coming out. they're saying i actually was less convinced after i heard the case, i heard loretta sanchez say that tonight. >> all right, let's take a moment now and pause at the top of the hour as you look live at the east room. across the hall there, we continue our special coverage of president obama's address to the nation on syria. >> welcome back to fox news coverage of president obama's speech to the nation on syria, the president is expected to give his perspective on a tentative agreement between russia and syria that would have syria turn over control of its chemical weapons. an idea the president called a continuation of conversationss e had with the russian president at the g-20 summit. but now putin is setting stipulations on just how far it will go, remains to be seen.

>> the country is not divided right now, largely united on the idea there should not be more u.s. intervention in syria, and there have been mixed messages from syria, first it was the president's red line, then the world's red line's then the president said let's go to congress, and then he said congress needs to take a pause and give this diplomacy a chance to move forward. so i'm told that he wants to have sort of a two-tiered approach tonight, where he wan s s to have the secretary give the chance, while still holding out the possibility. the stick of military action, but kerry said this would be a very limited mission, a very small u.s. military strike. so that is raising questions about that, as well. more than anything, he has to clarify this tonight. >> ed henry, as you see president obama walking across the hall. reminding them of the speech he made announcing osama bin laden's death. this is a different scenario,

president obama. >> my fellow americans. tonight, i want to talk to you about syria. why it matters, and where we go from here. over the past two years what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of bashar al-assad has turned into a brutal civil war. over 100,000 people have been killed. millions have fled the country. in that time, america has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition and to shape a political settlement. but i have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force. particularly after a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan. the situation profoundly changed, though, on august 21st, when assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people including hundreds of children. the images from this massacre

are sickening. men, women, children lying in r rows, killed by poison gas. others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. a father, clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. on that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons. and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off limits. a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. this was not always the case. in world war i, american gis were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of europe. in world war ii, the nazis used gas to kill on a mass scale. with no distinction between the

civilized, the word has worked to ban them. in 1997, the united states senate overwhelmingly approved the international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98% of humanity. on august 21st, these basic rules were violated. along with our sense of common humanity. no one disputes that chemical weapons were used in syria. the world saw thousands of videos. cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack. and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas. moreover, we know the assad regime was responsible. in the days leading up to august 21st, we know that assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an

area they distributed sarin gas. they distributed masks to their troops, then fired the controlled gas to neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. shortly after those rockets lands, the gas spread and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. we know senior figures in assad's military regime reviewed the results of the attack. and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. we've also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin. when dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. but these things happened. the facts cannot be denied. the question now is what the united states of america and the international community is prepared to do about it.

because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it is also a danger to our security. let me explain why. if we fail to act, the assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. as the ban against these weapons er odes, other tyrants will not think twice about acquiring these chemical weapons and using them. over time, we will face the chemical weapons on the battle fie field. and it could be user for organizations to obtain these and fight against civilians. the fighting could go beyond borders and threaten allies like turkey, jordan, and israel. and the failure to stand against the use of these weapons would welcome other uses of weapons of

mass destruction, such as iran, which must decide against building more nuclear weapons or to take a more peaceful path. this is not a world we should accept. this is what is at stake. and that is why after careful deliberation, i determined that it is in the national security interests of the united states to respond to the assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. the purpose of this strike would be to deter assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. that is my judgment as commander in chief. but i'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy, so even though i possess the authority to order military strikes, i believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security

to take this debate to congress. i believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of congress. and i believe that america acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. this is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the president. and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the people's representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force. now, i know that after the terrible toll of iraq and afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. after all, i have spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. our troops are out of iraq, our troops are coming home from afghanistan. and i know americans want all of us in washington, especially me, to concentrate on the task of

building our nation here at home. putting people back to work. educating our kids. growing our middle class. it is no wonder then, that you're asking hard questions. so let me answer some of the most important questions that i have heard from members of congress and that i have read in letters that you have sent to me. first, many of you have asked, won't us put us on a slippery slope to another war? one man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in iraq. a veteran put it bluntly. this nation is sick and tired of war. in answer is simple. i will not put american boots on the ground in syria. i will not pursue an open-ended action like iraq or afghanistan. i will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like libya or kosovo. this would be a targeted strike

to procure the end of assad's capabilities. others have asked if it is worth acting if we don't take out assad. some members of congress have said there is simply no point in doing a pinprick strike in syria. let me make something clear. the united states military doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. i don't think we should remove another dictator with force. we learned from iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. but a targeted strike can make assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons. other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. we don't dismiss any threats. but the assad regime doesn't have the ability to seriously

threaten our military. any other retaliation they may seek is in line with threats that we face every other day. neither assad or his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise, and our allies can defend themselves with overwhelming force, as well as with the support of the united states of america. many of you have asked a broader question. why should we get involved at all in a place that is so complicated, and where as one person wrote to me, those who come after assad may be enemies of human rights. it is true that some of assad's opponents are extremists. but al-qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. the majority of the syrian people and the syrian opposition we work with just want to live

in peace. with dignity and freedom. and the day after any military action we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. finally, many of you have asked, why not leave this to other countries? or seek solutions short of force. as several people wrote to me, we should not be the world's policemen. i agree. and i have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. over the last two years, my administration has tried warnings, sanctions, and negotiations, but chemical weapons were still used by the assad regime. however, over the last few days we have seen some encouraging signs. in part, because of the credible threat of u.s. military action.

as well as constructive talks i had with the russian president, putin, the international community has agreed to join in pushing assad to give up his chemical weapons. the assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said they join the chemical weapons which prohibits their use. it is too soon to tell if it will succeed. it is too early to see if assad keeps its commitments. but this has the potential to remove the use of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because they are one of assad's strongest allies. i have asked congress to postpone the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. i am sending secretary of state john kerry to meet his counterpart on thursday, and i will continue my own discussions

with putin. i have spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, france and the united kingdom. and we'll work closely with russia and china to put forth the proposal to the u.n. security counsel for assad to give up his chemical weapons and destroy them under international control. we'll also urge them to report their findings on what happened august 21st. and we'll continue to rally for support from europe, our allies from asia to the middle east who agree on the need for action. meanwhile, i have ordered our military to maintain their current posture, to keep the pressure on assad. and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. and tonight, i give again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices. my fellow americans, for nearly seven decades, the united states has been the anchor of global

security. this has meant doing more than forging international agreements. it has meant enforcing them. the burdens of leadership are often heavy. but the world is a better place because we have borne them. and so to my friends on the right, i ask you to reconcile your commitment to america's military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. to my friends on the left, i ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people, with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor. for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. inde indeed, i would ask every member of congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack. and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the united

states of america sees a deck dictator brazenly violate an international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way? roosevelt once said our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concerns when ideals and principles that we cherish are challenged. our ideals and principles, as well as our national security are at stake in syria. along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used. america is not the world's policemen. terrible things happen across the globe. and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. but when, with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death, and

thereby make our own children safer in the long run, i believe we should act. that is what makes america different. that is what makes us exceptional. with humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. >> president obama in the east room of the white house, speaking for about 15 and a half minutes on the rapidly evolving situation in syria. he spoke, first laying out some of the intelligence the administration has, pointing to the syrian regime, using chemical weapons against its own people, including intercepts about regime activity right before those rockets were fired. the president said what happened to people in syria is a danger to u.s. security and a violation of international law. he also said, when dictators commit atrocities, they depend on people to look the other way.

one possible question on the fallout, he talked about russia and the proposal to give up the weapons, and the conversation he had with vladimir putin at the g-20 summit. he is asking congress to delay their vote on the military action as he works with britain, france, china and russia on a u.s. resolution requiring assad to give up the weapons. and he said assad and the ideals and principles as well as the international security are at stake. let's get the first reaction from our panel. retired gentlemen robert scales, kirsten powers, for "the daily beast." and syndicated columnist, charles krauthammer. >> well, i think he made the most coherent case he has up until now, for action.

i think he will have zero action from the public. but i am glad he laid it out the way he did. there is one contradiction, which is why us, people ask? he talks about international law, standing up for decency on the international humanity? and yet, there is not one country, except for france, standing up with the idea. so that makes a sham that this is somehow a statement by all humanity of nations, which he calls them, which i believe is a fiction. in fact, the only reason that the french are with us on this is because syria and lebanon are former colonies that were given to france after the first world war. and as in west africa, the french will act in places that they were the colonial power. so this is an expression of

french nationalism, not an expression of french altruism. remember, the democrats excoriated bush for acting in iraq, when it had almost 50 allies. so i think it is the core issue and i'm not sure he addressed it in a way that will appease any of his opponents. >> he said he wanted to deter assad, and signal to the world. and he doesn't have a plan b. he has this limited, targeted very small footprint attack. no air power. and what happens if the day after -- obama says the day after we're going to seek a diplomatic solution. well, what happens the day after if assad doesn't feel the same way? what if he escalates? i think he is probably going to be in a position where he maintains his own credibility. so obama doesn't seem to have a plan b. what struck me as the most

upsetting, i remember being in the white house when henry kissinger said, peace is at hand! this is right before the election, and it turns out peace was not at hand. nixon was reelected, the north vietnamese realized they could use it, regarding a peace agreement. and they did not. and it was not until nixon had the christmas bombing that brought peace back to the table. so i'm worried that obama is setting himself up, saying we're going to go, going to talk to the russians. and if everybody calls his bluff, he is really going to be in trouble. >> secretary kerry is going to geneva, the president mentioned that. he still has not scared this circle that it came out at the g-20 summit, even though the president addressed the comments as off-the-cuff and a rhetorical

argument. what is your thoughts. >> well, i think it struck me as it should have been done sooner. maybe a toned down version of what we heard from susan rice, maybe less of a flourish. i don't think he said anything new in the debate that will shift anything. and frankly, i think as he said, americans are war weary, there is going to be a slippery slope, and they're worried about it. i don't think he said anything to indicate it is not going to happen. furthermore, they have been talking about assad as hitler, right? so that is the circle that has not been scared. how dcan you just do these limited strikes and that is it? when you have your secretary of state comparing him to hitler, when you have harry reid comparing him to hitler.

>> he talked about his pressure to maintain on assad. he also said he does not do pinpricks. >> well, what he is trying to do to use military speak is square the circle between means and ends, means, it is essentially a very small pinprick, america has very large military power, this is very large in terms of military power, but look at the ends. what does he seek to achieve? he seeks to stop the use of chemical weapons? he is also going to protect who? he mentioned turkey, jordan, he threatened iran. oh, and he said if we fire these 100 cruise missiles we're going to protect the american gi in any future war against the threat of chemical weapons. so instead of closing the gap between ends and means, in the speech i think he widened them. look, military speech is good for winning wars.

it is not good at nuance or restoring credibility and things of that sort. military force is force. >> general, panel, thank you, i'll have more from the panel in a bit. we should note that as the president started to speak, a couple 100 protesters outside the white house chanting "no war in syria." still ahead, both sides of the syrian argument, republican rand paul will join us, plus, brit hume's analysis of the speech. keep it here. [ jackie ] its just so frustrating...

♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz.

one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces sudden urges and accidents, for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaoma, or can not empty your bladd, you should not take toviaz. get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness and decreased sweating. do not drive,perate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you ow how toviaz affects you. the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation. talk to your doctor about toviaz.

. we'll talk more about the president's address on syria. rand paul, a republican from kentucky, what are your thoughts about it. thank you for joining us. >> it didn't quite convince me, i think what he needed to lay out for america was the compelling public interest or a national security interest in syria. there obviously was an atrocity committed and i think it is awful. on top of another 100,000 people that were killed on the other side. and there were also other atrocities, the rebels that include al-qaeda, the islamic

rebels that have cut the heart out of syrian soldiers and eaten them on tv. the islamic rebels that have killed children and bishops, there are atrocities on both sides. >> he said it is a violation of international law. he said in 1977 when they approved the agreement on prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. and he said we need to be in there for our principles. >> absolutely, i don't disagree that it is a violation of every international law. it is a violation of every norm. i think assad should be responsible. if he is responsible, he should be punished by death, there is no excuse or justification for it. but really, what we're talking about is according to the administration, an unbelievably small response, unbelievably short, we're not going after assad or destabilize. we have no plan for victory. in my mind, the obama

administration is arguing for stalemate. and i just can't see my son or daughter or your son or daughter, to go to war. not one of the people we meet wants to go to war. it is not that we don't have sympathy, we just don't see an american objective here. >> what do you make of the russian proposal of syria giving up their weapons? >> it looks like obama has been out-maneuvered by them. i don't know wh-- if you see th speech that kerry makes, oh, if they would give up their weapons, he didn't expect for there to be a response. putin responds and calls their bluff. so the question is, are they serious? if they're serious, it is a good step forward. and i'm more than happy to give the president credit if it happens, i hope it happens, because i don't think that

attacking assad militarily will make it more stable. the president think it adds stability, i think it adds instability and makes the chemical weapons fall in the hands of the extremists, more likely, not less likely if we attack assad. >> so do you believe the way the president's administration has handled this has hurt the u.s. credibility around the world? >> i think u.s. credibility doesn't reside in one person. i think it has made it difficult for the president to lead this country, because i think he has been a little bit here, there and everywhere, without a clear, precise idea of what our objectives are. so i think in that way, yes, but the question of credibility is more than just one man. it is our whole history as americans. you saw, that america, responding to any of our enemies anywhere in the world, we'll respond with overwhelming force. we'll respond with victory to wipe out anybody who would attack us. so i think the idea that this

would embolden people who attack us or use chemical weapons is really nonsensical, because really what happened in syria doesn't have anything to do with american troops. >> so you don't think it has anything to do with our national security? >> no, i don't think it has anything to do with our national security. syria is not a threat to us, but i think attacking assad and destabilizing him empowers or encourages al-qaeda, encourages radical islam. i'm not sure who is worse. assad is really bad, but his control of chemical weapons, i'm not sure if that is any worse than al-qaeda getting the weapons. >> so as president paul, what would you do? >> i think we have to create stability in the middle east. and i think the way we create stability is ultimately what

president obama said all along, we need a negotiated settlement to the civil war, which includes that the chemical weapons could be taken out of syria. so maybe the diplomatic solution ends up working. i always thought we did too little, too late to get russia involved here. but the way it has to work is russia has to believe it is in her self interest. and i think trade is in russia's self interest. and i think having the stability is in russia's best interest. we can't just say oh, russia is going to be our great ally in this either. >> but if israel and jordan, that seems to be in the cross hairs of all of this, comes to you as president and says we need your help. what are you saying to them? >> well, i think that is the real question, so for example, one of the big problems is refugees flowing into jordan right now. there is a half a million. it is a catastrophe over there. but my questionis, if you bomb

assad tomorrow will there be more or less refugees? there is already more, people anticipating the bombing are fleeing. so i don't think it creates more stability. same way with israel, i don't want israel to be attacked by sarin gas. but i think if we bomb assad, he is already acting irrationally. will he be discouraged or encouraged? they say if he does nothing, we'll use more chemical weapons. he could launch them outside his borders, which he has not done yet. >> senator, lastly, is there a chance this vote gets through congress? >> you know, all along i thought it would pass in the senate and was very close in the house. i think right now, the calls are 100 to 1, every call i get, the public is overwhelmingly opposed to this. i think rather than risk defeat that wouldn't be a vote, in some ways i think he has gotten very

lucky that putin has sort of maybe picked this up. and if putin goes through with it, the president will look like he had this grand plan, when in reality i think it is fortuitous. >> now, brit hume, what do you think of the speech. >> well, i think it was a speech in search of a purpose. ask yourself this question, bret, what did the president ask for tonight? he came in support of a resolution that he has asked congress to postpone. he is asking support for the authorization for the use of force. but he doesn't want to do that and he doesn't even want them to vote on it. i think the events of yesterday just overtook him. he asked for the time, announced a speech. i think he had to go through with it. i think he did the best he could with it. but your interview with senator paul gave you the sense of what a lot of people had for opposing

this action. this resolution authorizing use of force, i think senator paul was correct, this is probably in trouble in the senate, and nowhere in the house of representatives. and i don't think anything the president did or said tonight is going to change that, since it will be followed by this pause which will allow the effect of whatever he said to peter out is going to change that. >> is your sense that there is a real hope that this diplomatic dance with russia and syria going on now is going to pan out, is going to work? or do you think there is a real skepticism in the administration that this will come to pass. >> well, i think the administration has said it is skeptical. and perhaps it is skeptical. one should always be skeptical when russia intervenes at a time like this. i remember, bret, after the first gulf war, even after the bombing campaign happened to get

russia out of kuwait, that they were trying to intercede with peace plans that didn't really fill the bill. we don't know whether this russian plan is serious. we know now they are beginning to attach conditions to it, one of them being of course, the use of force. one would imagine that was unacceptable to the administration. so yeah, i think they are probably skeptical and with good reason, but they're asking for the pause. and the pause will take some of the air out of the tire here. but it will not leave the president, in my judgment, in any better feddle, to wait for the response to the use of force. >> last part of the speech? >> well, i think his characterization of the horror of the chemical weapons is correct. it is horrible. and the regime needs to be accountable for that. but he is asking for a pause in

that. >> thank you, brit. you bet. and more on the time line of the administration's evolving policy. talking about it. we'll be right back. she's always had a playful side. and you love her for it. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently.

tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical hel for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tonguer throat, or diffilty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. with my united mileageplus explorer card. i've saved $75 in checked bag fees. [ delavane ] priority boarding is really important to us. you can just get on the plane and relax. [ julian ] havg a card that doesn't charge you foreign transaction fees saves me a ton of money. [ delavane ] we can go to any country and spend money the way we would in the u.s. when i spend money on this card, can see brazil in my future.

[ anthony ] i use the explorer card to earn miles in order to go vis my family, which means lot to me. ♪ in order to go vis my family, which means lot to me. ♪ you make me, make me, make me go crazy ♪ ♪ you make me, make me, make me go crazy. ♪ when her sister dumped me. oh dad, you remember my friend alex? yeah. the one that had the work done...

[ male announcer ] sometimes being too transparent can be a bad thing. this looks good! [ male announcer ] but not with the oscar mayer deli fresh clear pack. it's what you see is what you get food. de bla . live at the white house there, our continuing coverage of the president's address to the nation on syria. let's bring back tonight's panel, general scales, kirsten powers and charles krauthammer. >> when you talk about the military, and being reticent about this whole thing, and you had an article in "the wall street journal" about this, where are they? >> my sense, and it is an unscientific poll, but my thoughts are with the american people.

it is about 80/20. and the biggest objection from the military is not any reluctance to go to war. my goodness, we have the biggest military in the world. you know, in the military, we follow a distinct path. we go from where we are now to where we want to go. and we cover that path with the use of combat power. and right now, the ends are indistinct where we are, now changes daily. and one friend of mine told me, now the new planning guideline from the white house says is don't plan for the delivery of weapon. plan for time. tell me what we do in a week, a month, or two months. >> because time is adding up, charm charles, and the more time we think about how long this russian proposal is going to take, it is adding up on the clock and on the calendar. >> that is what makes this one of the most odd speeches from a

president. here is a president who urgently addresses the nation, on a pause that the nation doesn't want to do in the first place. this is almost unbelievable. and the fact that he puts so much weight on the russian proposal is a farce. the russians have said what they're trying to do is to get a guarantee that america will never strike syria. meaning russia wants the installation and the maintenance of the assad regime, which obama said had to go, to be a principal of any settlement. which will undo any attempt on the part of the west to ultimately dislodge the man who unleashed the weapons. so i don't see that there is a serious proposal. i think obama sees this as a way to negotiate, to pause, to draw it out. and after a couple of weeks, inspections negotiation, as if they will not be a vote in congress.

there will not be a strike and we will not have the removal of weapons out of syria. >> the last military event in libya, the president said don't remove another dictator with force. libya was the last one. >> removing a dictator with force with no idea what would come next. and so what came next was benghazi. i look at this sort of as he did this on libya and egypt and he kept going back and forth, back and forth. and the end result, leading from behind has left a power vacuum from behind. and so putin has rushed in to fill it. so the united states is looking at 30 years of war between radical shiites versus radical sunnis, both of which are funded by arab oil well. and none of us are in a position to influence events. and yet, security depends on it because we depend on the oil. >> security will -- what

democrats who are in districts 80/20 want to go out on that limb if that is not going to happen? >> right, it is why somebody -- have somebody go walk the plank, basically? look, most americans don't want this, they don't want to go to war. the president says if there is retaliation, israel is good at defending themselves and we'll back them up. well, that is the fear that americans have. this could turn into something much worse. and as the general said, what are we really doing? what is the end point here. and as senator paul pointed out, what is the alternative? so there are so many unanswered question questions, and to force anybody to vote for this would be a really horrible thing for obama to do, i think. >> well, let's talk to someone who may vote for this. elliott engel is a democratic congressman from new york, thank you for joining us.

>> thank you. >> your thoughts on the speech. you have been a supporter of this action, this potential action. your thoughts tonight? >> i thought it was a very good speech. i think the president very cogently spoke as to the reason why the united states cannot stand idly by and allow children to be gassed by their own lea r leaders. i think that he explained exactly what his role would be, it would be very limited. our role would be very limited. and i think he debunked the people who are the naysayers. for a year or more, there are many who said he was not doing anything. now that he is trying to do something, they're saying it is either not enough or it shouldn't be done at all. i think he is trying, he is trying to find a middle ground. assad is a thug. and we ought to let him know that using these weapons on his own people is really unacceptable. >> congressman, as you know in your party there are many lawmakers who have trouble with

this vote. and as we just mentioned they're coming from districts where it is 80/20 against this. right now, it is on hold, do you believe there will be enough votes and will congress have enough votes to get this through? >> well, it is essentially on hold, we'll have to wait to see, the pause from russia, i wouldn't go to bank on what putin or assad have to say. but i think it will be on hold, the vote, until we see whether this is just an attempt at buying more time or stalling for time. but i think it is worth it to see if it is there. >> do you think the president should have acted before going to congress? >> well, i had always said that i felt the president would be in his right to strike without an authorization from congress. to me, the war powers act would give the president 60 days

before the congress would have to intervene. but the president felt otherwise. he came to congress. and we're faced with what we're faced. i think the president put together a very plausible scenario. and did something that i support. i think the president is trying to best he can to show that the united states will just not turn away and allow war crimes, the gassing of men, women and children. those children, frothing at the mouth, foaming at the mouth and dyi dying, is something that will be in my mind forever. and i think the president stands for something. i think the president is absolutely right. >> lastly, the people who say, the unintended consequences, even a small strike, could have consequences throughout the region. >> well, the president has said we're not going to put boots on the ground, it won't get us into

a greater war. you talk about repercussions. there is always a million reasons not to do something, you can look at excuses why a person should not do something, but i prefer to look at reasons why there should be. the alternative is to walk away, and tell assad and the rest of the world it is okay to gas your own people. and frankly, there is one other aspect here, iran is watching very closely at what we're doing. when we tell iran they can't have a nuclear weapon, they're looking at assad to determine what will happen with them later on. >> congressman, thank you very much for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> we'll go through the time line of the administration and the response in their own words after this break. uh-oh! guess what day it is??

guess what day it is! huh...anybody? julie! hey...guess what day it is?? ah come on, i know you can hear me. mike mike mike mike mike... what day is it mike? ha ha ha ha ha ha! leslie, guess what today is? it's hump day. whoot whoot! ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? i'd say happier than a camel on wednesday. hump day!!! yay!! get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

. let's take a moment to review the time line on the syria crisis, from the president's own words "red line." to now. >> we have been very clear to the assad regime, but also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons being moved around or utilized. when i said the use of chemical weapons would be a game changer, that was not a position unique to the united states. and it shouldn't have been a surprise. >> well, some have tried to suggest that the debate we're having today is about president obama's red line. this debate is about the world's red line. it is about humanity's red line. >> i didn't set a red line.

the world set a red line. >> my friends, it matters here if nothing is done. it matters if the world speaks out in condemnation, and then nothing happens. >> to execute this mission, it is not time sensitive. it will be effective tomorrow or next week or one month from now. and i'm prepared to give that order. >> the president believes that the united states of america, for a decision like this, is stronger when you have the time to be able to have the support of the united states congress and obviously, the support of the american people through them. >> if we don't confront this now, i promise the people of france and europe and the americans, we're going to see this issue grow. >> there was no expectation that this would be -- that congress would be finished with its deliberations over the next week or so. >> our action would be designed

to limited in duration and scope. >> and what assad feels in terms of our response will not be a pinprick, he will know it when it happens. >> limited design will not be used to solve the entire syrian problem. >> that is exactly what we're talking about doing, unbelievably small limited effort. >> the united states doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. >> we'll keep the pressure on a syrian regime that has murdered its own people and support opposition leaders that respect the rights of every syrian. >> i personally called the syrian minister and said to him, if as you say your nation has nothing to hide then let the united nations in immediately. instead, for four days they shelled the neighborhood in order to destroy evidence. >> take and turn over every

single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community, in the next week, turn it over, all of it. without delay and allow a full and total accounting for that. but he is not about to do it. and it can't be done, obviously. >> president obama has consistently demonstrated his commitment to multi-lateral diplomacy. he would much prefer the backing of the united nations security council to uphold the international ban against the use of chemical weapons. but let's be realistic. it is just not going to happen now. >> we would not be at this point without a credible threat of a military strike. but i welcome the possibility of the development. and john kerry will be talking to his russian counterparts. i think we should explore and exhaust all avenues of diplomatic resolution of this. >> several hundred of them were

children. young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government. and this attack is an assault on human dignity. it also presents a serious danger to our national security. >> the notion that mr. assad could significantly threaten the united states is just not the case. >> when dictators commit atrocities, they depend on the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. but these things happened. the facts cannot be denied. the question now is what the united states of america and the international community is prepared to do about it. >> we will follow every development going forward here on fox news channel. thank you for watching our special fox news coverage of the president's speech on syria, please join me at 6:00 each day for coverage of the report.

wednesday, we'll have reaction on the coverage, and we'll also have stories on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack. greta van sustern is next. i'm bret baier. good night.

this is a fox news alert, any minute now, republican senator rand paul will give his response to president obama's address on the syrian crisis. senator paul is an out spoken critic of the action on syria. right now, karl rove joins us, first, your reaction to the speech by the president. >> well, let's start by saying the things i liked about it. he gave a concise explanation of why this was in america's security interest and how this was a violation of international norms. he confronted some questions and concerns that people have, slippery slope, will it