>> foreign policy was a topic on the sunday shows this morning. this after the u.s. military strike on syria after bashar al-assad's use of chemical weapons. we heard from a variety of members of the trump administration. was think the president very clear in his message to the american people that this strike was related solely to the most recent, horrific use of chemical weapons against women, children, and even small babies. the strike was a message to the that this would not go without a response in the future. russia to fulfill its commitment.

we are calling on al-assad to cease the use of these weapons. >> you are hoping there is an opportunity to drive a wedge between assad and putin? utin to do more to d?move a sod -- assa >> i am hoping we can do more to have russia involved in the process that will lead to a more stable syria. assad's they are currently biggest ally. they should have the greatest influence on him about the decision to no longer used chemical weapons. is thinkinga carefully about their alliance with al-assad. any time one of these horrific attacks occurs, it draws russia closer into some level of

responsibility. >> what we have seen at the united nations is a huge sigh of relief they are so thankful that the united states took the lead on this issue. we needed to get that influence out of there. we told them we are not going to what this anymore. i hope that what iran and syria sees and russia sees is that this is not a president who is afraid to ask. >> you said taking a sod out of king assad out of syria would not be a focus for the united states. is that now changing to making him a priority? >> we are trying to do is obviously defeat isis. secondly, we do not see a peaceful syria with a sod in there. d in there.with assa

thirdly, did the iranian influence out of there. we know there is not any sort of option where a political option can be pursued with assad and his regime. deter theive was to continued use of chemical regime in the assad his mess murder attacks against innocent civilians. i think everyone has confirmed that we are prepared to do more. -- we wereared prepared to do more to days ago as well. what is significant about this strike is not that it was meant to take out the syrian regime ability to perform mass murder on its own people, but it was meant to be a strong message to assad that the united states will not stand idly by as he

continues to murder innocent civilians. important objective to keep in mind here. >> he is continuing the mass murder. if he uses conventional weapons, is president trump prepared to stop him from using conventional weapons to slaughter innocent civilians? >> with this president, what we have is someone helping us to understand and provide him with an assessment of what is the degree of agency and control we have over a complex situation. does the president have a response to a mess murder attack , he will act decisively. the objective was not to take the airfield forever. the objective was to send a strong, political message to assad. i think this is very significant, because everyone should realize this is the first time thehas acted bravely against the assad regime.

that should be a strong message to assad. >> members of congress also weighed in on the u.s. military syria for some of the sunday talk shows. here's a look at what some of them had to say. >> there is no such thing as assad yes and isis no. as long as bush are al-assad is in power in syria, you will have a reason for people to be radicalized in syria. with all this talk of isis, there is an al qaeda group that is prepared to step into the vacuum left behind by a defeated isis. syriannot have a stable as long as bush are al-assad -- bashar al-assad is in power.

the idea that we will defeat isis and then figure out what to do with assad is not going to work. administrationmp should be talking about is massive, crippling sanctions on the russian company that is the principal arm supporter for syria. any other company or country in the world that does business with that company. that is where it should begin. then, the discussion should go to -- one, that the russians honor their commitment to remove all chemical weapons from syria. they have not done that yet. secondly, that they implement the cease-fire they negotiated with iran and turkey inside syria. that has not been honored. third, the agreement that humanitarian aid can be distributed throughout syria. that has not actually been honored. finally, that they go to the negotiating table and try to

find a political resolution with nd alland all -- assad a other parties at the table. in order to find in ultimate, negotiated settlement, we must negotiate with the syrian government. the only way to do that is if all parties are at the table including russia and the united states, and they are enforcing this goal of a negotiated settlement resulting in a government that all parties can live with. assad signed the chemical weapons treaty ban. there is in agreement with him not to use chemical weapons. but we have learned is that were criminals not police each other's -- that war criminals do not police themselves well. areof these resolutions limitations on using force and not authorizations to use force. i do not intend to vote for anything that limits our ability to win the war against assad.

-- thathink syria somehow you can send troops into that sovereign nation without having to have congress grant the president more authority there? don't you think you are in the minority view on that? >> we already have troops that are on the ground. if you do not want more american troops on the ground, cut off funding. oppositionrain forces to take assad down. he is a threat to the united states, because he is a proxy of iran. he used chemical weapons grade he violated -- chemical weapons. he violated the treaty that he signed. our strategy is not yet developed.

>> lindsay and i agree these atrocities are horrible, but this is where we differ. think the u.s. policy towards any nation should be that we get the change up your leaders. wrong,d is doing things then we can try to deter him from doing it. we can prosecute him for war crimes. i do not think the policy of the u.s. should be that we are going to change the regime of your leadership. that is what the syrians should decide. we should be part of the political process, but i do not think a regime change should be official u.s. policy. >> president trump explained his reasoning for the knowledge or for thegainst -- military strike against syria in a letter to congress.

>> c-span's washington journal live every day with policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, sharon will discuss federal ruling on lgbt workplace dissemination. r will discuss his .ook then, we will talk about the complexities of the tax code. be sure to watch washington journal live on monday morning. join the discussion. >> now, consumer financial bureau director testifies before congress about the agencies -- agency's