we'll be back here tomorrow morning. happy saturday. neil: the strikes everyone is talking about, the strikes on syria, fox on top of missiles reigning down as the u.s. , uk and france all team up and it is all making very very bad welcome everybody i'm neil cavuto. russian president vladimir putin calling these strikes on chemical weapons sites in syria an act of aggression. his ambassador going even further saying there will be consequences. here is what we know right now. the pentagon saying that all the missiles launched against syria did in fact hit their targets. the president tweeting "mission accomplished." russia calling it an emergency

meeting at the kim jong-un u.n. security council set for 11 a.m. eastern time and we are also on top of a closed door nato meeting going on as we speak in brussels on those air strikes. we'll be getting a live nato briefing from that when it lets up, to kevin cork with the latest from the white house right now hi, kevin. reporter: hi my friend, listen this is very interesting times not just with this white house, but more broadly for u.s. foreign policy, as not just the u.s. and its allies but the world against us, neil with one voice, which is you can not let a madman continue to use chemical weapons to hurt his own people and that is what the president has basically said about those targeted strikes. let me take you to twitter his favorite social media platform he said it perfectly executed strike last night thank you to france and the united kingdom for their wisdom and the power of their fine military. he goes on to say this, could not have had a better result, mission accomplished. of course last night the

president said the coalition had marshalled their riotous power against barberism and brutality unpunishing the assad regime for its continued use of chemical weapons on the syrian people. by the way those comments were coming neil just as explosions were rocking damascus. the strikes themselves were limited as you pointed out and it included the allies from france and the uk. all this in response to the use of chemical weapons on civilians even children, that quite frankly shocked the international community. president trump: the nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. no nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderer dictators. reporter: now let me take you to a statement issued not long ago, this from russian president vladimir putin. he wrote this on april 14. u.s. supported by its allies

launched an air strike against military civilian targets in the syrian air republic, an act of aggression against a sovreign state, that is on the front line and the fight against terrorism was committed without a mandate from the u.n. security council and in violation of the u.n. charter and norms and principles of international law. there's also been pushback neil here domestically from democrats saying this doesn't actually meet the rule of law here either they say that the president doesn't have the proper authority to do this without congressional consent of course the aumf that we have, the authorization use of military force in post-9/11 days that is still in fact and that's the argument being used here and at the pentagon as well, very interesting i'm going to get more details later in this hour and if i get a return call from someone that i think you know very well, i will be sure to pass along details but for now back to you. neil: i'll keep the secret thank you very much kevin cork at the

white house and now the pentagon says all missiles despite what the russians and syrians are saying did hit their intended targets. lucas tomlinson is at the pentagon with the latest. >> a pentagon briefing wrapped a few minutes ago about 45 minutes long and it was very fascinating all of the missiles not only hit their targets but they hit within a few minutes according to a senior military official here that took a few hours to get tankers in the air, missiles to launch to arrive at the same time. it was 105 missiles among the u.s. , french and british forces , all arrived on three targets which took the assad's chemical weapons ability to carry out the attack away. take a listen. >> attacked the heart of the syrian chemical weapons program. i'm not saying they're not going to be able to reconstitute it, not saying that it's going to continue but this has dealt them a very serious blow. >> and lt. general mckenzie

here at the pentagon said there were a number of u.s. assets involved, the uss monterey in the red sea i guided-missile cruiser as well as the uss laboo ne, foes fires from the red sea. why? because the tomahawk has a range of over 1,500 miles and there was a little bit of twitter deception the u.s. navy earlier this week tweeted out that the u ss donald cook left cry press and was in the eastern mediterranean and that warship did not strike, neil. in addition you had b1 bombers flying from air base in qatar launched dozens of standoff missiles you had french fighter jets british fighter jets even had an american submarine the us s john warner which we heard about for the first time this morning although fox news is withholding that name because of operational security, neil? neil: thank you very very much. meanwhile russia's condemning last night's air strikes and the strongest terms russia's ambassador to the united states responding to the strikes by saying in part, we warned that such actions will not be left

without consequences, while response for them rests with washington, london and paris, insulting the president of russia is unacceptable and inadmissible. the u.s. , the possessor of the biggest asker en all of chemical weapons has no moral right to blame other countries, retired u.s. army general and former pentagon deputy secretary secretary of intelligence joining us on the phone. general, obviously the russians were not even consulted we're told or given a heads up on this as they were last year. i'm sure that was by design and quite deliberate. what do you think of that? >> well first of all, the de conflict process certainly did give them some indication of what hasselberg was happening not to mention the fact we've been talking about this for a week but look neil, this is what i think is important. we need to remember that the russians are complicit in this. it was the russians that were

supposedly taking control of assad's chemical weapons, and they, i think were not honest about that, about what they did, but it's unquestionably assad could not have used those chemical weapons without at least the russians knowing about it. so given that the russians are out done in that part of the world the last thing they need to do is provoke another response. neil: do you know what's interesting general is of course the way the russian ambassador came out about this but in one of his comments saying it is insulting that the president of russia and that's unacceptable and inadmissible and i'm just thinking when you say something like that, this was about not respecting vladimir putin enough

what did you make of that? >> yeah, i thought it was a bizarre comment. it was sort of like well the british actually used the chemical weapons and you ask yourself what fairy land do they live in? it was something that i don't know about russian diplomatic language but i would guess that they probably just had a big run on the vodka there. neil: [laughter] well you know, general they're going to have this emergency u.n. pow wow on this urged by russia a member of the security council so i guess any member can demand such a meeting. what will come of it? >> well look, bringing the permanent members of the security council of the coalition that did this by the way i think the fact that the coalition operation is significant. this is the first time that i think we can say president trump has this kind of coalition and they're going to talk about the russians with propaganda out of it but in the end of the day i

don't think the russians are going to be able to do a whole lot. the last thing they want to do is make themselves a target there by this coalition and probably others because look at the fact that the whole persian gulf region with the exception of bahrain are lining up behind us leading that effort in the gulf, so i think the russians have got themselves into a very bad situation. neil: you know what general? the pentagon has already said this strike took out the heart of syria's chemical weapons program but went on to say that assad still has this residual capacity. what does that mean? >> you know, i think that it means that they avoided targets where they know typical weapons were stored or there are other production facilities because of the potential for cluttered all

damage. neil: okay general thank you very very much. the world is just trying to make sense of what happened in syria and whether there could be a follow-up action. so far no indications that there will be but right now, we are focusing on that as russia is demanding this emergency meeting at the u.n. and that is still slated to happen within the next hour. we'll let you know how that goes in fact we'll take you thereafter this. my healthy routine helps me feel my best. so i add activia yogurt to my day. with its billions of live and active probiotics, activia may help support my digestive health, so i can take on my day. activia. now in probiotic dailies.

was a success for lastchoicehotels.comign badda book. badda boom. this year, we're taking it up a notch. so in this commercial we see two travelers at a comfort inn with a glow around them, so people watching will be like, "wow, maybe i'll glow too if i book direct at choicehotels.com". who glows? just say, badda book. badda boom. nobody glows. he gets it. always the lowest price, guaranteed. book now at choicehotels.com

neil: all right, how are countries in that syria neck of the woods responding to all of this? david lee miller from jerusalem with the latest on that front. david lee? neil, i'm actually standing along the israeli syrian border, behind me, off in the distance a few hundred yards, is syria, and perhaps no country is watching events unfold in syria more closely than israel.

a senior level cabinet minister said following the air strikes, that they send an important message not just to syria but to hezbollah as well as iran, what's been termed here the axis of evil. meanwhile only about 40 miles or so from where i am now standing the capitol of syria, damascus, following the strikes last night , hundreds of people took to the streets expressing their support for the regime of bashar al-assad. many were waving flags, they played nationalistic music. there was an air of defiance. the syrian president tweeted out good soules will not be humiliated and the attacks will increase resolve to continue fighting and crushing in his words terrorism in every inch of the nation. iran's supreme leader also reacting to the strike saying u.s. allies will not gain any achievement for crimes in syria. u.s. president and uk prime minister and president of france are criminals and according to a

published report saudi arabia supporting the air strikes and the horrid crimes the regime committed against the syrian people, a similar sentiment reportedly echoed by bahrain which is endorsing the strikes and qatar also approved the military action against syria. the foreign ministry there says use of chemical weapons by the syrian regime demands a reaction from the international community and neil, what's especially noteworthy here is that the u.s. used an air base in qatar to launch some of the air strike s. the syrian government has now criticized the government of qatar for its cooperation describing it as shameful. neil? neil: david lee, thank you very much well iran's president repeatedly spoke some time ago with bashar al-assad after the air strikes and now reportedly saying that america's goal is to justify its continued presence in the region in other words that we aren't going to go away

and now that's the way that it's being read over there, that we're dipping our toes in and plan to stay a while. what do you think? >> absolutely actually a few weeks ago, before the strike, iranian media was saying that oh , the united states is going to be striking all over the place. it's going to be having landings here and there. a week after they said oh, the united states are withdrawing from syria because of our strength because of our resistance and now they're changing the story again that we're there doing the strike just to stay in syria and beyond this is the propaganda of the iranian regime very simple. neil: you know, we said we took out most of the chemical weapon- making capability of the syrians but not all, so what are we indicating if assad were to use such weapons again? >> let's try to understand and explain what has happened, what was the goal of that strike after the officials have made

their statements. basically this is a very large but still tactical operation against one part, a significant part of the weapons system in syria. this is not targeting iran, it's not targeting russia. this is not even an attempt for a regime change in syria. it's not part of the syria civil war. it's just a message very strong message. first to the regime, second to russiament we want russia to pressure the regime not to use these weapons again. now the syrian regime made probably a mistake by overusing it because they had been using it in the past few weeks and months but they did so. they have a different goal and their goal is to basically push the populations around damascus, populations for the regime, to leave. you want to name it? ethnic cleansing. now they're done it. now we have had that strike over part of the weapon and the question is with was the regime there? would they do it again? will they calculate they're striking again?

it's to be seen neil. neil: you know, there's also the israeli part of this equation where we're told that a phone call between benjamin netanyahu and. >> julie: at the time got pretty test it where the russian leader had told the israeli leader after various israelis throughout syria to stop, stand down. i'm wondering what you make of that because some had thought that that would telegraph a top russian response to any action on the part of the israelis or the united states. what do you think? >> look, the difference here is that israel is directly implicated in what's happening in syria without being involved in the sense that there are no israeli troops in syria, but they are watching very carefully the passage of weapons from iran through iraq and syria into lebanon and they act whenever they feel they can they should they would, but at the same time they would be very nervous that the israelis of seeing iran deploying missiles, deploying

drones, the israelis have shutdown at least one if not more iranian drone over israeli air space. or the syrians will weaponize these missiles or these drones they are 20-25 minutes away from the center of israel flight wise so that's why the israelis have a lot of what's happening in syria. neil: do you think everyone would be happier if assad were dead? that he triggered a lot of this and his association with the russians and the relationship he has with vladimir putin. that's the problem. he's got to go. >> yes, i want to be a little bit more realistic than this. if assad would have been gone in one way or another either internally and this could have happened during the civil war there were attempts against him, or missile wise, the russians and the iranians will produce another asset and they may not have the same last name. this is a system and those are really in control of syria today of the political and military

mechanism of the iranians. the russians provide the umbrella so it's really a systemic change that needs to happen in syria but it should happen at the hands of the syrians themselves and we need to make sure that our allies on the ground are any jihad but they are good guys with which we can partner in the future, we're far from intervening but if there is such a choice we need the right allies on the ground. neil: thank you very very much my friend for coming on a saturday providing expertise as always. i want to switch half a world away from that neck of the woods to peru right now, the vice president is there attending the summit of western hemisphere leaders. president trump was to go to that. he sent the vice president in his space because of everything going on in syria, what was about to go down there.

we'll keep you posted on that more after this. we can't predict what tomorrow will bring. but our comprehensive approach to financial planning can help make sure you're prepared for what's expected and even what's not. and that kind of financial confidence can help you sleep better at night. with the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. essential for the cactus, but maybe not for people with rheumatoid arthritis. because there are options.

like an "unjection™". xeljanz xr. a once-daily pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well enough. xeljanz xr can reduce pain, swelling and further joint damage, even without methotrexate. xeljanz xr can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz xr if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz xr, and monitor certain liver tests. tell you doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. needles. fine for some things. but for you, one pill a day may provide symptom relief. ask your doctor about xeljanz xr. an "unjection™".

neil: all right, the president moving with england and france to launch a missile attack on syria, and some have been watching even members of the president's own party says do you know what? when you do something like this you've got to check with us first, the house foreign affairs committee member republican congressman from new york, congressman when i had rand paul here the other day he was of that mind though he supports the president, likes the president, thinks a great deal of the president. this is an overstep this kind of thing from the president. he didn't like it when barack obama did it, doesn't like it when donald trump does it. what do you think? >> the president's decision and the execution of the strikes

last night were done, i believe, correctly, appropriately, proportionately. there should be a debate in congress and among the american public regardless of what year it is, whoever the president is, whoever is elected to congress with regards to the current authorization for the use of military force. there is an appropriate debate to be had as far as updating it and what the future should look like, so i would welcome that debate in congress. it should be had but make no mistake the president's decision and the execution last night, it was absolutely spot on correct and i support it. neil: i think to simplify what the president is about to do i always read it from various presidents is that if it's a won and done kind of thing we don't have to consult with congress. if it looks like it could get more involved or let's say we were to revisit this then they

do. is that right? >> well first off, the president and the administration , they do talk frequently with congress. there were frequent discussions directly, with many of my colleagues, so that line of communication has very much been open and i have no complaints about that, but regardless of whether it was president obama, or president trump now or whoever is next, beyond that communication, which is very important, i do believe that we should be having the debate as far as what the authorization should look like in 2018 and beyond, but we should not make any illusion that there are people who are on the other side who willow pose this president no matter what no matter on anything and everything and that really is a lot of what we're

hearing, and then you get to the rand paul and the thomas massey 's and people who are very thoughtful as it relates to the constitution and making sure that everything that the president does is appropriate and correct and respects the article i powers of congress, you know, they are for all of the right reasons, they want to be beyond just having a good line of communication with the administration they know the debate needs to be had and everything should be deliberate so there, that's a little bit less out to get the president of a mentality and more with regard s to what's the best for the united states or national security approaching it with a very constitutional perspective and i respect that. neil: well the president is pleased with the results overnight and he tweeted out a couple of items today but one that caught my eye was we could not have had a better result, mission accomplished. what did you think of choosing those words "mission accomplished"? >> the mission to degrade the

capability of the syrians to conduct chemical warfare, that particular mission last night was accomplished. the mission was not to completely eliminate the chemical weapons program of syria. it was not a mission to replace the assad regime. it wasn't to inject ourselves in syrian civil war. the mission last night was one that doubled the amount of missiles from one year ago that struck three targets instead of one. that was not unilateral and instead was one of a coalition and within minutes of each other , precisely hitting a target, where we minimized collateral damage, where we conducted a proportionality test to make sure that the military advantage that was to be gained out weighed any type of collateral damage that may have happened but we still have not heard of any civilian deaths as a result -- neil: i know all of that sir and

i'm sorry i wasn't more clear but when george w. bush used that term back in 2003 the clear inference from that was that that's it. we were done, the battle and the toppling of saddam hussein and we know in retrospect it was and i'm not here certainly to bash president bush or to second guess president trump but do you think using those words "mission accomplished" gives americans a false sense of security that this is done? >> i think we need to understand what the definition of mission was, that the president was saying was accomplished, and the mission for last night's operation was one to degrade the chemical weapons capability of the syrian s and that mission was accomplished. we should not define mission more broadly, more permanently. we should not define it as one that was destroying syrian's capability or replacing assad or

permanently changing his behavior, the russians and the iranians. if we go much broader in our definition than what was the actual mission of the operation last night, we would be wrongly interpreting what the president tweeted. neil: all right switching gears very quickly congressman, speaker paul ryan has indicated he is not going to seek re-election will step down in january and in a taped interview on meet the press, it would be kevin mccarthy to take that spot how do you feel about that? >> kevin mccarthy is a hugely talented someone who works very well with the president. he is someone who has a broad coalition of support in congress he's well respected outside of congress, he would be an exceptional speaker if given the opportunity to serve and i believe that there should be as smooth of a transition as

possible, one that listens to all of the feedback from the many different dynamics and factions within the republican party. we have conservatives and moderates. we have people who -- neil: would you vote for him if you had a choice between steve scalise and kevin mccarthy who would you vote for and there might be others. >> steve scalise said yesterday he'd be voting for kevin mccarthy so i don't know if it would come down to that and i believe that he would be an exceptional speaker. i do leave that the process right now should be one that improves the amount of regular order that gets used, that learns from what's happened over the course of months and years, so that we can be more effective , that we can have more of a governing majority in the house, so we should use that as an opportunity to get that but we're in a pretty good place right now. neil: thank you very very much congressman always good seeing

you and by the way steve scalise did echo that comment concerning his counterpart but he didn't rule out those who wanted to vote for him to vote for him. i don't believe he has anyway we're awaiting a briefing at the united nations, nato a lot going on today post-syria, after this. i'm your phone, stuck down here between your seat and your console, playing a little hide-n-seek. cold... warmer... warmer... ah boiling. jackpot. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, you could be picking up these charges yourself. so get allstate, where agents help keep you protected from mayhem... ...like me. mayhem is everywhere. are you in good hands?

going somewhere? whoooo. here's some advice. tripadvisor now searches more... ...than 200 booking sites - to find the hotel you want and save you up to 30%. trust this bird's words. tripadvisor. neil: all right, we're getting more details on how annoyed the russians are about this attack launch for the united states, france and britain against syria , overnight. they're expected to introduce a new draft resolution on those attacks. russia, we're told, will be the second speaker at this council remember any security councilmember demanding a meeting will get a meeting, and the first speaker will be the secretary general or at least one of his cabinet members but again the russian speaker will come after that, i assume, their ambassador to the united nations anyway all of this will be live in about 25 minutes so when that happens we'll go there and in the meantime nato is in its own

closed door meeting right now they'll be speaking later this morning jillian turner has the latest. reporter: neil the u.s. , france and britain are gearing up to brief their nato partners on the overnight strike. it's expected most if not all of the 29-member countries are going to participate in this briefing. while nato wasn't directly involved in this latest military move, the secretary general released a statement overnight and it reads in part, i support the actions taken by the united states, the uk and france against the syrian regime's chemical weapons facilities and capabilities and this will reduce the regime's ability to further attack the people of syria with chemical weapons. nato has consistently condemned the use of weapons as a clear breach of international norms and agreements. the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable and those responsible must be held accountable. u.s. and european leadership has made it clear agreeing to these

strikes for their own individual reasons as well as for the good of the alliance. i have taken this decision because i believe it is the right thing to do. i believe it is in our national interest, but i believe it is also important for the international community, to be very clear about this issue, that we have seen people appearing to think that they could use chemical weapons with impunity. reporter: nato's leaders are also making it clear they've grown impatient waiting around for the u.n. action and the minister going on record with the accusation the security council had been blocked on this issue for days. neil we'll hear about this and much more from our nato allies in just a little while coming up at 11 a.m. neil? neil: jillian great reporting as always i appreciate it. now to someone who knows firsthand the impact of the strikes and can maybe sort out a lot of this drama about post strikes general thank you very much for taking the time.

we're learning, sir, a little bit more about what the russians plan to outline in this resolution that they're very concerned of the country's can freely violate the sovreign territory in this case the syrian republic at a moment the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons mission team the so-called inspectors are on the ground looking for proof the chemical weapons were used. now, we of course went on the notion that confirmed by the french that they were used and they were used by the syrian government and we responded in kind but that is where they're going to draw the line saying that we left before we had all information in place. what do you think of that? >> i think it's nonsense, neil. at some point, the coalition of civilized nations have to take action in the face of the paralysis of the united nations, and pre-investigative teams on

be half of the united states, the french and the british confirmed and verified that chemical weapons were used they were used by the syrian regime, end of story, time to take action and that's what was accomplished last night. neil: general i just wonder and maybe it's just me, why would assad do that, knowing full well that heed be facing this kind of response. i know it feeds sort of this black helicopter crowd suspicion that this was all a setup. what do you make of that? >> well, neil what i would suggest is assad, kim jong-un, the russians to a degree, avoid the temptation of mirror image. these people and these regimes are not quite the american people, the british, the french, they are evil actors and megalo

maniacs to a degree so there's no question the rational e along the lines about civilized nations would behave, because they're evil actors, and so you're right, from the u.s. perspective it makes no sense for assad to do this because he is in fact complicating his situation because of the reactions that we saw happen last night that's going to reduce his ability to accomplish his objectives and put in a bad light in the community of international nations but it is what it is. these are not rational actors. well they may be rational actors but they do not hold to the same norms of international behavior that the united states and french and britain and other civilized nations do. neil: i think that's a very nice

way of saying they're nuts, but let me step back. you were the principal attack planner for desert storm back in 1991, incredible service back then general for which you have obviously a nations thanks, but i'm wondering and i like your take on the president today saying mission accomplished. i know certainly what he meant that much of the syria's chemical weapons capability was badly degraded, not annihilated but certainly significantly degraded but people think mission accomplished and think george bush back in 2003 and thinking that war was wrapped up when in fact we learned later that it really wasn't. dangerous risky, what do you think? >> well, i think if it's as simple as what you just laid out neil, there's a difference between a mission and military is a limited activity like you saw last night. it is a specific mission with the intent to go in and

neutralize, degrade, a felt to influence the assad use of chemical weapons by attacking these three particular targets and that mission was accomplished, it was extraordinarily effective and very very precise, but you're right, the implication is it's because of history we go back in the use of the terms mission in the terminology mission accomplished as used by president bush talking about the larger strategic endeavor, there's the possibility for confusion, but it is as simple as that. the mission replies to the activity or yesterday in attacking the attacks on these three targets, not the overall sea-tac objective of deterring the assad regime. neil: so by that i take it we're not done here. is it your sense that beyond just keeping an eye on assad and all he's not done with this sort of stuff? >> no i think that's accurate.

this was gradual but a more serious step to get assad's attention in the 2017 attack on a ink el airfield and while wip ing out some of the chemical capabilities may not be sufficient to deter them it's a prudent first step and so we have to see how assad and his co -conspire it fors in crime the russians and the iranians react but the coalition needs to be prepared to sustain an increased pressure if that's necessary. neil: general thank you very much for taking the time. i very much appreciate it. all right, in the meantime here, i want to switch you to the united nations there where they're waiting on emergency security council meeting, and when any security councilmember wants an emergency meeting they'll get one and usually within two hours and that is indeed the case, that is supposed to commence in about 17 minutes or so. what's very clear right now is the russians are furious at this saying this was an unjustified

attack but what's kind of curious from the russian ambassador is the fact that this insults the president of russia, and that is unacceptable, and inadmissible in other words we offended vlad. he's not glad. more after this.

neil: all right, looking outside the united nations and inside where the british ambassador to the u.n. is taking questions from reporters on the justification for the action overnight against syria, britain was part of that so was france and the united states so three of the security councilmembers were quite pleased and quite feeling justified in doing what they did and honoring what they did. another member of that committee is russia, and this might come as a fox news alert to you but they were not pleased. in fact vladimir putin demanding an emergency meeting of the united nations as a result and they're going to have one that will kickoff in about 13 minutes meanwhile analysts daniel mcloug

hlin, charles payne and all reading in on how this could maybe effect, rattle, calm markets next week. charles payne what do you think? charles: you know it's one of the things there was anxiety about this week so it was a small precise strike, there's been a commitment that nothing else will happen the ball is back in assad's court so really it shouldn't hurt the markets it could be one thing the market relieves about because we don't know how big or large this could be. neil: the markets will bore anything quite nailed down. charles: the unknown really scares the market more than anything else. they can handle the known, but it's the anxiety going into these things that have the most impact. neil: well danielle now we know why the president took a little longer responding this go around than a year ago he wanted to get a little bit more support and he seemed to get it but what do you think somewhere is all of this going because the fear is a lot of people are up, didn't degrade

all their chemical weapons capability so it begs the question do we go back in? >> i think for now we're one and donald i agree with charles and look back at what happened in 2017 after we had a similar strike almost a year ago to the day. oil rose a little bit prices rose a little bit but i'm concerned more about russia and iran and we saw gold rise a little bit, because i think if this truly is won and done we're not going to see too much panic in the markets because again it's some instability but this is a relatively small and narrow strike. neil: it's one thing that's taken off for the time being right but plenty other worries out there right? >> oh, my goodness gracious. if nothing changes, if russia doesn't do anything i think oil prices which is spiked up recently probably come down helps the market but this is an event at that point in time you're three days later next week when the market opens and you have thousands of companies reporting earnings in the next

couple of weeks. neil: and that's looking pretty good. the fundamentals to keep the markets going. >> earnings are going to be fine is does the question does the market already know it we saw the financials come out friday come out with very good earnings and sold off. neil: why was that by the way? >> i just think the market is in the soup right now the highs of the highs and the lows are the lows and we're back and forth and anything good is sold down a little bit and anything bad won't go down that much. the big question is i've been talking to you about this for a few weeks. these big lows are big big lows, if they get taken out we're going to go into a real bearish market but so far so good but for me it's not the news it's how things react to the news and when i see jpmorgan open up $2 and finish down 3 on monstrous volume that's not aunt mary and august el bob selling, that's something that has to be watched as we move into the next two or three weeks. neil: danielle, charles touched on this notion the united nations with the emergency security council meeting will ensue in the next 10 minutes and usually

international developments whether deemed crisis or not to danielle's point and gold to danielle's point but unless it drags on it's a short lived event. what do you see happening? charles: i a grow and i think there might be other forces with respect to crude and obviously there's a lot of functions also as a proxy for the global economy. questions does this big boom around the world economic boom is it phasing out? it might not be. the market has anxiety but after the magnificent and amazing run up that we've had and i think gary is right. feels like we're putting in some sort of a bottom but the market has to be tested, the rally has to be tested and that's exactly what we're doing right now but we start to cap these rigs and i think they're coming on a little bit fast but if they start to cap them you'll see them go higher over the next few months. neil: danielle when you look at the overall global environment, i mean you talk about earnings you talk about underlying

fundamentals, the economy picking up steam here at least looking pretty respectable, that there's very little that looks to disrupt this, say the trade war, the president hopes to avoid that by rethinking trans pacific partnership, by avoiding an out right, you know, crisis with the chinese that they might give in on something. what's your sense? >> you know, i think it's smart for the president to be reconsidering tpp. this is not just about markets this is a geopolitical position that would be wise for us to take if we can get on board and be in with 11 other countries in that asia pacific region. neil: 11 other countries that are not china that are a way to counter the weight of china. >> exactly right. he got out of there. he did and i'll be honest hillary clinton wanted to get out i didn't think that was a good idea and i'm a free-trader if you can believe that as a liberal, our farmers like trade agreements as well. neil: that's not so crazy. you've given away for free. >> thank you. neil: i'm kidding, go ahead. >> the other thing i'll say is if you think back to september 11 so we dropped about

17.5% in the dow within five days of that which is the worst terrorist attack on our soil in history two months later the dow was back where it was on september 10 of 2001 so we're probably okay, this is not that, we are resilient the markets are resilient. neil: it is interesting when you look at all these cross currents it is a reminder the markets as if they needed them how much outside events can even in a short term weigh on them whether it's an event like this, whether it's fear of expanding trade war with china, who knows who else, what do you think? >> i don't think i've ever seen a time in the markets where today's events effect the markets. markets have always been great at forecasting to the future. the markets top out three to six months before earnings died, markets bottom before, the economy picks up. now it seems like every day we wake up to something else that markets have to deal with and not small things but big things. the trade war, if a trade war does happen, if these tariffs get into place 100 billion here,

50 billion there, china comes back, that is going to hit markets i'm telling you two, three points. i don't think so either but the fact that markets have to wake up to it the fact that business owners have to wake up to it not fun and i'm hoping we can get away from it. i keep saying on tv hopefully trump is watching. stop. slow down. neil: maybe it's having a desired effect and charles you were the first to say everyone is talking against what he's doing you'll go pursue the logic of it and the logic seems to be if you get china to come to the table make concessions without any tariffs taking effect it could work. charles: i'm very confused on how, you know, we think this is a hunky dory situation, china's economy, their average tariff is 10% used to be 15% its worked for them, something is wrong if we don't try to stop it now we'll never be able to stop it. yes, there's always pain in these sort of situations but there was a time when americans were up for pain if it meant doing it right thing but that's why our debt will never go down

and even an ounce of pain seems to be the worst thing that could happen to us. neil: all right guys thank you very very much. i'm not actually thanking everyone. >> [laughter] neil: but guys thank you very much. we are waiting developments at the united nations here as we go to laura engel with the latest on what we could hear the russians clearly angry they demanded this meeting and they think the united states, britain and france have overdone it right that's pretty much where they're coming from. >> that's right, neil and this is certainly a very quick-moving morning. in fact just about 20 minutes ago we saw u.s. ambassador nikki haley walking into one of the entrances here, this meeting is about to get underway any moment russia called the emergency meeting as we've been reporting here on fox of the security council about three hours ago, 8 :30 local time following a joint u.s. uk and french attack on syria's chemical weapons infrastructure in syria overnight. now fox news is learning this morning, that the russians have introduced a draft resolution that condemns what it says is

the "aggression against the syrian arab republic by the u.s. and its allies in violation of international law." now the's attempts to protect syria saying its hands were covered in the blood of syrian children. more to come from the u.n. here today, neil. neil: all right thank you very very much. well again we are not only awaiting to hear that of course this will kickoff with the secretary general or one of the surrogates speaking first that the perform a policy on this and then the russian presumably russian ambassador following up. we'll be getting the english translations and i don't know some of these could be translated because apparently some people are furious and they might curse. so we might have to put this on a delay. but that's just what we do for you america, more after this.

...

neil: >> all right. it's the united nations event that's going to take off. what the russians are going to say and they called for this emergency powwow. this was an unjustified action

on unjustified claim of of chemical weapons and syria was behind it and russia, and we're hearing from the white house that, oh, yeah, there is proof. >> boy is there ever, neil. i'm just going to share part of what we've heard from sarah sanders. the aisesment on the chemicals weapons, volumous, more than 30 paragraphs long. as i've been reading through it, neil, i've been struck by not just the specificity, but the devastating nature of the use of some chemical weapons, and in the duma area north of damascus. it goes out to layout chapter and verse, not just chemical weapons, but banned weapons, banned in international norms. i think this is the most instructive part. it says that history clearly illustrates the assad's use of

chemical weapons, will continue until the cost of using the weapons may outweigh any advantages. and with the officer as well. and this is such a devastating blow by blow breakdown of not just munition fragments, barrel bombs, chemical weapons, chlorine attacks and how long we've seen the headlines and granular detail of what we've seen her, a devastating use of the weapons. as we point out. we continue our view at the united nations security council imagine meeting. russians are protesting, feverishly so, but i don't think they have a leg to stand on

although that won't keep them from protesting loudly. neil: the russians say there's no proof of of this and then along comes this proof. >> absolutely right. part of the strategy when you think of it from the com shop perspective, what you want to do is not obviously anticipate what the adversary might decide to do, you want to buffet any argument for the questioning. and why did you do this or why didn't you do that? you want all of your ducks in a row. i think what i find more effective about this blow by blow, this point by point dissertation by the white house a and pentagon, it removes any question that the assad regime violated international laws repeatedly most notably to the detriment of the syrian people. neil: thank you, kevin at the white house. and what does counsel david hunt think about this? he's our fox news military

analyst, much more than that, but the white house says we knew this moment was coming, and the russians would attack us for the proof and we did. >> in almost context, we threw tomahawks at syria and since we did that there have been between six and 12 chemical attacks by assad on his people. this time well coordinated, pinpoint attack, about 105 missiles and denigrated their use. the problem is, neil, these kind of operations, although they look good and well-executed aren't effective. they're not going to stop assad. the only way this is going to happen is if you go after the russians and iran, which we're not going to do. also, this is is in the middle of a war that syria has about won. we kicked isis' ass out of syria, but the war in syria has

been won by syria. the context is interesting. as good an operation as it was, it's going to have an effect of stopping chemical attacks. neil: the president seemed to telegraph as much last week before when he hinted just get out of syria. what do you make of that and what our position should be now going forward, especially after in? >> again, in context, as you know, we helped start this thing during the last administration. with the saudis, intel stuff, we began to try to get assad out of there and it went upsidedown on us, and everybody else fast. this is now, has been won by russia and iran and syria. the russians got a port that they've always wanted. iran's got influence. this is a bad situation, we cannot get back in the middle of because again, 17 years of war, we're still in. we cannot get into this one. neil: you know, colonel, and the

perspective from a soldier here, and you see politicians or ambassadors gathering, again, with the best of intentions, we can assume, to keep the world at peace, talking about this, going back and forth. when you were serving, how do you feel about that, either second guessing actions that were taken. actions that could be taken, what? what importance do you assign to groups like the united nations? >> that as a soldier, have absolutely no time to think about the united nations and/or politicians. and one of the reasons we're around is because of this phenomenal military i remind everybody is less than 1% of the nation, it's an all volunteer force. because of the time and danger and constant deployments for 17 years, they don't think much of -- they don't spend a lot of time.

who does sometimes think about it are the generals and the pentagon, or those that work in the political offices and the families who have time to watch and consider this. but a soldier deployed is a soldier deployed and is almost apolitical. they've got their own butts to worry about and those with them. neil: and sometimes they control those butts, but i always wondered about that. and in the meantime, the former u.s. ambassador of syria ryan crocker for president clinton and george w. bush. sir, thanks for taking the time. >> thanks for having me on. neil: what will come of this united nations meeting? >> well, who knows exactly? i think we, for the reasons that your reporter just said, i think we're in a good position to really pile on the russians here. and also, the iranians. and i think that's even more important. iran experienced chemical

weapons attacks during the iran-iraq war 1980-1988, a series of them. the iranian people just hate the hell out of chemical weapons because they've experienced them. so i hope we're going to ramp up a public shame campaign, again, against both the russians and the iranians, but particularly the iranians. they're vulnerable and actually, now because of the proof, they're both vulnerable. so, i hope we come out swinging in public. neil: what if we take this latest development as a reason to say, this agreement that we have with you, iran, you've just ripped it up yourself? >> if we're going to try to link it to that, we're going to have some pretty important conversations with our traditional allies on that, the french and the british, of

course, were part of the strike. they're also part of the iran agreement. so, whatever it is we might want to do, just as like on the strike, i think we want to be sure we are not doing it alone, if we can possibly avoid it. >> now, we had argued, ambassador mission accomplished, or the president did in a tweet, saying effectively we've quashed syria's chemical weapons making ability. not totally, but effectively and demonstrably destroying it, but that was an important distinction made by a number of officials. what do you think, that it-- they're not quite completely incapacitated here. >> well, no, they're not. i thought the administration did a good job on the strikes a little over a year ago, making clear that they were sending a message, they were not trying to

reduce military capabilities because, of course, we didn't. now we're saying that, yes, we have. maybe we have, maybe we are quite confident in that, but i would be worried that having taken that position on our part, that it's real incentive for bashar to do something else, against his people, chemical or nonchemical. neil, there's an important point here. the way this is read in the region, it's us saying, hey, go ahead and kill your population, you know, knock yourself out, have a ball just don't do it with chemical weapons. any other kind of weapon, we're done with it, we're cool. and that's how this is perceived in the region and that's not doing us any good. neil: that's actually a very good point. go back to killing people in

conventional ways just don't use the chemical ways. the conventional ways have killed more and the chemicals get attention. that's a good point. >> and the area they were used, civilians had a huge order of magnitude greater than the chemical weapons, victims have been killed in the past week or so and we have no reaction to that. neil: no, that's a very good point. ambassador, thank you. >> thank you. neil: i just want to he -- show you what's happening on the screen. this is the u.n. secretary-general i believe antonio gutierrez, i don't know if we're getting an english version. and we want to hear from the russian ambassador, and nikki haley will be speaking after him. we'll dip in and out of that. the u.n. secretary-general on calling this emergency meeting. >> mr. president, as secretary-general of the united nations, it is my duty to remind

member states that there is an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the charter of the united nations and with international law in general. u.n. charter is very clear on these issues. mr. president, the security council has primary responsibility for the maintenance and national securitiment and i call on the members to exercise that responsibility and urge all members to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances and to avoid any acts that could escalate matters and worsening the suffering of the syrian people, as i did yesterday, i stressed the need to avoid the situation from spiraling out of control. mr. president, any use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.

the suffering it causes is horrendous. i have repeatedly expressed my deep disappointment that the security council failed to agree on a dedicated mechanism r effective accountability for use of chemical weapons in syria. i urge the security council to assume its responsibilities and fill this gap and i will continue to engage with member states to help achieve these objectives. a lack of accountability emboldens those who use the weapons with reassurances of impunity and the use of chemical weapons and national disarmament and nonproliferation as a whole. mr. president, the seriousness of the recent allegations of use of chemical weapons in duma requires a thorough investigation using impartial, independent and professional expertise. i reaffirm my full support for

the prohibition of chemical weapons and fact finding mission and undertaking the required investigation. the team is already in syria. i'm informed that their operations plan to visit the site is completed and that they are ready to go. i am confident they will have full access without any restrictions or impediments to perform their activity. mr. president, an i allow me to report what i said yesterday-- to repeat what i said yesterday, syria today represents the most threat to international peace and security. in syria we see confrontations and proxy wars involving many armies, armed groups, national and international militia, fighters from around the world and terrorist organizations. from the beginning we have witnessed systematic violations of international law, international human rights law and international law to

disregard the spirit of the united nations charter. for eight long years the people of syria have endured suffering upon suffering, lived through starvation, an i attacks against civilians and sexual violence, torture-- >> we are monitoring very closely the u.n. secretary-general here, reminding both sides of this debate, those who advocated and indeed take military action in syria and including the united states, france, and england, as well as russia, which opposed that action, and demanded this emergency meeting, that cooler heads should better prevail, and that there are inspectors on the ground right now in syria, presumably on the ground right now to confirm whether this attack was indeed a chemical attack. that does seem to be without debate right now. what a lot of people are debating, who was responsible

for it. of course, the french have confirmed at least in their examination of this that that was you know, triggered by the syrian government, by assad's government. others are saying other players came forward to attempt this response. he is simply saying, let's all continue and let's all be careful. the russian ambassador is next up to speak and beyond that louisiana senator john kennedy who joins us on the phone. senator, what did you think of the action that we took and the appearance from the president calling this mission accomplished, that it's done, that this is all we're going to do? >> well, i am a proud of my country and i'm proud of my president. the u.s. of chemical weapons is immoral, it's a violation of international law. we told syria not to do it anymore. syria did. so, we responded on behalf of all civilized countries, and i want to thank the u.k. and france for joining with us.

our strikes were restrained, they were strategic. we targeted only syria's stock pile of chemical weapons and their manufacturing facilities. we can't target russia or iran and i want to congratulate president trump and our allies. the only way for this country is to remain safe is to remain strong and show military might when we have to. if we don't do that, our enemies won't respect us and our friends wasn't trust us, and let me say this about what mr. putin's people keep saying. look, assad's a butcher. he did it. we don't know whether he did it with mr. putin and the ayatollah's knowledge or consent. the first putin said it didn't happen. and then he said, well, u.k. did it. and i think next is coming the devil did it. i mean, they did it. and we did what we have to do and i'm proud of my president and i'm proud of my country. neil: senator john kennedy

kennedy of louisiana, thank you very much. i want to go back to the united nations right now where the russian ambassador is echoing a slightly different point of view that this is unjustified and provoked with the united nations and france and england on a lie, on a myth that those were chemical weapons approved by and supported by the syrians and the russians. let's listen. nikki haley is after him. >> assisting legitimate gft in the counterterrorism efforts. through its actions the united states makes an already catastrophic humanitarian situation in syria worse and brings suffering to civilians. in fact, the u.s. pappnders to e terrorists who have been tormenting the syrians for seven years. and leaving this country in the region. the current escalation around syria is destructive for the entire system of international relations. history will deliver its verdict

on washington already bears a heavy responsibility for the bloody outrage in yuk slava yeah, libya and end of quote. and russia has done everything possible toen cou en ken could-- to convince the u.s. and allies, to a plan that would destabilize the middle east. the secretary-general of the u.n. at the meeting of the security council that we convened yesterday and today have expressed his concern about the way events have developed, however, in washington, london and paris, prefer to disregard calls to appeal to common sense. the united states and its allies continue to demonstrate the blatant disregard for international law. although as permanent members of the security council, they must be especially firm in protecting the provisions of the u.n. charter. it was shameful to hear how in

justifying the aggression, an article of the u.s. constitution was mentioned. now, we have the greatest respect to the right of each state to respect their own founding law, however, washington should learn it's time for washington to learn that the international code of behavior regarding the use of force is regulated by the united nations charter. it's interesting how the people of great britain and france, what they will think that when they find out that their government is taking place-- taking part in an illegal military venture by referring to the american constitution. you're constantly tempted by neo colonialism. you have nothing, but disdain for the u.n. charter and the security council, which you are unjustifiably trying to use for your illicit aim. there's no serious work you're doing in the security council. you don't consult us and you

mendaciously claim otherwise. you undermine the authority of the security council. as a pretext for aggression, you mention the alleged use of chemical weapons in the city of duma. representatives of russia, after an inspection by our experts uunequivocally stated no such incident took place, furthermore, there were people found who took part in this staging and, in fact, the inspirers and organizers of that staging was foreign intelligence services. after this event, the syrian authorities immediately invited experts from the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons so they'd conduct a field mission it duma in order to establish the facts. quickly, visa for malties were resolved and security, and experts were already in syria and getting ready to begin their

work. i want to recall to the members of the security council and everyone us that on the 10th of april when our draft resolution on the secure work of special mission of obcw was blocked. we were assured of the fact that such a document was not necessary. we were told that the mission, without any additional efforts by the security council, will go visit the site and conduct an investigation of the chemical incident. now, it is clear that we were absolutely right. yesterday some of our colleagues, some of them naively, some of them cynically told us that the reason of the situation, supposedly a lack of an independent investigative mechanism. aggression has shown that that is not the issue at all, as we stated. during last year's attack against an air base, there was the joint investigative

mechanism. u.n. obcw. that did not prevent the u.s. from conducting a missile strike afterward. and the gym made sure its conclusio conclusions coincided. we've said many times you don't need an investigation. you don't need them tomorrow. the organizers of the aggressive didn't wait for the elementary establishment of fact from those to do that they supposedly determined themselves and determined who was guilty. after, given that they themselves with the fighters that were under their control and ngo's that they controlled, disseminated all kinds of rumors using social media. they confirmed this through so-called secret intelligence. mythical secret intelligence.

ladies and gentlemen, had the mask for rather white helmets have once again fallen. we are already used to the fact that when they conduct their doubtful geopolitical policies, the countries that are aggressors already blame the regime of assad. lately, they tend to shift responsibility to-- on russia, which according to their interpretation cannot control the dictator. all this is based on a scheme that's well-- that has been well-tried, as a provocation, as mendacious, mendacious accusations, verdict, and punishment. this is how you want international affairs to be conducted now? this is hu hooliganism and give that we're talking about major

nuclear powers. several strikes were conducted against the scientific research center in barza and recently, two inspections by the opcw were conducted with unimpeded access to all facilities. experts didn't find any traces of activity that would contra convenient the chemical weapons convention. the scientific facilities in syria are used only for peaceful activity, which is aimed at enhancing economic-- effectiveness of economic activity in syria. do you want syria to have no economy at all? you want to throw this country back into the stone-age? just a few years ago, this country was one of the most developed countries in the middle east. you want to finish off what your sanctions haven't achieved yet? at the same time, you're trying -- you are shedding crocodile

tears about the suffering of ordinary syrians. ordinary syrians who are tired of war and happy that their legitimate authorities have freed the territory, you're not interested in their suffering. your aggressive actions contribute to worsening the humanitarian situation, which you're so worried about, according to your statements. in 24 hours you could stop the conflict in syria. washington, london paris could order to stop the fighting against the legitimate authorities and people. the strikes were conducted against syrian military air fields which are used in an operation against terrorist organizations. it's quite an original contribution to combat against international terrorists as washington keeps repeating, which, as washington keeps repeating, is the only goal of its military presence in syria.

we have serious doubts about that. it seems that it is clear that those in the west who cover themselves with humanitarian rhetoric are trying to-- in trying to justify their action in syria by supposedly to defeat the jihadists are actually aiming at dividing, dismembering the country. this is confirmed by the fact that the united states has refused to take part in rebuilding the areas of syria that have been freed from the jihadists. lastly, your aggression is a major strike and threat against the possibility of continuing the political process under the u.s. auspices in spite of difficulty was moving forward at varying speeds. so, what were your constant references to the geneva process

worth if you yourself, your own actions are destroying that process. we call on the united states and its allies immediately end the aggressive actions against syria and to refrain from them in the future. we are putting forth for your attention, a brief draft resolution which we will demand a vote on at the end of this meeting. we would like to address the members of the security council. today is not the time to shirk your responsibilities. the whole world is looking at you. take a principled stand. thank you. >> . >> all right, just to give you what's going on here, this is an emergency meeting at the united nations going on, called by the russians who are just furious over this attack launched by the united states overnight with the french and the british.

nikki haley about to tell him, really? >> to address the situation in syria. a week has gone by in which we have talked, we've talked about the victims in duma. we've talked about the assad regime and its patrons, russia and iran. we've spent a week talking about the unique horror of chemical weapons. the time for talk ended last night. we're here today because three permanent members of the united nations security council acted. the united kingdom, france and the united states acted, not as revenge, not as punishment, not as a symbolic show of force. we acted to deter the future use of chemical weapons by holding the syrian regime responsibility for its atrocities against humanity. we can all see that a russian disinformation campaign is in full force this morning, but russia's desperate attempt at

deflection cannot change the facts. a large body of information indicates that the syrian regime used chemical weapons in duma on april 7th. there is clear information demonstrating assad's culpabl culpability. the victims of dead children were not fake news, they were the result of the syrian regime's barbaric inhumanity and they were a result of the regime's and russia's failure to live up to their international commitment to remove all chemical weapons from syria. the united states, france, and the united kingdom acted after careful evaluation of these facts. the targets we selected were at the heart of the syrian regime's illegal chemical weapons program. the strikes were carefulfully planned to minimize civilian casualties. the responses were justified, legitimate, and proportionate.

the united nations and its allies did everything we could to use the tools of diplomacy to get rid of assad's arsenal of chemical weapons. we did not give diplomacy just one chance, we gave diplomacy chance after chance. six times. that's how many times russia vetoed security council resolutions to address chemical weapons in syria. our efforts go back even further. in 2013, the security council passed a resolution that required the assad regime to destroy its stock pile of chemical weapons. syria committed to abide by the chemical weapons convention, meaning it could no longer have chemical weapons on its soil. president putin said russia would guarantee that syria complied. we hoped that this diplomacy would succeed and putting an end to the horror of chemical attacks in syria. but as we see from the past

year, that did not happen. while russia was busy protecting the regime, assad took notice. the regime knew it could act with impunity and it did. in november russia used its veto to kill the joint investigative mechanism, the main tool we had to figure out who used chemical weapons in syria. just as russia was using its veto, the assad regime used sarin, leading to dozens of injuries and deaths. russia's veto was the green light for the assad regime to use these most barbaric weapons against the syrian people, in complete violation of international law. the united nations and our allies were not going to let that stand. chemical weapons are a threat to us all. they are unique threat, a type of weapon so evil that the international community agreed they must be banned. we cannot stand by and let

russia trash every international norm that we stand for and allow the use of chemical weapons to go unanswered. and just as the syrian regime's use of chemicals last weekend was not an isolated incident, our response is part of a new course charted last year to deter future use of chemical weapons. our syrian strategy has not changed, however, the syrian regime has forced us to take action based on their repeated use of chemical weapons. since the april, 2017 chemical attack, the united states has imposed hundreds of sanctions on individuals and entities involved in chemical weapons use in syria and north korea. we have designated entities in asia, the middle east, and africa, that have facilitated chemical weapons proliferation. we have revoked the visas of russian intelligence officers in

response to the chemical attack in salisbury. we will continue to seek out and call out anyone who uses and anyone who aids in the use of chemical weapons. with yesterday's military actions, our message was crystal clear. the united states of america will not allow the assad regime to continue to use chemical weapons. last night, we obliterated the major research facility that it used to assemble weapons of mass murder. i spoke to the president this morning and he said if the syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again, the united nations is locked and loaded. when our president draws a red line, our president ep enforces the red line. the united states is deeply grateful to the united kingdom and france in its part in the coalition to defend the prohibition of chemical weapons.

we worked in lockstep. we were in complete agreement. last night our allies shouldered a burden that benefits all of us. the civilized world owes them its thanks. in the weeks and months to come the security council should take time to reflect on its role in defending the international rule of law. the security council has failed in its duty to hold those who use chemical weapons to account. that failure is largely due to russian obstruction. we call on russia to take a hard look at the company it keeps, and live up to its responsibilities as a permanent member of the council and defend the actual principles the united nations was meant to promote. last night we success. i hit the heart of syria's chemical weapons enterprise and because of these actions, we are confident we have crippled syria's chemical weapons

programs. we are prepared to sustain this pressure. if the syrian regime is foolish enough to test our will. thank you. >> i want to thank the representative of the united states. neil: all right, we're going to be listening to the french ambassador now. so, the french, of course, part of that, the three countries that did respond to syria's buildup of chemical weapons in this chemical attack on duma. nikki haley you just heard there, there was irrefutable evidence of the case right now and the british ambassador of the united states, a change in the lineup here is speaking about that. and she was quite forthright with a q & a and there was some testy exchanges why this attack was necessary. let's listen to this. >> and in serious breach under the chemical weapons convention.

full assessment has not yet been completed, but we believe the strikes to be successful. furthermore, none of the british, u.s. or french aircraft or missiles involved in this operation was successfully engaged by syrian air defenses and there is no indication that russian air defense systems were employed. our action was a limited, targeted and effective strike. there were clear boundaries that expressly sought to avoid escalation, and we did everything possible, including rigorous planning, before any action was undertaken to make sure we mitigated and minimized the impact on civilians. and together that will degrade the syrian ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons and deter their future use. the u.k. prime minister has said

we are clear about who is responsible for the atrocity of the use of chemical weapons. a significant body of information, including intelligence, indicates the syrian regime is responsible for the attack we saw last saturday. some of the evidence that leads us to this conclusion is as follo follows: there are open source accounts alleging a barrel bomb was use today deliver the chemicals. multiple source reports claim a regoo em-- regime helicopter was seen before the city. and the resistance does not operate helicopters, nor does it use barrel bombs. and intelligence say that syrian officials appeared to use chlorine on the 7th of april. mr. president, no other group could have careyed out this

attack. daesh is not in duma. and this has exacerbated the human suffering, a serious crime of international concern as it reached the international law p prohibition on the chemical weapons and this amounts to a war crime against humanity. any state is permitted under international law on an exceptional basis to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. the legal basis for the use of force for the united kingdom is humanitarian intervention which requires three conditions to be met. number one, that there is convincing evidence generally accepted by the international community as a whole of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief.

i think that the debates in this council and the briefings we've had from oxshire and others have proved that. and secondly, it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative if lives are to be saved. i think the vetoes have shown us that. and thirdly, the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering and must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim and i think we have heard both in my intervention and ambassador haley's how that has also been met. the history of the syrian conflict is a litany of threats to peace and violations of international law. the security council has met 113 times since the syrian war started. it was therefore, not for wont of international diplomatic efforts that we find ourselves in this position today.

after chemicals weapons used since the outbreak of the conflict, assad defied the international community in 2013 by launching a sarin gas attack which left more than 800 people dead. despite the adoption of resolution 2118, despite four years of patient engagement, syria continues to use chemical weapons against its people and failed to answer a long list of serious questions. the only conclusion we can reach is that syria has not declared or destroyed all of its chemical weapons despite its obligation under the chemical weapons convention. this is not an assertion on our part, but a matter of record and i draw the russian ambassador's attention to his points about the opcw, still has announced questions and discrepancies, he knows this.

we all know this. the council was briefed by the opcw direct general. resolution 2118 decides in the event of noncompliance to impose measures in chapter seven of the charter yet on 28th of february last year when the u.k., together with france, proposed a resolution taking measures under chapter several short of the use of force, russia vetoed. the very least this council should have been able to do, mr. president, was to follow up on the findings of the report by extending its mandate, yet, four times russia has vetoed different proposals from different council members to do just that. the syrian regime and its supporters are responsible for the gravest violations of international humanitarian law in modern history. they have used indiscriminate weapons, notably barrel bombs and munitions against civilians and deliberately targeted

medical facilities and cooschoo they have used sieges and starvation as warfare in civilian areas. the regime has persistently obstructed humanitarian aid and medic medic medical evaluation. and this is one of the most serious challenges to the international nonproliferation regime we have ever faced. the state party has violated the chemical weapons convention, it's defied the security council, and it has broken international law. repeated attempts over several years to hold them to account have been met with russian obstruction and resistance. we have repeatedly in this council attempted to overcome this obstruction, and without success. mr. president, we are faced with a litany of violations, no sense

of guilt. no sense of regret, no sense of responsibility, a shameful record wrapped in a mix of denial, deceit and disinformation. mr. president, i would invite those like the russian ambassador to speak about the charter, to consider the following: it is hard to believe that it is in line with the principles and purposes of the charter to use or condone the use of chemical weapons. and in the united kingdom's view, it cannot be illegal to use force to prevent the killing of such numbers of innocent people. i will take no lessons in international law, mr. president, from russia. despite all this, mr. president, we would like to look forward. the united kingdom together with france and the u.s. will continue to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the syrian crisis.

my french colleague will say more about our work in a few moments. we believe it must comprise four elements. one, syria's chemical weapons program musting ended and the chemical weapons stockpiles destroyed once and for all. two, there must be an immediate cesstation of hostilities and compliance with all security council resolutions and these include those which mandate humanitarian access. three, the regime must return to the geneva talks and agree to engage on a substantial agenda put forward by the special envoy. fourth, finally, there must be accountability for the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes in syria. mr. president, the secretary-general rightly highlighted the political process. we propose that without the security council we'll all be together next weekend in the

retreat with the secretary-general kindly hosted by sweden, that we should use that opportunity to reflect on next steps and the way back to the political process, and with our allies, we stand ready to work with all members on the security council towards this end. thank you. >> all right, the british ambassador to the united nations adding her voice and now the french ambassador in a similar vein to nikki haley, the three countries that justified sharing in concert this attack on syria overnight, but the battle comes down to this. we believe and have proof, irrefutable proof that the syrians were using chemical weapons on their own people. killed 45 people last week and that there's no denying it. the russians saying there's offino proof at all and that this-- the russian ambassador called this emergency meeting after these coordinated attacks overnight, that not enough

thought was given to inspectors on the ground trying to find out proof that this was the case. remember, it's a shore issue for the russians because they were in charge of making sure that the country, syria, didn't have these weapons anymore and would get rid of them. that does not appear to be the case so you hear two conflicting views of the justification for this attack. the united states and france and britain saying plenty of justification. the russians saying zero justification. and rebecca hinrich is on this. where is this debate going? obviously, we do know that there was a chemical attack, you know, in syria. what the russians, even in denying that, seem to be saying is that it wasn't the theory behind us countenancing it. what are we to get from this back and forthments i thought that nikki haley's response was so calm and patient and i was sitting here listening to the

russians spew at that disinformation, i could feel my own heart rate going up as i listened to them lie after lie and to lecture the united states and u.k. and france on international norms and respecting sovereign, the sovereignty of other nations, it is-- it's just so audacious, you know, we know that assad is behind this because he's done this in the past. you heard that the french just layout some of the-- or the brits layout the reason they did this. there was a helicopter used. only the regime uses helicopters and dropped barrel bombs. i heard there were cables intercepted probably by the israelis that showed that assad was coordinating these attacks. so this was not faked. we know who did it. neil: it does make you wonder, without questioning what you cited there. why would assad and the regime and russians by extension here, even think of it, given the national, international outcry that would ensue? >> because i'll tell you exactly

why they've been doing it. it's a great question. it's because assad has found whenever he gets into these battles with the rebels and the rebels simply won't give up and weeks and weeks of fighting go on. finally the last straw, small amounts of chemical weapons have been used and creates such a psychological pain and agee on the rebels, that they recent, that they give up and we can see that hours after this last chemical weapons attack, that's exactly what happened and the rebels left duma and so, it's worked. countries act in their own interest and as long as assad has been able to act with impunity because of the diplomatic coverage it gets from the russians. he'll continue to do this. it's my thoughts are that the latest chemical attack was too big and drew, finally, international attention, but this was not the first time that assad has done this. not even since the last april attack in 2017. it was just on a much smaller

scale in this particular advance. it's worked and that's why assad does it. neil: the president's tweets are referring to this targeted attack and a coordinated one, mission accomplished. obviously, that conjures up images in 2003 of president bush toppli toppling saddam hussein in iraq and giving americans a false sense of security. what did you think of revisiting that phrase? >> i wouldn't insly use that phrase. a different context, toppling saddam hussein is not the same thing as carrying out very limited strikes in order to compel assad for using chemical weapons. neil: do you think that this mission is accomplished in that limited frame, that his chemical weapons stash has been immobilized and seems to be true? >> yes, i believe this mission has been accomplished and that

specific narrow mission was to inflict pain against the assad regime because of the chemical weapons attack and to degrade seriously his ability to launch further attacks. whether or not that compels assad not to do it again, i think that's important. and president trump, second mattis said we don't want to do this again, but the ball is in assad's court and in russia's court. if it wasn't for russia, we would not be here today. russia was supposed to get this on a leash, get it under control. remove the chemical weapons with assad. they failed to do so. the obama administration, i'm sorry to say, gets some of the blame for this, they fell for this even though they said that assad is not going to? do this and he didn't. neil: and a ranking member of the house armed services committee. the democratic congress joins us from shth with a. thanks -- washington. thanks for taking the time.

do you think this is mission accomplished? do you think this is done? >> and from the last comment from the commentator brings home the point. a problem, there's no easy solution. in fact, we did this a year ago and as we said, assad chemicals weapons in a limited fashion and draws international attention and then he used them to a larger degreement we bomb now, i don't know what really changed. i'm sympathetic to this administration, you saw what happened saddam hussein and reremember saddam hussein chemical weapons back against his own people in 1991 and previous attempts as well. and they've all finally getting him to stop that. and the cost of doing it, but what i worry about this, it's ineffectual and i do worry about mission accomplished. i was in georgia and met with

some-- they're not any better off today than-- >> sir, we're having some problems with your audio. apologize for that or maybe it's your phone. >> no problem. neil: congressman, is it your view that any follow-up move, i've heard from a number of congressmen, republicans and democrats, that this should get the okay of congress. what do you think? >> i think from ooh equal standpoint it should. there's no legal justification in our history for just -- and look, president trump is not the only president in the united states who has ever done this. the campaign in libya went down to six days and hospitality. it's a long-running problem and i think you'd be much better off if the president came to congress and asked for legal authority because syria does not threat the u.s. they've made no threats, and i think some people, maybe congress should have to approve. neil: all right. thank you very much, congressman. again, just some problems with your phone.

it's not your phone, maybe just by the time it makes its way to us. thank you very, very much. we're getting word right now national security advisor john bolton has been speaking with his counterpart with the united arab emirates today about syria and they might have played a key role in this behind the scenes and we'll get details on that shortly. dr. zuhdi jasser, for foreign democracy and, you know, much has been made of getting a handle on syria going forward with this chemical weapons thing. they argue, the russians argue no chemical weapons here, certainly not provoked or countenanced by us. do you believe that? >> well, what we learned today, you saw a clinic of the u.n. ambassador from russia, used terms like neocolonialism and syria was no longer in civil war when russia entered in 2015 and you saw him have an hissy fit

today because they saw a president that's going to set red lines and not let powers like russia and iran colonialized syria and continue to let evil-- >> but, zuhdi, what elicits that response and i understand total inhumanity and 45 killed in the town. but 45,000 have been killed by conventional means in this country over the last two years and i'm wondering, is it just the chemical part that insults the global community and our better sense of humanity? i mean, dead in the end is dead. isn't it? >> you're right and as a syrian-american i certainly would tell you that my family in damascus and alipo doesn't see much difference from what happened today and yesterday. and as protectors of the free world put tyrants on notice anyone in the future that would put chemical weapons, our soldiers, sons and daughters in

jeopardy to chemical weapons have been put on notice, that's a red line, we will not allow to happen. i think internally in syria, i don't think much has changed. we need a longer strategy, like in the balkans, the n.a.t.o. alliance has no-fly zones and longer strategy. for the syrians, you're right. not much has changed. barrel bombs, hospital bombs, the way they die doesn't matter for the syrian opposition. and for chemical warfare, they say the free world has woken up. the russias and irans will no longer be able to do so without blinking. neil: thank you. as zuhdi was talking i wanted to draw your attention to what's going on half a world away, n.a.t.o. is planning a press conference as well to look into the actions and why three of the more prominent members, england, france, of course the united

states, made these orchestrated attacks. what could be coming up now? they have argued there was no successful surface to air missile attacks on any missiles that came in from the countries and coordinated attacks. and we're hearing from syria and russia that's not the case. maybe they'll delineate what happened. the bottom line, we've sent a clear and strong message to the syrians, by extension, to the russians, that this sort of thing will not be tolerated. and that they've exhausted their chemical weapons, that is syria, that there's a line that they crossed and knew they crossed and we'll be exploring this next week when we're talking with mitch mcconnell on tax day. fox news continues nout. now. whoooo.

when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites

...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. even when nothing else is. keep her receipts tidy, brand vo: snap and sort your expenses with quickbooks and find, on average, $4,340 in tax savings. quickbooks. backing you. >> air strikes against assad. the united states, along with the u.k. and france launching more than 100 weapons overnight at three chemical weapons sites in syria.

president trump tweeting just hours ago, mission accomplished. this, after vowing to make sure syri syrian's assad to pay for a gas attack that killed at least 42 civilians, including children. >> this massacre was a significant escalation in a pattern of chemical weapons used by that very terrible regime. these are not the actions of a man, they are crimes of a