months in. at the beginning about whether initiate war. it is required, not riven by a more important value. it is not important -- fair to ask people like these three to give their lives in a mission if congress has not had a bit -- had a debate and put their thumb on it. how can we ask people to risk their lives? it would be fully to adjourn and wait until january when we come back, january 8, we would be into the six-month of war without congress taking any action. this is not about a quest to seem relevant. for those of us who do not believe for -- that the

authorizations give this is legal authority, everyday we , it is a congressional obligation of our fundamental responsibilities. there is a difference of opinion on this but this is about an argument about what power the to theture gave executive and you might not be surprised to know that those of us in the branch have a strong opinion about with that power was and what wasn't. we should act. the administration has not done your own draft. we have a deadline tomorrow to file amendments to this one. offer your own wordsmith and i am sure we can consider the administration's position.

i want to ask you a question about whether the administration's position have changed from what the president has said and i will redo five statements. i have been very clear that we are not going to have u.s. combat troops in iraq again. september 10. these american forces will not have a combat mission. we will not get dragged into another ground war. it will not involve american combat troops fighting on foreign soil. september 17. the american forces that have been deployed do not and will not have a combat mission. and theot commit you rest of our armed forces to be fighting another ground war in iraq. on september 18, 2014, i won't

commit our troops to fighting another ground war in iraq or in syria. the president's position or has the administration's position as evidenced by these clear and unequivocal statements have changed? no. let me address the constitutional question that the chairman brought up. it is important. is there president for restrictions and limitations and authorizations? i would recommend an article, congressional authorization and the war on terrorism. the harvard law review. it is an extensive review of the constitutional power of congress with respect to military authorizations and it begins with a case that dealt with the launchedrs that were against french authorities in

the 1790's. notauthorizations did authorize the president to use all of the armed forces of the u.s. or conduct military incursions beyond specified military targets in the limited the geographical scope of the authorized conflict. navy only. note roundtrips. most authorizations have in of this limited or partial nature. the cursed -- constitutional argument is clear. intent as stated repeatedly to the american public and the military is clear. there has been no change in that position. ae language is not restriction at all. carry outmpting to the mission. i get a lot of praise to the chairman for trying to listen to all of us, listen to the administration and put a mark

together that covers the contingencies orc sadducees -- or exigencies. that power is absolute. no one on this committee questions it. in terms of putting restrictions into this it has been done since the 1790's without any constitutional suggestion. i would hope you would offer some thoughts so thursday we can do this. we cannot wait until the six-month without congress to word.s the -- their could i just make a quick comment? --.iculate cas

historically in most debates about whether we should be using force or not, depending on who is president, depending on the balance in the senate and house, there tends to be an argument do novo. people can say presidential power and article two and that is going to apply to every situation as we are now debating. the question is, is there an effective way to achieve this goal that, given the balance of interests in the situation at this moment, given this particular fight, could achieve the goal. differently perhaps from the way it has been laid out, but without losing the impact or the effect. i think there may be some ways and i suggested a couple.

another may be through some kind of language that talks about no enduring combat operation or whatever but that is different and that avoids having to get into this specific discussion of all the kinds of instances that you are trying to cover. with allust say to genuine effort to try to achieve this goal of getting a maximum vote, i suggest that may be a better way then doing it by amendment is to pre-work the amendment or to find out if you can get an agreement so that you are doing it either by consensus or agreement on that amendment rather than just finding out the amendments and it is up or down and you do not resolve the fundamental problem. all the administration is saying an aumf.sn

we would like the strongest possible result. the goal is to get a result that has an impact for our allies and troops on the field who are deployed and particularly for to coalition and for isil understand our intent. i do not want to see that diminished i whatever amendment process without the adequate input. >> thank you and thank you for your testimony. there is no greater responsibility for any legislator than the debate over when we send our brave young men and women to war. the constitution is quite clear that this responsibility lies with congress. the federale in papers that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war careherefore we have with

vested that power in the legislature. we have been derelict in our duty. we have had great leaders in the jointrea became before a congress to ask for war. george w. bush came within two weeks after 9/11 to a joint session with the same request. this president has been derelict. there is enough blame to go around for congress who has also been derelict in their duty. there has been some gnashing of teeth that some senators had the anerity to offer this as amendment to the water bill. had we not, there would be no debate over war at this point so i except that blame as a badge of honor and pledged to continue in the new congress and to amend any bill that comes before the foreign relations committee with the use of authorization of force until we do finally have a debate and a vote before the full congress as we should.

there was some discussion and you have said the administration is opposed to a geographic limit. some on our side are basically for no limits at all. after watching what has happened and watching the gymnastics that tries to use an authorization of force that was intended to be used against those who attacked us on 9/11 to say isis had anything to do with them is an absurd notion and an argument for why we need to be careful and strict in what authority we give to the president. said theystration believe no geographic limit area there arer udall said groups in libya, algeria, yemen, and saudi arabia will have pledged allegiance to the islamic state. you said of course, that is why we need no geographic limit.

medina, saudi arabia to isis. there a lance is that the message you want to send to the world that you want the authority, the unlimited authority to attack geographically anywhere in the world if someone pledges their allegiance to the islamic state? that is why i cannot vote for any resolution that does not have a geographical restraint realized message we send if that is the message we're sending that if you data or lack of pledges allegiance to the islamic state, they are open to being bombed. and as a very scary wrongheaded message to presenting to the middle east or comments, please. click i think there a responsibility to technological and legitimate kinds of options. and to make the assumption in a

[indiscernible] no one is talking about everywhere. that is precisely what the constitution, you are a student of the constitution and you it,e yourself in upholding being a strict constructionist. i do not think you should put those limitations on the power of the executive. if you want to get into it as a declaration of war you have the right to do that but i would counsel you that no declaration of war has taken place since world war ii. and no president has come here including george bush who you cited erroneously as having done so. he asked for an authorization. >> i did not. but he did come. beif you are going to

strictly constructionist and adhere to the constitution in terms of what you are arguing about it would be a mistake to ask for a declaration of war. a declaration of war has been used against states. >> i am making the argument for geographic nature. if any city declares an allegiance to islamic state you would be justified and have the authority to bomb them. >> that statement is being made without any impact or the limits andor strictures within which the united states of america is currently operating. we have some of the most extraordinary self-imposed restraints on our checklist for

where and when and how we might use force. even where we have been authorized and you need to review that. you need to go find out what restraints are -- our military is operating under. you have been at war for five months without constitutional authority. franklyterm of war is -- we're not going to war in the in iraq we went to war or afghanistan. it is very restrained and different which is why we are in

forr of an authorization the use of military force which defines what it is but this is different. you need to look at the check list our people go through with respect to whether or not they might take a shot at something. you need to look at the restraints the president has put -- >> it is about the division of power and the balance of power between branches of government. >> it is bigger than that. it is about what you're trying to achieve and how you can howeve it and also about you use power. if you do not look at what you're trying to achieve and methodologies are, the tools that you have at your disposal, you're not going to get very far. year when youst came before the committee for the syrian aumf. problem --ere was no

this is against a regime that is , more would argue formidable than isis. many would argue much greater. you are willing to accept that you would have a prohibition on ground forces but today you are unwilling to accept a prohibition on ground forces. how would you compare the strength of the opponents and why would you accept no ground forces against the syrian regime that has more weapons and a larger army than isis? >> are you going to let me answer this in full? very specifically because it is an entirely different situation. what we were asking for in the case of the limited authority to have a limited strike against a at that time was entirely hissed on degrading

capacity to deliver chemical weapons and sending a limited we came here with great specificity about serious limitations on what we were seeking. allowing that restraint at that had no imposition on the capacity to carry out the mission. be mission was going to without troops, without ground forces -- it was designed that way and would have been executed that way, and we were losing absolutely nothing whatsoever because we had no intention of putting forces in do what we were going to do. >> but that is similar to your statements you have made about this for. -- this war. >> this president knowledge is as any president would -- as any ask anyoneuld -- whether