we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in libya or bosnia, for that matter afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by nato or by the international community. >> well, i'm troubled by that. i think that it does weaken the ability of the united states to lead. if we believe something ought to be done i would think we would be going more aggressively to nato and allies, seeking every ally that we can get. but i do think ultimately you need the legal authority from the united states of america, not from any other extra territorial group that might assemble. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator webb, if you would yield to me for just one moment. >> certainly. >> i would just like to clarify the last point because you used the word permission at times as being helpful to achieving an international coalition. you don't need any authority from anybody else, any permission from anybody else, if we're going act alone, you made that clear. you said it three times. ic that's essential. but as i understand it, saying is that if you're seekin

we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in libya or bosnia, for that matter afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by nato or by the international community. >> well, i'm troubled by that. i think that, um, it does weaken the ability of the united states to lead. if we believe something ought to be done, i'd be thinking we would be going more aggressively to nato and other allies, seeking every ally that we can get. but i do think, ultimately, you need the legal authority from the united states of america, not from any other extraterritorial group that might assemble. megyn: so is the administration inappropriately worried about getting international permission and not worried about getting congressional permission before it advances in places like syria? joining me now, fox news legal analyst peter johnson jr. there is already a big backlash against this, and when given the chance to, you know, restate it, secretary panetta continued to use that term, permission, international permission. and the congress is very upset saying

we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in libya or bosnia, for that matter afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by nato or by the international community. >> well, i'm troubled by that. i think that it does weaken the ability of the united states to lead. if we believe something oug to be done i would think we would be going more aggressively to nato and allies, seeking every ally that we can get. but i do think ultimately you need the legal authority from the united states of america, not from any other extra territorial group that might assemble. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator webb, if you would yield to me for just one moment. >> certainly. >> i would just like to clarify the last point because you used the word permission at times as being helpful to achieving an international coalition. you don't need any authority from anybody else, any permission from anybody else, if we're going act alone, you made that clear. you said it three times. ic that's essential. but as i understand it, saying is that if you're seeking

we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in libya or bosnia yeah, for that matter afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by nato or by the international community. >> senator jeff sessions in particular, chris, took issue with seek permission. what did panetta mean by that? >> reporter: i spoke with a senior defense department official a couple hours ago who tried to clarify the secretary's remarks. he said look, he wasn't ceding american authority to some foreign body. what he said was he was trying to re-emphasize the need to get some sort of international mandate which gives the operation more legitimacy. but i also spoke privately with senator sessions after that hearing. and he said, look, this is a real window into both the pentagon and the administration's mindset, that they spent weeks trying to romance all these other nations while egg foreing congress. jeff sessions doesn't buy the administration line that the assad regime is doomed to fail. he said dictators have a way of hanging on. he said the window to stop assad m

we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in libya or bosniaghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by nato or by the international community. >> well, i'm troubled by that. i think that, um, it does weaken the ability of the united states to lead. if we believe something ought to be done, i'd be thinking we would be going more aggressively to nato and other allies seeking every ally that we can get, but i do think, ultimately, you need the legal authority from the united states of america, not from any other extraterritorial group that might assemble. megyn: joining me now, brad blakeman, former deputy assistant to president bush, bernard whitman, former pollster for bill clinton, and joe she reasons kroneny, member of the international security advisory board and author of "bomb scare: the history and future of nuclear weapons." gentlemen, thank you all for being here. >> thank you. megyn: so the fallout continues over secretary panetta's remarks. the pentagon has since come out and said even though he used the word permission rep

we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in libya or bosniafor that matter afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by nato or by the international community. >> well, i'm troubled by that. i think that it does weaken the ability of the united states to lead. if we believe something ought to be done i would think we would be going more aggressivy to nato and allies, seeking every ally that wean get. but i do think ultimately you need the legal authority from the united states of america, not from any other extra territorial group that might assemble. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator webb, if you would yield to me for just one moment. >> certainly. >> i would just like to clarify the last point because you used the word permission at times as being helpful to achieving an international coalition. you don't need any authority from anybody else, any permission from anybody else, if we're going act alone, you made that clear. you said it three times. ic that's essential. but as i understand it, saying is that if you're seeking inte

that's not how nato approached bosnia or kosovo or libya. is it now the policy of nato or the united states, for that matter, to tell the perpetrators of mass atrocities in syria or elsewhere that they can go on killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands and the greatest alliance in history will not even bore to conduct any planning about how we might stop them? is that nato's policy now? is that our policy? because that is the practical effect of this kind of rhetoric. it gives assad and his foreign allies a green light for greater brutality. not surprisingly, many countries, especially syria's neighbors, are also hedging their bets on the outcome in syria. they think assad will go but they're not yet prepared to put all their chips on that bet. even less so now that assad's forces have broken homs and seem to be gaining momentum. there is only one nation -- there is only one nation that can alter this dynamic and that is the united states of america. the president must state unequivocally that under no circumstances will assad

that's not how nato approached c bosnia or kosovo or libya. nato now the policy of nato or the tl united states for that matter ts tell the perpetrators of mass inncities in syria or elsewherg that they can go on killingthe innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands in thethe greatest alliance in historywi will not even bother to conduct any planning? now is that our policy? because that is the practical effect of this kind of rhetoric. it gives assad and his foreign allies a green light for greater brutality. not surprisingly, many countries, especially syria's neighbors, are also hedging their bets on the outcome in syria. they think assad will go but they're not yet prepared to put all their chips on that bet. even less so now that assad's forces have broken homs and seem to be gaining momentum. to be gaining momentum. there is only one nation, there is only one nation that can thed alter this dynamic, and that is the united states of america. the president must stateo unequivocally that under no circumstances will assad beur allowed t

that's not how nato approached bosnia or kosovo or libya. is it now the policy of nato or the united states, for that matter, to tell the perpetrators of mass atrocities in syria or elsewhere that they can go on killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands and the greatest alliance in history will not even bore to conduct any planning about how we might stop them? is that nato's policy now? is that our policy? because that is the practical effect of this kind of rhetoric. it gives assad and his foreign allies a green light for greater brutality. not surprisingly, many countries, especially syria's neighbors, are also hedging their bets on the outcome in syria. they think assad will go but they're not yet prepared to put all their chips on that bet. even less so now that assad's forces have broken homs and seem to be gaining momentum. there is only one nation -- there is only one nation that can alter this dynamic and that is the united states of america. the president must state unequivocally that under no circumstances will assad

or not. unfortunately, there are some situations where we can't. so in bosnia, it was never -- bosnia was never a threat to america's national security. in libya, we led from behind, unfortunately, because if we had used the full weight of american air power, there would have been thousands of casualties less because the conflict would have been over more rapidly. this is the new strategy apparently is called leading from behind. in syria, it's even more impactful because the head of our central command, general mattis testified before the committee that if syria was -- if assad was overthrown and syria went in another direction, it would be the greatest blow to iran in the last 25 years. so there is a national security implication to have of this, as well. as obviously, you know, iran is causing a near international crisis because of their continued efforts to build a nuclear weapon exacerbated relations between the united states and israel, et cetera. so there are some differences, but you know, our fundamental facts remain, 7,500 conservative estimate of syrians have been massacred. they -- the iranians are there on the ground as well as br

that's not how nato approached bosnia or kosovo or libya.of nato or the united states, for that matter, to tell the perpetrators of mass atrocities in syria or elsewhere that they can go on killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands and the greatest alliance in history will not even bore to conduct any planning about how we might stop them? is that nato's policy now? is that our policy? because that is the practical effect of this kind of rhetoric. it gives assad and his foreign allies a green light for greater brutality. not surprisingly, many countries, especially syria's neighbors, are also hedging their bets on the outcome in syria. they think assad will go but they're not yet prepared to put all their chips on that bet. even less so now that assad's forces have broken homs and seem to be gaining momentum. there is only one nation -- there is only one nation that can alter this dynamic and that is the united states of america. the president must state unequivocally that under no circumstances will assad be allowed to finish

or restless various forms of humanitarian intervention. the elaboration of that comes through in our lifetime. driven by the absence of action to delay action in bosnia, kosovo and with regard to libya. >> i am going to take two more questions. and i am going to cut it off because these guys signed books. >> just curious, most of these -- usually when the country is stronger or bigger like the united states of england, they bend the truth in a sense, water boarding is not torture or whatever. they were committing a lot of things more than any other country would have done for the court of justice. the united states -- i don't feel sorry for those terrorists but what bothers me is the prisoners in guantanamo claim that is not american soil. i have a problem with that. american embassies in england or france is american soil. once on a low is an american -- guantanamo is an american possession or whatever it is. people ruled by law. power in the world can you explain if nazi torture was wrong and somebody else does it is overlooked? that somehow -- military courts, once in my life i would like to see if they belong to military court or a civilian court. give them a fair trial if that