>> hello and welcome. coming up, why did barack obama elect to consult congress, braving the risk of a no vote by war-weary lawmakers? after the british parliament we can surprise spawning arguments in france over francois hollande's refusal to put paris'

situation to a vote in the parliament. it is well within his right. collectively, how is the west looking going into that weekend? g-8 and g-20 summits to be hosted by russia. reacting to remarks that we should be hearing within the next half-hour from the french prime minister and getting the latest from our media watch segment. the hour begins in the newsroom. let's say hello. >> thank you. these are the headlines. france unveils its intelligence on last months's attacks in damascus suburbs. francois hollande is under pressure to hold a parliamentary vote on the issue. bahman morsi is to stand -- mohamed morsi is to stand trial. he is in -- he is accused of

inciting the murder of protesters last december. and gareth bale says it is a dream come true as the world's football sensation becomes the latest in a world record transfer. after the u.k. and the u.s., it was france's turn to show lawmakers its intelligence on last month's alleged chemical attacks in damascus suburbs. rent hollande wants punitive action against the syrian regime. the french president is under pressure, like david cameron was, to hold a parliamentary vote on the issue. who have you seen arriving for that meeting and can you give us an idea of what is going on behind closed doors? >> we have seen the head of the military, the head of the french secret service, the defense minister, and leaders from most of the main political parties here in france.

we have a fair idea of what is being talked about behind those closed doors. earlier today, the prime minister came out and categorically said that he was going to lay on the table all of the evidence that france has about serious chemical weapons. -- about serious -- syria's chemical weapons. there was a report in a sunday newspaper that said that syria had more than 1000 tons of chemical weapons since the 1980s. it is being further lead -- leak ed as we expect him to make an announcement of what has been discussed. that has come through a government source. we has to stress that this i a leak and has not been confirmed. france also knows that, according to satellite images from the attack on the outskirts of damascus, that showed that the strike came from government-

controlled areas. it also shows that it was a massive and coordinated attack, which indicates that it was indeed the regime because rebels do not have the means to launch such an attack. it also appears that it was an attempt by the regime to reclaim the territory and they actually bombed that area afterwards. according to a government source that leaked details, more information that we are awaiting. we will find out in just a few moments. >> thank you very much. joining me is our international affairs editor. before i turn to you, i want our viewers to know that president bashar al-assad has been speaking to a french newspaper. in that interview, the syrian leader says that if france intervenes militarily, it will become an enemy of syria. he also denies his forces have used chemical weapons, saying the accusations are a logical.

as i was saying before, it is france's turn to show its evidence. it says that the syrian regime is responsible for chemical attacks. >> we have yet to hear concretely what was discussed. what we do see is france going through what is now a very familiar exercise. in each capital, whether it is london, washington, harris, you have individual intelligent assessments being put together by each of those respective countries intelligence services. it has been established, they established that yes, chemical weapons were used. and yes, they can pin it squarely on the bashar al-assad regime and here is why. they are trying to make that case. in britain, it did not work. it was not enough to sway parliament as you have the so- called iraq hangover. they said no.

britain is not taking part. it has really left this duopoly, that of the u.s. and france. here is where the interesting situation arises. obama is now going to congress. it was a shocking move to many. very few people were expecting that. it has left france in this very weird, almost twilight zone-ish situation. you have the u.s. saying it is going to parliament, delaying any timetable for prospective action. france, which has said it will not put any military action to a vote, it will consult with parliament this wednesday, but it is not putting it to a vote. france has to stand by the words that francois hollande spoke last week, saying france is ready. ready to do what? in other words, to punish those who gassed innocent civilians. what has changed is that he has lost one solid ally, britain,

and now he is left in a position because france has said it cannot go it alone. it has to await the outcome of the u.s. lawmakers. in a weird way, hollande is hostage to politics beyond his control and at the same time, sticking to his guns with what he has previously said, that yes, chemical weapons were used by bashar al-assad and it is france's obligation to do something about that to punish the person who perpetrated these acts. it will be interesting, part of the us exercise with the intelligence that we have been waiting on is basically they are trying to make the parliamentarians feel like they really are on board, that they are part of what is a consultative ross s. who knows? in the next 48 hours, things have changed so quickly in this crisis. maybe they will end up voting here in france.

but for now, they are just consulting with parliament and this is part of that process of bringing french lawmakers will lead into the loop of why and how france would join military action. >> thank you very much.+ he is due to risk -- to speak to reporters shortly. we will bring you that live when that happens. for now, let's go to egypt. a state prosecutor has referred bahman morsi for trial. -- of mohammed mercy -- morsi for trial. a judicial panel has a by -- has advised the group to dissolve the group as an ngo. >> bomb and more side will be tried -- mohamed morsi will be tried for murder. >> he deserved this. he does not respect the people. he divided the people. all of this for his own gain. >> other egyptians say that the

authorities are going to far, punishing a rival for political reasons. >> i think this is exceptionally cruel. i believe there is no evidence against him that justifies all of this. what did he do? >> the former president is accused of pushing the supporters to kill opposition activists gathered -- scattered outside his palace. since july, the military-backed government has arrested most senior brotherhood members. tears of arrest have driven others underground. soon, the muslim brotherhood will face a new challenge. the group registered itself as an ngo in march to have a legal status. a judicial panel suggests to dissolve that ngo. if the court dissolves that organization, the brotherhood will no longer have a legal front. rutherford supporters have called for demonstrations across

the country on tuesday, two months since morsi was toppled. >> real madrid have smashed the transfer record to sign gareth bale. the fee, about 100 million euros. he had a medical this monday before being presented to real madrid fans. earlier, i asked our sports editor if he is worth 100 million euros. >> it is a question people have been asking all summer. we have been expecting this and we never know exactly how much money because the clubs are so reluctant to declare. we think it is about 100 million euros. it would be a record, real madrid beating their own record. he is a very similar player to gareth bale, but not the same level. in the context of the inflated prices right now, it is not a huge surprise. of course, there is the age-old

question, if somebody is willing to pay that much, he probably is worth it. he has been the double list premier league player of the year, winning both the rights prize and the prize voted by the he was gooinhe chamons le. at the top lel like cristiano ronaldo. he is extremely talented. it is left to be seen whether he will justify that kind of deal, but he is coming into the prime in terms of his technical skill set. they are buying him at the right time. he basically went 20 matches went on to become the preeminent match winner in the division. quite a transformation for him. now this dream move, as he described it.

>> that is it for the newsroom for now. it is time to hand it over for the debate. >> thanks for that in the newsroom. after the shock, no vote in the british house of mms, a new variable could thwart efforts to have a u.s.-led intervention in syria. >> i am prepared to give that order. but having made my decision as commander-in-chief based on what i am convinced is our national security interests, i am also mindful that i am the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. good afternoon, everybody. >> we will reflect on that rationale, running the strong risk of a no vote. it is putting france's president in an uncomfortable place this monday. francois hollande will not have

a vote in his own parliament. he does not have to under the law here. he still backs retaliation for the use of chemical weapons. with the west be right in reverting itself and backing off? or weighing the risks of striking and staying out of a conflict that has cost 100,000 lives and counting. today, why did obama call on congress? with us to talk about it is former u.s. diplomat in syria, william jordan. from brussels,, a member of the european parliament. welcome to the debate. and she has been a war reporter in iraq and afghanistan. and the international affairs editor, douglas herbert. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

back in 2007, senator obama was quite clear. this was an interview with the boston globe at the time. he said, the president does not not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. pretty straightforward. then came intervention libya. this time, obama was sitting in the oval office and he had a different outlook. there will be times when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. we know the united states as the world's most powerful nation will often be called upon to help. and then saturday, obama's decision to go to capitol hill before he ever goes to syria. >> while i believe i have the authority to carry out this

military action without specific congressional authorization, i know that the country will be stronger if we take thisourse and our actions will be even more effective. >> william jordan, contradictions on what obama has said over the years. >> somewhat, and while i could domestic and international reasons why he has taken this stance, i think the key reason is the british vote. the fact that the british have opted out of the coalition that is gathering to take some kind of action in syria has put pressure on obama to reconsider, to think, well, where should he go in terms of bringing the american public and american congress along? >> was it the right decision? >> i think so. he should have considered this in concert with his other partners before moving ahead. i personally believe that the chemical weapons intervention

and anything relating to the use of chemical warfare in a conflict situation is very vague as far as procedures to follow and how you would respond as he proposes to do. yes, i think he should have done it and done it sooner. given everything, the hangover from iraq and the uneasiness about intervention in libya, he should have done it sooner. >> the new york times reporting that it was during a stormy two- hour session that obama announced his reasons or calling on congress. the most compelling one may have been that acting alone would undercut him if he needed congressional authority for his next military confrontation in the middle east, perhaps with iran. if he made the decision to strike without congress now, would he get congress when he really needed it? do you buy that logic?

>> let's remember, this is a congress with which barack obama has had difficult relations, to say the least. you have to approach this question already. his political capital does not go a long wait when we are talking about this congress. given that, he probably -- >> if there were a crisis with iran, would it be that tough to sell? >> that is speculation. we are talking hypothetical here. there is a legitimate argument that can be made that that argument makes perfect sense. if you really needed congress in the clutch, that would help to buy him that capital. the u.k. vote was probably foremost there. there was no urgency to strike now in the sense that, militarily, the timeline could

be pushed back and they still would be able to strike at any moment. there was no pressure to act exactly now in a military sense. >> this monday in the u.s. is a holiday, it is labor day. nonetheless, barack obama has been meeting with lawmakers, including senator john mccain on sunday. mccain turned the argument that you read around. roundly criticizing the decision to put it to a vote for congress. >> the iranians are near euphoric, as is bashar al-assad. our israeli friends are very worried now about the steadfastness and commitment of the united states of america concerning the acquisition of nuclear weapons by iran. >> assad euphoric? the syrian government has been putting its own spin on obama's decision to consult congress. >> i think the obama speech

yesterday showed how complex the issue is and how he is paralyzed. the situation is still very difficult. we do not care whether the operation takes place today or tomorrow. but it has become very clear for the american people and the international public opinion that the allegations made by obama and his foreign secretary are incorrect and absolutely a big lie. >> arnaud danjean, when you hear what the syrian foreign minister says there, or you feel sorry that it is being put to a vote in congress? that there is all this public wrangling? >> i am disappointed that it takes time because they are very reluctant to strike. i understand that some countries

like syria or russia or he ran might consider that it is kind of a setback for obama. but still, i do not think so fully. this is propaganda. we know it. obama was always reluctant to engage in the case of the syrian issue. i am not that surprised that he is balancing his own determination with the vote of the congress. so i am not surprised that the syrians react this way. they know it is not the end of the story. you can end up with a positive vote in the congress and anything is possible. >> look at the bigger timeline on all of this. is this make the west look bad? >> of course it does. the western image in the middle east is not very good.

syria said that this decision to appeal to congress is a sign of weakness. i would not say so. i would say that it is a sign of hesitation. this hesitation is palpable. i am just back from the u.s. and i was driving thousands of miles and listening to the talkshow radios. i noticed that from rush limbaugh, who is very conservative journalist and very famous to npr, they are all saying the same. they are very perplexed regarding this new potential attack. the people were calling in and expressing this hesitation. why now? what will it change? that is the problem. what will it change? we all know that this strike will not put down assad's regi me, so what is the point?

as a war reporter who used to be in the field, i note too well what is the price of starting a war. when you start a war, god knows when it is going to be finished. i should remind everyone that the war in iraq and afghanistan is not finished yet. the day before yesterday, we had more attacks in iraq. in afghanistan, it is a very unstable situation. why there is such an excitement about war which we feel now? why do we not have lessons about what has been done and not done? my feeling is those politicians are in a hurry. everything is very short-term. >> very short-term. >> and very emotional. >> very emotional. people's emotions did not rise when 100,000 people were killed. they have risen only because of this chemical attack.

>> in order to get the people in the west interested in this new war, we need to attack? that is what we need in order to get the interest? that is very insane to think like that. >> i think the interest rose before the chemical attacks. he talked about syria a lot. i do agree completely with you. to realize what we have done and what the u.s. has done in afghanistan and iraq. >> is this a case for inaction when it comes to syria? >> i do not think it makes a case for syria. when we look at libya, for example, we have three conditions to intervene. we had the support of the united nations. second, we had the support of the -- third, we had united opposition to whom we could talk.

in syria, we have nothing. we no support from the u.n., russia, china, the arab league. there are no conditions to intervene in syria right now. >> william jordan, you used to be posted in damascus. the reason everyone is hesitated -- hesitating is we don't know what would happen if something didn't start up. again, it is the question of is it right now in her sure, inaction? -- inertia, inaction? and what are the consequences of that? >> president obama is seeing this gathering coalition start to fall apart terms of being backed up with any kind of military action. it is inevitable that the u.s. should step back and say, how

does this equate with the national interest? given that there is a lot of hesitation and a lot of misunderstanding and perplexity on the part of americans as to exactly what is at stake here for the united states even that iraq and afghanistan remain either active wars or situations that are not resolved successfully. given the fact that libya, despite all of the positive factors that were just mentioned , that brought u.s. intervention to that conflict, if you look at libya today, what do you have? even more so in syria, the regional context is very delicate and very aggravated, very dear it hated right now. i talked -- very your it hated -- very irritated right now. i talked to a congressman from

florida. 1400 people died in this attack. is it worth more casualties if some other party decides to launch missiles as part of a response to an american military action? these are the stakes that americans have got to try to get a grip on. congress is the best place to have the debate at a national level. >> when we asked you if barack obama might secretly, when he made this unprompted decision to go before congress, might he secretly have been rooting for a no vote that he could pin on the republicans? he replied, it is obvious. things of this nature are not mistakes. i do not want to go too far into conspiracy theories. >> have them vote no so he could have them questioned? there are several ways to look at that. >> he had this red line on chemical weapons. >> we talked last week about the

cover of time magazine. he has been called the unhappy worrier. only more so than any president has had war weigh on him in an intellectual sense. because he has had -- because he has stayed out of this conflict the last 29 months, there is a sense that he has been dragged into it. here is the irony. finally when he feels like he can intellectually resolved himself to going in and saying we can now take action because this is about chemical weapons, now all of a sudden the u.k. vote comes along and he has to pull back again. he is becoming once again the unhappy worrier. if congress does vote yes and it does go to war and it becomes an absolute fiasco or disaster, or member, he will not be the only fall guy. congress will be able to take a lot of that blame. that is probably in the back of his mind as well. >> we have heard a lot of talk

radio hosts saying, do not go to war. is this thing dead? it is a republican-controlled congress. all the democrats on the left of the party who oppose the war. >> wherever you look, you have opposition. this is it. you have the republican wing that we are talking about. the isolationists want no part of this. the republicans saying, what are our goals? you have no way of avoiding a wider conflict or convincing us that there will not be a wider conflict. then you have another way of saying that you should go in but we are not doing enough, that it is too limited and too narrow in scope. between those two sides, there is no daylight. >> additionally, you have the irony that the secretary of state, leading the charge for the nation, ran a campaign opposed to george bush that was totally predicated on the mistake of the 2003 invasion of

iraq. >> that is one of the many reasons. or member that, at the beginning, he was in favor of the war. john kerry started being in favor of the war in iraq and a few months after that, he became against the war when he ran for the presidency. >> there is the ghost of iraq which is haunting all parties. as we saw, it haunted the british house of commons when they had their debate and voted no to intervention. final word before we go to the break. the french government this monday is preparing to publicly release details from its intelligence services about suspected chemical weapons attacks. as they say they have further proof. how we believe them after what happened in iraq? >> the problem is not to believe them or what the intelligence is . i think there will be a new

report. it will be a clear report. everybody is quite aware that evidence against the regime in this size case, even though it has to be proved. there is a much bigger problem beyond that, beyond establishing the fact and evidence on the chemical attack. it is the question of what do we do? what is the strategy? everybody is talking about punitive strikes. what is beyond punitive strikes? this is a much bigger problem than just establishing the fact and having a reaction. for the congressman, like for the french mps, this is the main problem now. how do we retaliate and ensure that the retaliation is not more risky than doing nothing? and how does it fit with the global strategy? we know that

punitive action will not change the course of the war. >> we will pick up on those points when we come back.

>> welcome back. before we resume, a sample of the stories we will be following at the top of the hour. france revealing its intelligence on last month's attacks in the suburbs of damascus. we should be hearing pretty shortly from the french rime minister, who has just been briefing lawmakers. a tunisian court convicts in absentia a pair of rappers for insulting police, sentencing them to 21 months in prison. they are both in hiding. and a world record transfer. eric bail -- gareth bale unveiled at real madrid. 100 million euros is the price tag there. those stories and much more at the top of the hour. welcome back or welcome if you

are just joining us. after the surprise of the house of commons voting no to taking part in intervention in syria, after barack obama dramatically and suddenly announcing that he will be consulting congress before he wades in with airstrikes, now we will turn our attention to where this puts rants, which has been firmly in favor of those strikes. with us to talk about it is william jordan, french conservative member of the european government arnaud danje an. also with us is laurent pinsolle, freelance journalist anne nivat and our very own douglas herbert. we can begin with the latest opinion polls. over 60% of the french oppose

taking military action in syria. 58% do not trust the current resident to conduct the operation. 35% fear that the strikes could set the middle east ablaze. it all comes back to what arnaud danjean was saying at the end of part one. i am going to interrupt you. we are going to the french prime minister's office and listening to what he has to say after briefing those lawmakers. >> on the situation in syria. this information to parliament is essential. indeed, members of parliament must have access to the information available to the president of the republic and the government. on the basis of which, we have conducted our decision over the past few days with respect to the situation in syria. this information meeting took

place in an atmosphere of particular seriousness. on august 21 last, the regime of bashar al-assad committed and irreparable act, employing chemical weapons against its own population on a massive scale. nobody denies the reality of that. this is what the un's inspectors are to confirm. on the basis of such elements as we have been able to gather, it is clear that the responsibilities to be attributed to the assad regime and that act cannot remain unanswered. what is at stake here is making sure that we avoid allowing assad to use chemical weapons again in the future against the syrian people. we must send a message, a clear

message along those lines. this is essential for collective security and our own security in the context in which weapons of mass destruction are a threat not just in the middle east, but in other areas of the world. france wants to punish the use of chemical weapons by the regime of bashar al-assad. we wish to deter him from using them again through a proportional and firm action which is not intended to topple the regime or two free syria -- or to free syria, because we are convinced that in syria, only a political solution can be found. information to the parliament will continue, called by the

president of the republic starting on wednesday. i hope that this debate will take place in responsibility and seriousness and a time at which the higher interests of france are at stake. there is no pressure for france to act alone. the president of the republic continues his work, trying to put together a coalition because france must rally around the objective because we defend the respect of international law. i have called for the respect of the institution within our constitution. it is up to the president of the republic to decide whether a vote that is not required by the constitution should take place or not. on wednesday, there will be a discussion, a debate.

ultimately, a decision will be taken by the president of the republic. normally, after a coalition has been put together so as to be able to put out a firm message clearly intended to forbid bashar al-assad from using chemical weapons against his own people. i thank you. >> there you heard it. the french prime minister after briefing lawmakers, making a short statement to the public. in that statement, he talked about the intent to send out a message to punish syria's regime for the use of chemical weapons. saying that a political solution

can be found and it is no question that france will not act alone. there was a call for institutional equilibrium. your party hails itself as neo- gaullists. general de gaulle found in the constitution which gives the president broad powers. do you regret that? do you think lawmakers should be more in the mix and the constitution should be amended? >> i do not think the constitution should be amended thomas but i think the vote should be organized by a president. >> but he does not have to. >> yes, but it is a political choice. it is a question of democracy. it is not the first time we are intervening. there is the iraq he case -- i raqi case, the libyan case.

receipt it is difficult. the opinion is widely divided, with a majority in favor of no intervention. it would be the least you have a vote of the congress in order to have the opinion of the lawmakers and to know whether the institutions of france are willing to go into that intervention. >> the demand for a vote. arnaud danjean, the french president so far, as you heard from the prime minister, is holding off on that. over the past 48 hours, and i was in the newsroom and many people were watching the comments before that vote, a lot of french people have been coming up to me and saying, you know, in france, it is true that our lawmakers do not have enough power. >> yes, it is true. i think it should be very useful to have a vote.

institutionally, he does not have to organize a vote. lyrically, it would make sens i would recall that it was done in 1991 before going to war in iraq, the first gulf war. there was a lot of confidence in the parliament. so there is a president. >> in that case, he put boots on the ground. in this case, they are talking about airstrikes. >> yes, but you do not know the limit of what is going to happen. and you start a war, you never know how and when it will end. let me tell you that one of the main problems we face is the strategy behind the strikes. we are told limited strikes equal limited risk. i do not buy that. nobody knows the consequences. i think there should be a vote from the parliament.

we see the skepticism of the people. we very well feel the skepticism of our allies, the mps, and the experts. this should be put to a vote and it would not destroy the constitution. it did not destroy the constitution in 1991. >> in jordan last wednesday, a rock obama said that the strikes would be "a shot across the bow." can you do that in syria? is it possible? >> of course not. getting back to things we talked about earlier, in a lot of ways, president obama is almost regretting what he said a year ago. the redline over chemical weapons use is a red herring given what is really going on in syria. as tragic and horrible as it is, this is a crime against humanity and a heinous act that needs to be punished in some way. but i am not sure and i do not

think a majority of people in france, the united states, or even the united kingdom believe that the sort of specific limited military strike that president obama is calling for is going to be the answer. as i said earlier, there is no situation i could find as i searched over the past few hours that indicates when a chemical weapons intervention has been invoked in this sort of way. a chemical weapons intervention makes few references as to how you deal with this situation. the only real recourse is through the united nations. it does not talk about unilateral action. given everything that is at play in syria and given the very complex situation there, we have to ask these questions about the day after and whether this kind of an action, which will be an

act of war against syria, what good will it really do? >> in the french edition of vanity fair, you sd that between doing nothing and sending missiles, the spectrum is large. what is in that spectrum? >> we are starting a war. we say it is going to be limited , but there are two points i want to make. saying we need to punish them, we will be sending a message. i am quite disturbed i this sending a message of opposition by our politicians. i heard on american talk show radio, military people are also disturbed by omitting on that negatively, saying you do not start a war to send a message. that is quite disturbing. secondly, france, in that case, is doing nothing -- >> but there are precedents for that.

there were srikes in sudan, north africa. >> we are not learning from the lessons of the past. >> but there are precedents in the past. >> it did not work. it never works. but i would like to say something regarding france. we are following what the americans do. it is not the first time we have been doing that. under president sarkozy in afghanistan. this is something that strikes me the most. we did a liberation in mali and this operation was quite decisive and well done. where is france now? what is the french vision of another operation? >> when you said between doing nothing and sending missiles is a wide spectrum, what do you put in that spectrum? >> the spectrum would be diplomacy.

>> chemical weapons use could be marked by sanctions. >> there are already sanctions. >> but still, there is no peace plan. you are talking about precedents. not a limited air campaign, but a full, sustained air campaign like kosovo or afghanistan in 2001. we have the diplomacy backing that and a lot of talks with russia. we struck milosevic twice in bosnia and herzegovina. both times, we continued to talk with him. we want to punish bashar, but not talking to him and not making a decisive strike , what is the effect of all of that? >> what happens when the syrians

resort to chemical weapons again? if the net result of this strike is that it does not dissuade them from using chemical weapons, what do you do? what is the next step? >> with this extra time that he has bought, he is reportedly moving his weapons, his material into civilian areas. the consequences of that -- >> so there is no plan for now. at least not a visible one for what happens to lyrically. -- politically. but we have a tweak here. if obama keeps her crass knitting and doing nothing, he risks and taken lightly by allies. successive french governments, not just francois hollande, his predecessor nicolas sarkozy and his foreign minister both said assad should go. is it the west that will be taken lightly by allies? >> i am not sure all the west.

it will depend. i think like david cameron, he voted himself and exit from the crisis. if the congress says no, then i am not going to act. given that the world opinion is a huge majority against, as it seems in the u.k. or even in france, it will not damage so much the image. i think the risk here is a major contradiction. the legal international law to intervene because of the use of weapons of mass destruction. and then it does not want to have a vote in the u.n. >> in the u.n.? >> in the u.n., it does not ask for a vote to support intervention. >> because of the security council. >> it would be better to say we

are going to intervene, but let's ask the u.n. there is a major contradiction to say everything is going to be decided by the u.s. government. >> they have been very explicit that they have given up on the security council even the repeated russian opposition. a do not see it as a viable mechanism for better or for worse. they do not see it as an action for which any political solution is going to be found. >> but it is contradictory. >> the question comes down to the security council. do you need to revisit that an evil way it is organized and the concept behind it? that is a question for another day, i suppose. >> what is going through the security council at this point worth when you see that russia will not budge? >> it has been blocked for the last year.

but i think there is still room for diplomacy. do not forget, you have the g-20 taking place this week. if you come out with strong evidence, putin, at some point, might also have some interest to move. not spectacularly, not a big breakthrough, i do not believe in that. still, there is a place for diplomacy. couldn't -- putin has no interest for having the west striking. it is still an option. there could be strikes without u.n. approval. that would be a major setback for putin's strategy, which was built in 1999 with the kosovo case. there is still some space for maneuver. air is a full spectrum of possibilities between doing nothing and striking just for position. >> do you agree that you can

still come up with something with the russians at this point? >> i think we have to talk to them. if we do not continue talking to the russians and continue to have some sort of diplomatic engagement with them about syria, there is no hope for any eventual political solution. i think what is happening is that barack obama has bought time for something like this to happen. by having pushed the deadline for a debate in the u.s. congress, it has gone past the g-20 summit. there is no risk of an affront to the russians, who are organizing the summit. this creates a situation in which people can talk about how to get out of this box and they put themselves in. it provides an opportunity, as has been said, to look at the spectrum of other diplomatic possibilities, focusing on the chemical weapons used. i realize now that further sanctions against syria is probably a waste of time.

to get the russians on board, to declare that whoever was ultimately found responsible for the chemical weapons attack is culpable in an international court of law or something like that, i think that that is an important symbolic effort to -- effort. >> there is disagreement on that, by the way. they claimed the toll since the beginning of the uprising, and 99% of this is from conventional means, 110,000 dead. this is according to the opposition. at least 40,000 civilians killed, including nearly 4000 women, more than 5800 children. when you look at those numbers, you said that you agree that there is a wide spectrum between doing nothing and sending missiles.

what do you put in that spectrum? >> i told you already, diomacy. we are talking about g-20. >> just a diplomacy? >> it is the main tool we have. even if you want to go further, and i think that is john mccain's point, if you take the risk of striking, then go big and fight to change the course of the war and take sides. what the prime minister said is not relevant. striking to punish but not trying to topple the regime or to take sides in this war, it does not make sense. if you go for war, you go for winning the war. otherwise, it is taking a risk. >> it is not the west's responsibility to end this conflict. it is up to the syrian people to end this conflict. it is up to the rebels to organize themselves better to be able to carry out this conflict.

it is up to the syrian regime to accept that a political reveille -- resolution of this conflict has to take place. >> if you do not go to war wanting to win it, the people in the field in syria, i understand it because i have been living amongst iraqis during the war. they were all repeating the same to me. you guys in the west are not here to win. what are you here for? they feel it. it is changing our image going back to what we were saying before. we should take care of that too. >> i want to thank all of you. before we go, i want to get the latest from james. we heard the french fry minister -- prime minister a few moments ago. we heard the reaction of his panel.

i guess a little bit out on a limb about what has happened in london and washington. limb too. that was picked up by the french press today. the front page of today's papers had one word again and again, trapped. unusual that they would both agree on the topic. he has been trapped by barack obama. why? after david cameron was voted down in the british parliament, not willingly, obama then remembered that there is a parliament also in the u.s. that constitutionally has to be consulted for matters of war. i am not sure that is being trapped, it is just remembering the realities. another website is saying trapped by obama and also by the french media. he makes reference to the militant position of newspapers

such as le monde going back to may and editorials recently have made a strong case for war and have concluded that bashar al- assad did use chemical weapons. so trapped by obama, cameron, the french media. perhaps even trapped by himself. >> in the case of le monde, they brought back actual samples. >> right. they made a very strong case saying, for us, this is conclusive. for another french political website, they remind us that francois hollande himself, in opposition, he had more hair and said things that were inconvenient for his current position. in 2003 regarding iraq and again in 2008 regarding french military action in afghanistan. he said it is not the prerogative of the president of the republic to take

responsibility all by himself. fossett usually, it is. -- constitutionally, it is. >> it has really sparked a debate over the last 72 hours. >> it shows the strong position that the french president has compared to other governments who cannot act without consulting parliament or should not. francois hollande in a tough spot. >> i want to thank our panel once again and thank you for joining us here for the debate. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--