tonight on fbn, we go way back from this, say the timing of this, when congress has to consider the debt, the budget, fund health care, don't fund health care, a lot at stake, a lot more than syria. tonight, 8:00 p.m. see you then. this is a fox news alert. hello, everyone, i'm dana perino. you're looking live at capitol hill where secretary of state john kerry, secretary hagel and chairman dempsey are testifying about a potential military strike on syria in front of a senate foreign relations committee. hours before he departs for the g-20 summit, president obama and the administration are busy trying to make their case. the president laid out the evidence this morning. >> we have high confidence that syria used in an indiscriminate fashion chemical weapons that killed thousands of people, including over 400 children. that poses a serious national

security threat to the united states and to the region and as a consequence, assad and syria needs to be held accountable. i made a decision that america should take action. >> then he explained what a military strike would look like. >> the military plan that has been developed by our joint chiefs and that i believe is appropriate is proportional, it is limited, it does not involve boots on the ground. this is not iraq, this is not afghanistan. this is a limited proportional step that will send a clear message. >> andrea, seems to me after having made kind of a dog's breakfast of the weekend politically and from a communications standpoint that the administration kind of regained some footing this morning if you look at the coverage across the board. in the hearing today, seemed that kerry and hagel at least made a better case than they had made before. yesterday we thought the resolution would not pass congress. what are your thoughts now?

>> i still am highly skeptical that it will. i think president obama needs to do an oval office address if he really feels this is necessary and take it to the american people. we are a war weary country. if you supported iraq, maybe you can change your mind. maybe a lot of people have changed their mind and i think the country has, a lot of people have, so i think he needs to make that case. it is not whether or not we get involved in a civil war, the case is whether or not we get involved because wmds get used. the case i have to hear, dana, if we get involved, will this prevent assad using chemical weapons ever again and i have not heard a scenario presented yet where that has been argued by this administration. >> and that's one of the frustrations, eric, frustrations from the left and right, one on resolution from the democrats wanting it to be more narrow. mccain wanted it broader. do you think the administration made a better case for themself

today? >> i don't think they did. a couple thoughts on the hearing. early in the hearing, senator menendez asked john kerry if he could guarantee no boots on the ground, willing to put it in writing that there wouldn't be boots on the ground, he said no, he was unwilling to agree to that. he also said if we fail to act, we will have fewer allies and said obama drew this red line. i think he is outright disingenuous with the american people, put it that way. of course we will still have the same allies if we don't do anything, and president obama did draw the line. that's why they're having this hearing, talking about what we should do. if he didn't draw that line, we would be leaning on assad not to use chemical weapons, but certainly wouldn't be talking about sending american assets into a war scenario where we're going to spend a lot of money and likely kill a lot of people. >> and not actually change the outcome or who is in the regime. bob, you picked up on something that i think is useful for you

to help explain to the viewers. john kerry, secretary of state, alluded to the convention against use of chemical weapons, but i don't think anybody quite remembers, they haven't made the case. it was a fairly good point he made. >> even i am not old enough to remember it in real time, but after the first world war when there was indiscriminate use of mustard gas, a lot of people were hurt, there was an agreement reached by virtually every country in the world that there would no longer be use of these weapons in war. that's the red line kerry was referring to. yes, obama drew the line, he said those words, but that red line was drawn in the early 1920s. so i think that's one point. the point about the boots on the ground had to do with if there was an attack on american assets like the embassy and others in syria that that would be something that would require us to go in, but he didn't want to.

that's where i think it is. >> we are going to senator mccain, having a chance to talk to secretary kerry now. >> i got it. i really would like to move on to more important questions, if you don't mind. >> i thought all your questions were important, john. >> thank you, john, that's good. i'll try to remember that. the president said today that the purpose of the military action in syria is not just to respond to assad's use of chemical weapons but to degrade his military capabilities as part of a broader strategy to change the momentum on the ground, and as the president said, quote, allow syria ultimately to free itself. do you agree with that assessment, john? >> i said up front, said several times here, it will be a result of degrading use for chemical weapons, there will be downstream impact which will have impact on his military capacity. i agree with the president. >> thank you. general dempsey, do you agree with that statement of the

president's? >> i agree. i have never been told to change the momentum. i have been told to degrade capability. >> do you think, general, without a change in momentum that syria ultimately could free itself, secretary hagel? >> senator, i think they all are connected. degrading of military capability as you know is a pretty significant part of momentum shifts. >> secretary kerry, john, over the weekend "the wall street journal" ran an important op-ed. i hope you saw it, syrian analyst on the study of war, spent a great deal of time in syria including this month. i want to read her assessment of the situation on the ground. and i quote the story. the conventional wisdom holds the extremist elements are completely mixed in with more moderate rebel groups. this isn't the case. moderates and extremists wield

control over distinct territory. contrary to many media accounts, the war in syria is not being waged entirely or predominantly by dangerous islamists and al qaeda die hards. jihadists pouring into syria from countries like iraq and lebanon are not clocking to the frontlines, instead they are concentrating efforts on consolidating control in northern rebel held areas of the country. moderate opposition forces, collection of groups known as the free syrian army continue to lead the fight against the syrian regime. while traveling with some of the free army battalions, they defend alawi, christian villages from extremist groups. demonstrate willingness to submit to civilian authority, working closely with local administrative councils, and they struggle to ensure their fight against assad will pave

the way for a flurishing civil society. do you agree with that assessment of the opposition? >> i agree with most of that. they have changed significantly, they've improved. as i said earlier, the fundamentals of syria are secular and i believe will stay that way. >> i think it is important to point out as you said it is a secular state, they reject radical islamists. in some cases in areas they have control, people are demonstrating against them is the information i have. so when we see the commentators say we don't know which side will win, we don't know who the bad guys are, if you agree with this assessment, we certainly know who the bad guys are, is that correct? >> i believe we do for the most part. there are some worse thannal news ra, and tend to be in the northern area and the east.

>> thank you. and again, i would like to ask again, can you assure the committee that the administration does not see a protracted stalemate as a good thing or goal of u.s. policy. >> the goal of u.s. policy is not a stalemate, it is a solution that results in departure of assad and free choice of the syrian people for their future. >> finally i would like to ask again if we reject this resolution, doesn't it send as you already said, a seriously bad message to friends and allies alike, encourages our enemies, would disspirit our friends not only in syria but around the world.

>> senator mccain, i have gotten to know my counterparts in the mideast particularly well because of the crises and initiatives we've had to deal with in that region and i cannot emphasize enough how much they are looking to us now, making judgments about us for the long term, and how critical the choice we make here will be not just to this question of syria but to the support we may or may not anticipate in the mideast peace process, to the future of egypt, to the transformation of the middle east, to the stability of the region and other interests we have. there's no way to separate one thing from all of the rest. relationships are relationships and they're integrated and that's why this is important.

>> i also emphasize, if it is the wrong resolution, it can do just as much damage in my view. thank you. >> senator udall? >> thank you very much. i thank all of the witnesses for their testimony and for their service here today and i also want to thank chairman menendez for the way he has conducted this hearing. like everyone here, i deplore what bashar al assad has done to his people by attacking them with chemical weapons. >> you are listening to senator john mccain and a hearing that's continuing about the resolution and president obama's plan to attack, well, send missiles into helpfully degrade capability. that's what chairman dempsey said. greg, you haven't had a chance yet to talk about your thoughts on this, they're probably boiling over. >> oh, yes. >> please share. >> watching this, you can't help but see how it is so planned. this whole thing is planned. they're pals.

it plays out like a really boring play on pbs, something you have to watch for a class credit that everybody seems to know their parts and they're playing their parts. two questions i want to address that i don't think are being addressed. i know eric brought it up before, yesterday. the chemical weapons question is not settled. and i think america in a way, if you ever watch an episode of "cops" america is the cop that shows up in a domestic violence event, the wife has a fat lip, the guy has scratches. the cop doesn't know who started it, feels like he has to arrest the guy. we are in that line of work now, we show up at this event and pretend we know what happened, and we don't. the other thing what they brought up now, understanding who are the rebels, who are the good rebels, the bad rebels. you know what that's like? that's like when a dog eats a $100 bill, you have to wait for it to come out, sift through the mess. it is not good for anybody. there's no way to separate the good from the bad. why do we have to do it? why do we have to do it? it is like black jack at the

casino, can't we sit out a hand for once, sit out once? >> i think the evidence is mounting daily. >> how? >> he said it was beyond a shadow of a doubt. do they need more? >> if in fact the people who believe in the fruitless notion that this was done by the people opposed to assad, that means they sent missiles onto themselves and killed themselves. >> why wouldn't they do that, bob, if they know that's crossing the red line? the administration's story on this is as straight as liberaci. >> what mccain said and other evidence that's beginning to build, people that are fighting the syrians, free army people are separate, apart, distinct from radical islamists that are gathering in one part of the country to start another war at some point in my view, but i don't think there's any doubt, any doubt whatsoever that weapons of mass destruction were sent by assad.

>> how can you -- i don't know. >> there's no way you can make that claim. no one can make that claim unless they saw that. >> 99.9%. >> can i give you five reasons why not to do this? >> give me an answer why you think -- tell me why you think, what's your evidence? >> i don't have any, that's the point. we don't kill people until we have evidence something happened. you're saying go kill a bunch of people because it is highly likely that assad killed his own people when we don't know if al qaeda who also wants to kill bashar al assad wants to do it. al qaeda has america take care of their problems. >> the weapons sit is where the free syrian army were. >> 1400 people, and children, you're worried about, al qaeda wouldn't do that? >> al qaeda has already used weapons of mass destruction.

we know that he will nas ra has. we know the syrian army was overtaken by rebels, likely weapons of mass destruction could have ended up in the hands of al qaeda. if i'm al qaeda, why wouldn't i used them? why wouldn't i get the united states to come in, fight my war, oust assad, and then to have our administration say it is a phone oh scandal. kerry says our allies are watching. they have watched us oust mubarak, gadhafi, now potentially, haven't heard how, you just heard him say that let's see, the goal is departure of assad, that's what john kerry said. is it? i don't see how the plan they presented gets us to that point or gets us to a point assad doesn't use weapons again. >> bob, can i make a point? the big issue here is that you can't trust the people that are telling you this information, nancy pelosi used a conversation with her five-year-old grandson

about war in which the child asked if she was for bombing syria, a five-year-old. do you believe anybody that would use their child to justify a war, a five-year-old discussing war, do you believe those people? >> may i respond to that? were the americans -- she didn't have the answer. >> syria is a pot of mystery meat at a prison cafeteria. if you want to take a scoop out of it, that's fine. >> i would not trust pelosi and her five-year-old granddaughter, grandson. i would say this, those weapons of mass destruction were delivered by missiles. that much we can all agree on. the question is whether the opposition got hold of, radical opposition got hold of weapons of this poison gas may very well be true. the question is are they deliverable? do they have the ability to send

missiles in that area, the answer is no. >> al qaeda doesn't? >> we have been fighting al qaeda ten years, now you tell me they can't shoot from syria to syria? >> it is a specific missile. excuse me. let me give you a lesson. you can deliver missiles with war heads on top. to deliver missiles with poison gas, entirely different trajectory, and you don't do it with that kind of missile. >> you can though. easier to deliver say a nuclear missile, which you couldn't deliver, you don't have the right technology to deliver a nuclear weapon. >> i can't even respond to that. >> one of the things the secretary of state said was they had chatter on the ground with the government, assad government, talking about this attack. and he said he would give more details tomorrow morning in a closed session so that's for

people with top secret clearance. hopefully members of congress will attend the briefing, get more information so they as our representatives can make a decision. i have a question, greg. six months ago there was a report that the assad regime used chemical weapons against their own people. there was a promise from president obama that the rebels would get weapons on the front page of "the wall street journal" today, report that not a single rifle, no weapon has been provided to them. then all of a sudden you have this other attack on august 21st. next day, secretary of state john kerry comes out and says it is imminent, we must act right away. but up until now, 120,000 people have been killed by the government in syria. >> right. >> but there was no consequence for that. how do you think america looks at this? why does it matter? does it matter that 1400 more were killed? why haven't we done anything before, why weren't we able to get weapons to them? >> yeah.

i try to struggle with the fact that the acute atrocity is somehow worse than long term atrocity. if you look at long term atrocity, we should bomb the hell out of north korea, should be doing that because they are starving their people to death. it reaffirms the squish ee inconsistency of the obama administration. when we stood up to the iranian government, we stood by. the lie of the arab spring is that the united states encouraged it, we killed it in its infancy not acting on iran three, four years ago. that allowed other things to take place, whether the egyptian debacle, syria. if you think we lost respect, we already lost the respect. just because we don't attack now, doesn't mean there will be worse things. we've tacked. what did we do in the serbian conflict? we still had 9/11. >> libya we did it, president obama didn't go to congress. your point, dana, is a good one. president obama said two months ago yes, let's arm the rebels, let's do that. they were requesting gas masks,

he didn't send them. actually, the united states asked saudi arabia and qatar to stop sending weapons to the rebels to win favor with the russians to get them to possibly support a convention to go into syria. we botched this entire thing. i bet if you found the wmds, they would say property of saddam hussein. >> from the second world war to the korean war, vietnam war, granada, panamanian, iraqi, afghanistan war, we have not seen or used weapons like these because there was a convention we signed against them. once we have evidence that assad has broken that convention, that seems to me to be the national security. i think you have to take the military at some weight here and carry some weight that they have advantage of having looked at a lot of evidence and a lot of delivery systems, which is a really important part. >> you have to have evidence. >> they're presenting it now.

>> they haven't presented anything. they presented the fact that chemical weapons were used. i haven't heard any proof that assad is the one that delivered them, bob. you keep saying you should know that he's the only one with the capability. no. they'll spend billions of dollars, kill a lot of people, you better be damn sure, better be 110% sure, not 75% sure it was assad. >> eric, they were 100% sure a video was responsible for benghazi. >> until it wasn't. >> i just repeat again, there's never been use of chemical weapons on any war, with the exception of hussein against iran in the history of this country since world war i. i don't think now is the time for us to step back when we have a moral obligation to go in and stop it. >> did we in june, i'm sorry, dana, did we in june when the administration itself said in june, beginning of june, they knew that for months assad, they knew, had been using chemical weapons. why is it all of a sudden --

>> couldn't convince the allies then. >> that's a curious thing, bob. i assume the british are one of the first to sign onto the chemical weapons treaty, so they're not along for the ride here. what happens along the way that the united states -- >> france is not if congress says no. >> france said they were committed. >> only if congress says yes. >> okay. >> let me move to andrea and some polling that came out today. i believe i think we have a poll screen of it. not a huge surprise that a majority, vast majority of people are against any intervention. however, that could change. interestingly oppose is at 59%. that could change after today's testimony in front of members of congress, have a chance to talk to people, but maybe not. andrea, republicans initially, the gut reaction is they were more likely to support it than democrats, but overall, independents said we're not

convinced and not wanting to go. do you think that that speaks at all to members of congress? do you think they're listening to people at home or to the administration that is trying to convince them to give them not needed permission but the congressional nod that it is okay to do it? >> i think a lot of members are listening to constituents as they always do. anyone that's thinking of running for president is thinking about how the vote will go down because remember how important how members weighed in on iraq played out. i think the president has not made this case. i think he is pushing john kerry to make a case, much like you remember when joe biden offered support for hosni mubarak, they had to smack biden down, hillary clinton spoke out on benghazi, used her as a human shield. i think the president's strategic goal is to set up congress to take the blame on this resolution. if it fails, he will blame them. if it goes through, syria turns into a debacle, say assad is

ousted and al qaeda prevails, he can blame congress for that as well. set up a doggy door war for iran, he will also blame congress for that. >> independent sources of "the wall street journal," don't want to believe obama, don't believe him. people said al qaeda and islamists are a small part of a large resistance against what they call the free syrian army, they're secular, intend to remain secular. there's no way the islamists will take over, control that. >> that's what they said about the muslim brotherhood in egypt. >> they never said that. >> they did. said they wouldn't run for elections in egypt, said not only would they not run -- >> who said that? >> carter and biden both said those things. they said if they ran for elections and parliament, they would lose. >> what about the bigger picture, eric, when it comes to this being about the struggle

for the middle east and iran and israel basically having a faceoff through syria? >> i wrote this, help me out here. see if i got this straight. al qaeda hates assad, israel, qatar, turkey, hate assad, iran, hamas hate israel, america supports develop. iran, hamas, syria, muslim brotherhood, can i just suggest we stay the hell out of this place for now? figure out what's going on, not get involved. it is a powder keg. why light the match. >> why then would we get involved? >> allies. americans at risk. >> two allies, jordan and israel left. >> saudi? >> saudi arabia supports the attack. >> why don't we let the saudis do it. >> they don't have the money.

there's a small military. >> they could pay for it. >> senator rand paul who has already said he would vote against it is expected to speak shortly and when that happens, we will bring that to you. i do want to talk to one piece of sound from senator marco rubio who up until today you hadn't heard much from him on this, which i think was fairly smart as he was taking in all of the information. listen to some of the questions he had for chairman dempsey. >> how confident are you and how confident can you express to this committee you are that we can, in fact, put in place a military plan that's limited in scope and duration that can effectively degrade assad's capability to carry out future chemical attacks? >> i'm confident in the capabilities we can bring to bear to deter and degrade and it won't surprise you to know that we will have not only an initial target set but subsequent targets set should they become necessary.

>> this is interesting, greg. on the red line comment, even if they try to convince people this has been the world's position, not just president obama's position, but senator rubio was asking the chairman and what secretary of state kerry has said is well, they're not going to rule out any option. they're not ruling out boots on the ground. do you think they're going to be able to convince people they don't have a longer term plan? >> the interesting thing, they said they don't want boots on the ground taken off the table, which means they want to leave boots on the table. and i knew this was going to happen when i saw that picture of president obama there, see his boot there is on the table. this was a clue he was sending to the world that boots were going to be on the table. >> you could read that through the picture. >> yes. i have a weird way of seeing things. they still have to address two questions, then i would agree with bob. whatever happens i will support because you have to support your military. but the two questions are could

the attack have been engineered to look like assad because of obama's red line comment. number two, is there a way to punish syria strongly while not assisting people who hate us. that's the key. or can we hit them both? i mean, we keep telling the people relax, it is not a war, it is not a bombing, it is not an attack, it is an action. i would like it to be all three if we're going to -- if it means we win. >> the free syrian army does like us, there's a difference here. the distinction ought to be kept -- >> how about the syrian army? >> what about the syrian army? how do they feel about us? >> they don't particularly like us, that's right. >> i don't know. >> i think they had a major defection the other day. maybe there are cracks. >> let me ask eric a question. if you had absolute confidence, absolute unequivocal confidence that assad used chemical weapons

against these people, would you then agree with the attack? >> no, i think i would take assad out. i would do a osama bin laden, let's take out bashar al assad, instead of killing a bunch of people, really not sure who else we kill in the meantime, we may kill people that are friendly to us, syrian military. here is another thing, think about this one second. >> for the record here, you would not go in and take out, try to degrade. >> no. here is the other thing, once we go in and do this, bob, i think we're going to, when john boehner comes out and says i am for this, he will probably get the house vote, i am worried about reaction, i am worried what happens to israel, then do we have to defend israel and come in and say no boots on the ground? that's all off, israel is attacked, make sure the middle east -- bob, can you explain to me how on one hand we're going to degrade a regime in 24 hours

and still be limited in proportion. >> he didn't say degrade a regime, he said degrade the ability of them to deliver chemical weapons. >> in 24 hours, they're going to be able to do that. >> they won't in 24 hours. >> andrea said that secretary of state kerry said removal of assad is the goal. >> departure of assad, and he may have already left. a general went on a personal mission, government didn't send him, he returned, he said his sources tell him assad has fled the country. here is why i'm skeptical going to congress. obama didn't go to congress when it came to libya and gadhafi was asked by president bush to turn over his weapons and gladly did, didn't ask questions, here you go. >> the reason wasn't because of iraq. >> but he turned them over. didn't go to congress for that. all of the things obama bypassed congress on, why does he care about congress now? employer mandate delay, mini dream act, obama care waivers, i

could go on and on. i bypassed congress consistently on big ticket items. why now does he care for congress' approval? that's why i am skeptical. >> this is the problem with being inconsistent, unprincipled. one of the questions is what should the republicans do? eric mentioned john boehner. we have sound to show you, then we will take it around the table. >> i'm going to support the president's call for action. i believe my colleagues should support this call for action. >> don't let the enemy know what our plans are going to be. if anything, wider rather than narrow. otherwise why go to this effort. >> i have to see the details, i have to see what's going to happen. i'm very worried about one of these cosmetic kind of resolutions. >> the connection between syria and iran is clear as a bell. to disconnect these two would be a huge foreign policy national security mistake.

>> if congress votes this down, we should not be involved in the syrian war, and i think it is 50/50 whether the house will vote down involvement in the syrian war. >> i am glad we ended on the rand paul thought because, eric, president obama has maintained he doesn't have to have congressional approval, and from what i understand, i agree with that. they left it open to say even if this doesn't pass congress, president obama could act anyway. but if congress doesn't approve it, do you think he will do it and face the consequences? >> i think when france came out and said only with congressional approval do we go with you, it will hurt his case if congress says no. that means it is unilateral, obama goes alone. i think because he did draw the red line, made such a big deal with john kerry last friday saying we're going with or without congress, i think he's going to go. i think he wants to bring congress along with him, i get to garner public support, but it is not happening.

the people are against this. all of these congressmen and senators are going to go up for re-election, are going to face constituents and say we didn't want to go to syria, especially if this thing blows up, which it will, it will not be a 24, 48 hour event. this will have ripple effects. they have to face constituents, say i know you didn't want to do it, i voted for it anyway, that's going to be a tough go. >> bob, i am for doing the right thing, supporting the president. i don't want to make this political but you're here, we have to keep talking. i want to hear your point of view on the politics from the republican perspective. what would you advise? >> i think the republicans have been, you know, historically been more willing to act in capacity like this. it is very recent that the isolationist wing of the republican party reared its head again, hadn't been around since the barry goldwater days. i think it is now, we're beginning to see somewhat of a split in the republican party over interventionism overseas.

i think from the republican standpoint, boehner probably said it right, should probably go along with the president. when you ask people in polls should you go to syria, they think of it like iraq and afghanistan. it is different. >> what do you think, andrea from a politics standpoint? >> i think it matters, this is going to be the most important vote outside of probably obama care. this one the fault lines are interesting the way people are coming down on this. you have republicans against the war, democrats for i should say a strike, not a war. i'm willing to give boehner a small benefit of the doubt on this because i think the speaker sees americans' credibility on the line and doesn't want that desecrated, i don't think any of us do, but i think it is a very critical vote the members have to take and they better think long and hard about this because israel is not really supporting this. i think they're very nervous about this, bob. i think netanyahu made a statement over the weekend where he said listen, we can defend

ourselves, but they have cautioned the united states into getting themselves into something they're not prepared and committed to finishing. >> just a point, kerr. >> said we will support what americans do, but want americans to entertain all options before making this decision. >> paris hilton? no idea she was interested. >> the answer to the question, dana, house and senate vote it down, which they will not, it will be a big vote, he will go anyway and should go. we have moral obligation to do so. >> what if we go, 200 tomahawk missiles in there. whatever. and we were out in a couple days and it doesn't do anything, they still have capability. do we look stronger to the allies or enemies or weaker?

i think we look weaker. >> if you remember, we did bosnia without booze on the ground by degrading their infrastructure. that's what they have in mind here. >> what did that do. >> got them to the peace table. >> there were troops, united nations. >> dana, can i say quickly, the way the administration handled syria from the start is mind boggling. john kerry had a cozy dinner with his wife sitting behind him now, which is also very strange, had a cozy dinner with the assads, vogue glamorized them. hillary clinton called assad a reformer. now kerry is telling us he is hitler, 2.0, strong words friday. they have again not calculated this well. >> weird, greg, if you had gone to dinner with somebody then a year later find out you're basically accusing them of gassing their own people. >> yeah.

it was a difficult thing. as you know, i lived with gadhafi for a couple years in the '90s, didn't work out too well. bringing home goats. why don't they do -- you know what they should do? send dennis rodman. he is available and willing to talk to these people. before we commit to sending missiles, let's send dennis rodman. i would like to see that happen. >> i figure since we're not talking about dennis rodman, i am going to talk about him anyway. he is jimmy carter with a nipple ring. >> that's a really sick visual. >> that is. >> he's harry kissinger with a tongue stud. >> before that gets out of control, let me talk to you, secretary kerry discussing what would happen if congress votes it down. >> pyongyang and tehran and

damascus, folks will stand up and celebrate and a lot of other capitals in parts of the world people will scratch their heads and sign a sort of condolence for the loss of america's willingness to stand up and make itself felt where it makes a difference in the world. i think it would be enormous set back to america's capacity and to our vision to our world and the role of leadership we play. >> an interesting comment, andrea. the way i read across the board, left, right, center, all the articles, the world already thinks that. all of the things he just described that are possible consequences of america voting again are something they already think. i do think it is repairable, but really think we've got our you

know what together. >> who is the world? >> in the world. >> our you know what? >> you can't say that on air. >> name some of the allies think we are -- >> the british are scratching their head. >> france. >> if john kerry isn't willing to rule out boots on the ground, even more so the president needs to make this case to the american people. i mean, he hasn't done it in thirty months. i do think our enemies and allies are looking at us going what's the plan. we have asked what's the plan. if assad stays or goes, i haven't heard a plan. >> house of commons, a direct result of sending british soldiers to iraq, they don't want to do it again. that's exactly what they said, it was a vote about iraq, not about this. >> if it is not for boots on the ground, what's the problem. >> that's the problem. >> i think there's another

reason, because these countries don't spend enough money on defense. they're worried about the entitlement spending, have all of the other domestic programs that they have to deal with, they do not have growing economies. the bottom line, we don't have spare change. and the united states, i don't think we spend enough on defense, plus we're dealing with the sequester, which some conservatives argue should be in place even after this. i think it is hurting our troops and capability. in the coming months as they have debate of funding of the government moving forward, should conservatives hold their feet to the fire, demand some financial concession or on entitlements or tax reform to help fund the military more? >> i don't know. i think if we go, we have to fund the military like we always have, we fund it, we deal with it later, figure out what happens later. i'm curious bob points out the saudis say we should go.

points to the u.n., say defer to the u.n., and the u.n. says don't go, but saudis say go. why would they and kuwait say go. what's the most important thing to them? high oil prices, right? if there's turmoil, if america is involved in a middle eastern conflict, oil prices will skyrocket and they benefit. they need oil prices to skyrocket, their economies are built on what used to be a $25 barrel of oil, now built on $100 barrel. >> solution, goes back to one word. >> fracking. >> frack the hell out of this country so we're no longer de dependent on the psychos in the middle east and don't care about prices. they can go broke in their rolls royces, screw them. frack it. >> but israel is in the middle of it. >> it is tough. i wish we could move israel here, we can't, israel is there. it is like they moved into a bad

neighborhood. there's critics of -- they moved to a bad neighborhood. can't you just move out? and there's a lot of critics of action here, of the action which i disagree with. i'll shut up now. >> rand paul. >> i didn't vote for him, stood opposed to him a few times, i was proud he did this, i was about to stand on my feet, clap, give him a standing ovation, i heard well, if i lose the vote, i'll probably go ahead and do the bombing anyway, so that does concern me. i want to be proud of the president, every time i'm just about there, i get word that really he doesn't mean it, that he's going to sort of obey the constitution if he wins, so i heard secretary kerry say if we win, sure, but if we lose, what? i mean, make me proud today, secretary kerry. stand up for us and say you're going to obey the constitution and if we vote you down, which is unlikely, by the way, but if we do, you would go with what

the people say to their congress and you wouldn't go forward with a war your congress votes against. can you give me a better answer, secretary kerry? >> i can't give you a different answer than the one i gave you. i don't know what the president's decision is. i will tell you this, it ought to make you proud because he still has constitutional authority. >> i don't believe he has the constitutional authority, i think congress has this. madison was very explicit when he wrote the federalist papers, he wrote history supposes or the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most likely to go to war, and therefore the constitution vested that power in the congress. it is explicit and runs throughout all of madison's writings. this power is a congressional power and it is not an executive power. they didn't say big war, small war, boots on the ground, not boots on the ground, they said declare war. ask the people on the ships

launching missiles whether they're involved with war or not. if we do not say the constitution applies, if we do not say explicitly that we will abide by this vote, you're making a joke of us. you're making us into theater. we play constitutional theater for the president. if this is real, you will abide by the verdict of congress. you're probably going to win, just say it is real, let's have a meaningful debate. and not where you say we have the authority and we're going to war anyway. a couple of items. >> i assure you there's nothing meaningless and there's everything real. >> only if you adhere to what you vote on, only if our vote makes a difference, only if our vote is binding is it meaningful. >> i will leave to the man elected as president of the united states the responsibility for telling you what his decision is, if and when that moment came, but the president intends to win this vote and

he's not going to make prior announcements. >> we've had a lot of discussion about whether or not we're going to make the world safer with this, somehow we're going to have less chemical weapons. i think that's an open question and i think it is conjecture at best. you can say we think assad will be less likely to launch chemical weapons after this. we may be able to degrade his capacity somewhat. you have a thousand tons. we're going to wipe it out. most reports i hearsay we're not even probably going to directly bomb chemical weapons because of what might happen to the surrounding population. so my guess is he still will have the ability, most people say assad acted very ill logically. why would he do that when it would bring the anger of the world. he is acting illogically. i think it is likely he does it again or doesn't do it. i don't think you can say which is better. i don't know that we can say by attacking them he is not going

to launch another chemical attack. i have a few of them, then i'll stop. will the region be more stable or less stable? we all want stability in the middle east, and that's a national interest for our country. will it be more stable, less stable? i think there are equal arguments on both sides. will israel be more likely to suffer attack on them, gas attack or otherwise or less likely? there's valid argument to say they'll suffer in attack. will russia be more likely, less likely to supply more arms, get more heavily involved in this? i think there's valid argument they may become more involved. iran, more likely, less likely to be involved. iran gets involved, more or less likely israel launches reprisal attack on iran. there are all kinds of unknowns i can't tell you absolutely the answer and neither can you, but i think there's a reasonable

argument the world may be less stable because of this, and it may not deter chemical weapons attack. so what i would ask is how are we to know? how are we to go home? i haven't had one person come up to me, say they're for this war, not one person. we get calls by the thousands. nobody is calling in favor of this war. when i was home all month, went to 40 cities. didn't have one person say do they all agree it is a horrendous thing, yes, we all agree chemical attacks are horrendous. people aren't excited about getting involved, don't think it will work, and are skeptical what will occur with this. i would appreciate your response, try to reassure the rest of us one that the vote is meaningful and valid, that you would adhere to it, and that you're convinced these items would be better, not worse, by this attack. >> senator, i would be happy to do that. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack or will they be

safer, less safe, i can make it crystal clear to you, israel will be less safe unless the united states takes this action. iran and hezbollah are two of the three biggest allies of assad. and iran and hezbollah are the two single biggest enemies of israel. if iran and hezbollah are advantaged by the united states not curbing assad's use of chemical weapons, there is a much greater likelihood that at some point down the road hezbollah, who has been one of the principal reasons for change in the situation on the ground, will have access to these weapons of mass destruction, and israel will for certain be less secure. >> i would also argue it is more likely hezbollah will attack because of this attack in

response. >> and israel feels quite confident of its ability to deal with hezbollah if they were to do so. you will notice that israel has on several occasions in the last year seen fit to deal with threats to its security because of what's in syria. not once has assad responded to that to date. i think there are a bunch of things we should talk about in a classified session, but let me just make it very clear to you that, you know, you asked these questions, will this or that be more likely to happen or not likely to happen. if the united states of america doesn't do this, senator, is it more or less likely that assad does it again? you want to answer that question? >> i don't think it is known. i think it is unknown. >> senator, it is not unknown. if the united states of america doesn't hold him accountable on this with our allies and friends, it is a guarantee assad

will do it again, a guarantee, and i urge you to go to the classified briefing and learn that. second secondly, let me point out with respect to this question of americans wanting to go to war, you have three people here, john mccain been to war, not one of us doesn't understand what going to war means and we don't want to go to war. we don't believe we are going to war in the classic sense of taking american troops and america to war. the president is asking for the authority to do a limited action. it will degrade the capacity of a tyrant that's been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. >> i think by doing so you announce in advance your goal is not winning. i think the last 50 years of secretaries of defense would say the goal is not to win,

shouldn't be going. >> do you want to go to war in syria, of course not. 100% of americans would say no. we say no. we don't want to go to war in syria either. that's not what we're here to ask. the president is not asking you to go to war, to declare war, to send one american troop to war. he is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who's been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100-year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we won't do that. that's not -- you know, i just don't consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young americans in harm's way. that's not what the president is asking for here. general, do you want to speak at all to that? >> no, not really, secretary,

thank you for offering. >> great, thank you to all of you. it has been a good discussion. i want to echo what senator paul, durbin and others said. i very much appreciate and celebrate the president's decision to bring this matter to congress. i also believe with others that co constitution gets -- >> that was senator rand paul had a very spirited conversation with secretary kerry. and bob asked a question while it was going on, did it convince anyone. i thought secretary kerry has done a great job. >> rand paul did this amazing thing, he asked a number of questions, and proceeded to answer all of the questions himself, which i thought was really entertaining. >> he went through one by one, asked the questions we have been throwing around here a bit. bob asked the question on break, while we were listening to that,

did that change your mind. no. why is it just us, bob? are the french, brits, germans against the geneva convention or whatever the red line originally signed that said -- are they against that? are they okay with human rights atrocities? >> they're not. >> why aren't they joining us. if it is so bad and they're so sure, why aren't they with us? >> besides the british and maybe the french, they don't have military capability to do what we need to do to degrade the forces, united states is the only one that does, one. two, the saudis have, you can argue oil, the saudis, kuwaitis who believe iran is the threat to the stability of the region, iran will be emboldened if the united states doesn't attack. >> where are the allies? they aren't with us. >> wait a minute, that's not exactly accurate. >> i think they want to back a

winner. that's what happens. when president obama gets this approval, then those leaders will feel embolden. this is why you cannot lead from behind, you have to be in front. this is what the leader of the free world does. we also have a report, i want to get andrea's reaction. politico is reporting that former secretary of state hillary clinton is backing president obama on this request to congress and the action against assad and in syria. not a huge surprise, andrea, but perhaps an important timing wise so that she could be mentioned in the stories tomorrow morning about how this plays out in the future. >> and of course she voted for the resolution to go to war in iraq. it would be strange i think if she didn't come out on this, because a number of 2016 potential republicans contenders are weighing in, we saw rand paul. i do not believe the founding fathers set up this nation to be the world's cop. and i think we need to really take a hard look at what's happening. this solution proposed by the

administration does not please hawk nor dove. and that question of whether or not this will prevent assad striking again still has not been answered. dana, if they're going to go in, go big. i won't love it. i won't like it. go in, wipe assad out, wipe all the weapons out, flatten him. that's only if they're a threat to the united states directly. that would be my take on it. or don't go in at all. these little missiles into a camel's behind or into donkey's ass, bob -- >> i don't have any idea what you mean by that, one or two missiles? could be 200, 300, 400. we're sitting here speculating. one thing we know, if he gets away with it, he will have broken an almost 100 year covenant. >> already gotten away with it. >> the other civilized people in

the world aren't joining us in the fight. >> they're not capable, military capable. >> they can support us. >> you don't know what the saudis are doing. >> and french -- the brits said no, the french said only if congress says yes. >> house of commons said no. >> here is the thing also. president obama was dealt cards and he has to play them. he doesn't know what the other player has in his cards. you can't tell, there's no crystal ball. you don't know. that's why you leave options open on this. before we lose you to "special report," greg, any final thoughts? >> the point about us being the policemen, it raises an important question. if we aren't the policemen, who will be the policemen? if you realize we're the most powerful country, then you have to be consistent about when you

act. if you are going to be the world's policeman, you should have been for invading iraq. if you're for thisould have bee. i admire the consistency, hate to say it, of john boehner. he would have supported it under bush, supports it under obama. there are a lot of hawks on the left and doves on the right. interesting development. >> bob, any final thoughts, then give the last word to eric. >> my final thoughts are that i would hope that everybody who listens to this program or any american who understands that the capability to do this is left only in the hands of the united states, we were dealt that hand, that's what we've got. i would beg everybody to rise above partisanship, not try to second guess what people are doing here, understand this is a moral obligation of the united states of america to stop this madness and stop the madman from gassing his people. >> i don't know if we can keep saying moral obligation, it is like saying it is the right thing to do. i am sick of hearing it is the

right thing to do, it offers no explanation. >> i am completely against this, if we go, you have to support our troops and everything we do, but i will tell you, this is the wrong place, the wrong time. there aren't any americans at risk, aren't any allies at risk now. even if you don't agree with that, even if you don't agree with that, you don't lose anything by waiting. if you wait and find out exactly what's going on, you don't lose ground. you say more people will be killed, bob. there's 120,000 dead already. if we wait, make sure we're backing the right guys, not the bad guys, we'll be better off in the long run. i don't think we should go at all. >> there are upwards of 120,000 killed, plus the recent chemical attack. don't forget, there are millions that have been displaced from the country that are living in refugee camps, so there could be a major humanitarian crisis under way, and what's interesting to me, i don't think there's enough journalists over

there. i don't think we have enough information, because it is not safe for them to be there, so they're doing the best they can, listening through lebanon, turkey, wherever they can for information. if we could get more journalists in there, that would be a helpful thing. >> there are a million refugees on the move. many have gone into jordan, excuse me, into lebanon. >> and this place is totally [bleep]ed up. >> we have to deal with it anyway. we are an exceptional nation. >> dana, the difference is the president hasn't been arguing that during his time. we're not exceptional, not the nation's cop, we're too strong. mixed messages. >> we had an enjoyable hour. i had a great one more thing. i will hold it for tomorrow. i can keep it, i had a gift for greg.

>> is this something that will die? >> it will never die. it is not going to die. "special report" is next. make sure you stay and watch. thanks. >> a civil war in another country. the concern -- this is a fox news alert, i am bret baier in washington. you're looking live at the senate foreign relations committee on the president's plan for military strikes in syria is about to wrap up at any moment. we will talk live shortly with one of the members of that panel, senator marco rubio. you can watch the end of this hearing, go to foxnews.com, see the live streaming video there. first, here, we will give you headlines, context, analysis. it could be the most important sales pitch of his term. president obama met with leaders and sent teams to capitol hill to continue the hard sell. chief congressional