, even in war we will not permit the use of chemical weapons. it is so horrific us so indiscriminate that it is an international community that will stand up and say no. you cannot use toggle weapons. the evidence is clear. president assad of syria use chemical weapons in the mass way killing of or 1400 people. that action requires the response of the international community. for if it goes unchallenged it is more likely that president assad will continue to use chemical weapons he is considers it one of the weapons is still walks. it will go on challahs readiness a community the people of syria are not the only ones the risk, mr. president. these chemical weapons could easily be used against american allies in that region. could be used against turkey. could be used against jordan. could be used against israel. and if they use of weapons of mass destruction in syria goes unchallenged, if president kim five can get away with the use of chemical weapons, what message does that send to there regime and its ambition to become a nuclear weapon state

law on the 21st of august launching a large-scale chemical weapons attack on its own people. t attack on this scale for 25 years. 88 years after such weapons were universally band. president obama said here on tuesday it is an insult to human reason to suggest their regime is not responsible for this war crime. the international community must react and react in unison. that is why we hope to adopt later today a security council resolution establishing binding legal obligations on the syrian regime for the removal and destruction of the vast chemical weapons. on wednesday i announce to the united kingdom will provide $160 million of humanitarian support for the syrian people bringing total funding to $800 million, half a million pounds, the biggest ever response to a humanitarian crisis much of which is aimed at helping many children in this tragic conflict. the world has raised close to $1 billion of humanitarian support this month, and i hope that others will step up and contribute. most importantly, i call on all parties inside syria to allow humanitarian agencies to operat

talks aimed at getting rid of syria's chemical weapons and avoiding a u.s. military strike. kerry and the ruren foreign inst minister meeting this hour. bashar al assad said syria would only turn over its weapons if the u.s. drops its threat of military action. still, president obama says he's ready to give diplomacy a chance. >> i am hopeful that the discussions that senator -- secretary kerry had with foreign minister lavrov as well as some of the other players in this can yield a concrete result. and i know that he is going to be working very hard over the next several days to see what the possibilities are there. >> chief national security correspondent jim sciutto's traveling with the secretary in geneva. first, our senior international correspondent nick paton walsh at the united nations where there are important developments unfolding. nick, tell our views are what you've learned. >> reporter: a very big deal here. the u.n. confirmed to us that the syrian mission has sent to them a letter in which they ask to join the chemical weapons convention of 1993. now the terms

chemical weapons sites are toxic environments to go in. you have weapons that leak so you need the whole support structure that will keep you alive and safe while you monitor the weapons that guard and keep anyone from stealing. >> you also have to buy in from the different rebel factions in order to ensure some sort of production for these inspectors. in term s -- >> anderson, that will probably be the hardest task because we know at least some of the rebel groups have historically, over the last ten years, been seeking chemical weapons for their own use. >> right, these al qaeda affiliated groups that would love to have chemical weapons or any other weapons. in terms of actually destroying these weapons, i mean, well, actually before the destruction of the weapons, the securing of the sites, in a little bit i did an interview with a senator talking about giving an at may tum to syria saying they have to provide access in days, two weeks, three weeks, is that realistic at all? >> certainly a realistic test as to the syrian's seriousness. t

president, to conclude my country wishes to reiterate the lure of the use of chemical weapons the use of which is a crime, war crimes and crimes against humanity should not overshadow the fact that 99% of the victims were felled by conventional weapons. is absolutely necessary the security council prohibit the supply of conventional weapons to the parties of the conflict. the suggestion by argentina is an agreement with what was expressed by the secretary-general of the united nations by special envoy bernini and the desire of millions of cleveland women who want and work for peace nor can we ignore serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law throughout syria. the humanitarian disaster impacting millions of syrians deeply affects institutional stability, the living conditions of the people in neighboring countries and exacerbate sectarian tensions in the entire region. the stuff that was taken today was necessary and inevitable, but taken by the council as well. argentina will advocate for effective accountability, referring the system in syria to the crimina

if we resolve the matter of chemical weapons in syria this will be a big step forward in. creating in achieving a very important objective of turning the middle east into zone free for all. weapons of mass destructions. or russia and the united states together with the united nations were expected to call an international conference celeste's here. on fortunately there were some delays but we will insist on carrying out in twenty. we made a decision to have this conference in two thousand and twelve and we are now at the end of two mighty thirteen.

i'm considering urging the security council to command the immediate transfer of syria's chemical weapons and chemical precursor stocks to places inside syria where they can be safely stored and destroyed. now, that raises a whole load of practical issues. who would be sure enough these chemicals were actually moved, do they represent the entirety of something being transferred to other organizations in different countries? morass here but the key point is as you well know, we're entering 48 hours in which the obama administration was very keen to get its message across. the interview you did with barack obama, his address the subsequent day to the nation on this particular topic. now we have this bizarre side distraction emerged out of nowhere which is is potentially is gathering diplomatic steam. >> we'll see what the reaction will be from the obama administration as you know, we're speccing to hear from the white house press secretary jay carney momentarily. he'll be asked about this russian proposal by ban ki-moon's proposal. stand by, i want to get back to you nick. patten walsh. let

and remember in the first iraq war, we thought that we were going to face chemical weapons. e closed the loop about how it directly affects american security. >> let's talk about the reality, the logistics of actually doing this, securing these weapon sites, ultimately destroying them. i want to bring in experts to the table, david kay former chief of u.s. weapons inspectors in iraq and now cnn analyst and on the state department's advisory board. david, thank you for being with us. walk us through how large an operation this would have to be and the kind of a timetable realistically that we're talking about. we're talking -- you and i talked in the 8:00 hour. you said between 500 and 1,000 inspectors. that has nothing to do with even maintaining their security, right? >> right. that's correct. look, the first thing to do is to have -- what are the rights of the inspectors. you have to have freedom of movement. communications, bring your own equipment. the obligation of the government to provide security and protection. then you get on-site. inspectors of chemical weapons hav

there's a new report saying syria has 1,000 tonnes of chemical weapons, according to the international institute for counterterrorism and could be used in aerial bombs, artillery shells and rockets and ballistic missiles and artillery rounds. the weapons are stored in some 50 cities, in the northern part of the country predominantly in production, research and develop, plants used for peaceful purposes and storage. we are joined from the syria boarder with ria. i know you have talked to people's syria. what are they saying tonight, rawya rx ageh. >> at a time when we see the chemical weapons deal celebrated and hailed in new york and the hallways of the united nations, there are concerns among the citizens of syria. they are primarily concerneded whether their government will comply or not. there's a lot of concern about the fact that this is a specific deal. it's something very specific about the chemical weapons, about ridding the country of chemical weapons some time, presumably in june of next year, a long and arduous process in a time of peace, let alone in a country that has a ra

important strategic national security interests, not just in the prevention of the proliferation of chemical weapons, but to avoid the creation of a safe haven in syria or a base of operations for extremists to use these weapons against our friends. all of us know that the extremes of both sides are there waiting in the wings, working and pushing and fighting. they'd be desperate to get their hands on these materials. the fact is that if nothing happens to begin to change the equation or the current calculation, that area can become even more so an area of ungoverned space where those extremists threaten even the united states and more immediately if they get their hands on those weapon, allies and friends of ours like jordan or israel or lebanon or others. forcing assad to change his calculation about his ability to act with impunity can contribute to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament. as i think you know, it has been the president's primary goal to achieve a negotiated resolution, but you got to have parties prepared to negotiate to achieve that. syria is a

chemical weapons are not like conventional weapons. consider for a moment how fair, for example, can kill indiscriminately. the closer you are to the release, which is -- let's say to a border artillery shell, the more certain you are to death. it's colorless, it is odorless. it spreads over a wide geographic area. it can shift from one neighborhood to another if the wind shifts. the gas clings to the ground, you cannot escape it. during world war i, chemical weapons, primarily chore rein, and mustards gas. i live by where mustard gas canisters were at fort leach, now american university, and roll down the hill in to a sub division where they have been cropping up and necessitating a major army corps. of engineers removal of this gas as well as other things. say that were used by both sides of the war. they caused an estimated 100,000 fatalities, and 1.3 million injuries. 1,462 american soldiers who were killed, and 72,870 were injured by chemical weapons, which represented one-third of all u.s. casualties during world war i. since wor

they want to use just enough force to degrade his ability to use chemical weapons. but not enough force to make it more likely that the security around those weapons would not stand so that the terrorists would get their hands on them. the point is they're trying to finely tune this use of force too precisely, and the world doesn't work that way. >> shepard: should the president have authorization to act as he pleases? he says he doesn't need it. but does he deserve it? s to the commander-in-chief, when he said here's a read -- red line, don't cross it, then what? >> there are clearly damaging consequences to the country if we do nothing, or if we repudiate the president. i'm even more concerned at this moment about the damage to the country if we give him that authorization and if they move ahead with those limited strikes. there are no good answers here. it is bad every way. so what you're trying to weigh and judge is the damage done from inaction versus the damage done from the kind of action they proposed, and it's not easy, but right now i'm more concerned about

syria has accepted this russian plan to surrender control of its chemical weapons, potentially to destroy all those chem wal weapons but there's not much concrete to that at least not yet. there is a u.n. resolution security council resolution that is now being drafted by france, a close ally, of course, of the u.s. outline what france is proposing and how all this so dramatically at least potentially fits together. >> well, wolf, france is proposing a resolution that's pretty tough, very strong. one that effectively blames the syrian government for using chemical weapons against innocent syrian civilians and one that calls for pretty tough measures if the syrian government doesn't follow through. with the commitments that it appears to be making and allowing its chemical weapons stockpile to come under international control. already, this is a red flag for the russians. they are not happy with the strong language that france wants to use and the russian foreign ministry says it is working on its own rival united nations security council resolution because it says what the french are prop

use. 189 countries representing 98% of the world's population are part of the chemical weaponsconvention which prohibits the development, acquisition tom or use of these weapons. the state senate approved that convention by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. finding american to the global consensus and affirming we do not tolerate the use of -- use of or possession of chemical weapons. the regime's attack is not only i direct affront to that norm, but also a threat to global security including the security of the unted states. failing to respond to this outrage also written some our national security. billing to respond means more and more syrians will die from assad's stockpiles. it means our allies and partners in the region's tempting targets of assad's featured attacks. -- future attacks. the increases of violence as citizens across the middle east and africa continue to struggle for the universal rights. failing to respond brings us closer to the day when terrorists can use weapons against americans abroad and at home. failing to respond damages the international princip

then, of course there is a key differences of opinion over the use of chemical weapons for a start. in an article by the russian president in the new york times vladimir putin indicating and reiterated the russian points of view, that the chemical attack in the suburbs of damascus was care read out not by the leadership in syria but by the syrian opposition although the united states, eu and arab league have agreed unanimously that bashar al-assad is to blame. there will be key difficult sticking points to be able to hammer out before any clear-cut deal on disarming al-assad can be pushed forward. >> okay. thank you very much. that's from geneva. so, this is now moscow. so, vladimir putin, the russian president with an opinion particle in today' new york times . was that a personal appeal to the american people over syria? >> reporter: it was a personal appeal. i think it also reflects frustras and attitudes towards the united states which is shared by a large part of the russian military -- sorry, russian political and military establishment. a feeling that the americans have really

again and to d grade his ability to use chemical weapons. ectorsn these under u.s. and russian security council authority, we are denying him access to these weapons. he cannot use these weapons again and we are doing more. we are eliminating the most dangerous type of weapon in this dangerous civil war which is a big security gain given that once the war ends, we have to worry about what happens to these weapons. host: more from the u.s.-russia plan -- this is what the two sides have agreed to on dates for action. are these goals realistic? how much could this cost? guest: i think they are accelerated but they are realistic. as i said before, the syrians can provide their declaration soon. they have tight control over their weapons. getting the inspectors in within a month is going to depend on the opcw getting its team together and making logistics work. what will become harder is getting the equipment in in the month of november to begin the destruction process. date ishe mid=-2014 probably notional but the idea is that they want to move a

we're going to start with breaking news, syria accepting the russians' plan to turn over chemical weapons to international control. this is absolute a dramatic turn of events causing president obama to put a bit of a pause in the bid to attack syria for launching an alleged chemical attack on civilians last month. russia's proposal came yesterday, as mr. obama was preparing to make his case for a military strike against syria to the american people in a prime time address tonight, he's planning to continue that effort. it starts at 9:00 eastern. and cnn is going to bring it to you live. but right now, we've got a list of the countries that have come out in support of the russian plan. syria, iran, china, france and britain. france is digging deeper into the plan, in fact, today, taking its own proposal on syria to the united nations security council. its key points condemn the chemical weapons attack last month which killed united states says 1,400 civilians including approximately 400 children. require syria to identify its wednesday of mass destruction an put them under international co

just talking about chemical weapon weapons. >> don't you recognize that the threat of force has a, gotten to recognize that he does have chemical weapons. and forced what may actually be a serious negotiation? we have not been able to engage in any serious negotiation for two years. but now with the threat of force we can. >> i do admit. but the problem is, the regime is lying about handing over. it will take them months if not years just to tell you where the weapons are. and they will tell you sorry, we can't move into there because it's dangerous and so on. this is number one. number two, yes, i admit that holding the stick over assad's head has made him just admit that he has chemical weapons. but just let us look at this example. oh, yeah. i'm irritated with some of these guys. guy and kill them with a knife and then i go and hand of the knife to the police station and i go back to my previous work. now, don't talk only about chemical weapons. we should understand that there is an ongoing massacre in syria. >> i know there is. >> we should stop this dictator's cycle. we need to tell

chemical weapons are chemical weapons. syria was identified. action should have been taken then. >> the president didn't believe it was compelling enough case to win the support of the american people as well as the world. this is. the president did respond. he upgrade ed what we were doin significantly. he came to congress. we have to struggle to get a congress to agree to let him do the things he wanted to do to upgrade that effort. >> chemically -- >> your time is expired. we need to go to mr. jerry connelyly connely of virginia. >> thank you. mr. chairman, late last night we delivered to all members of congress and i did a bit of that today of an alternative resolution very narrowly drawn that codifies what the president said he wishes to accomplish and codifies no boots on the ground to try to make sure that we stay focused on the issue and a response to that issue and possibly provide the white house with a path to authorization here in the congress. i commend it to both secretaries and urge you to look at it. mr. chairman, i hope we will

i -- the world came togetherto agree in 1925 treaty and outlaw the use of chemical weapons. international law since that time reflected a determination the event of the war should never be repeated. it put a like in the sand. whatever happens the weapons must not be used. they have crossed the line, in my view, and there should be consequence. it's the first use of chemical weapons this century. for at least 100 years. interfering in another country's affairs should be undertaken except for the most exceptional circumstance. it is must be a humanitarian catastrophe and a last result. this is the humanitarian catastrophe. if there are no consequences for it, there's nothing to stop it and other dictators from using the weapons again and again. as i said doing nothing is a chce. it's qhois with consequences and the consequences, in my view, would not just be about president assad and his future use of chemical weapons. decades of pain staking work to cru

chemical weapons. but we want assad to keep control of his chemical weapons. you'll be seeking out targets related to the storage or delivery or control of chemical weapons. instead, i think you should focus on punishing and having a assad by valuable asset that will demonstrate to him that it was a military mistake to use chemical weapons. even air or naval assets unrelated to the delivery of chemical weapons will make that lesson clear to him. we have all learned a searing lesson from over 4000 casualties in iraq. know thereld also are 150 occasions -- and i would like to put in the record acrs listing an analysis of 150 40 years in the last where america has deployed its military into dangerous or hostile situations. in most cases, limited purpose, limited deployment, and the cost was so limited we forgot the incident involved. i hope that what you are planning is something much more along those lines than iraq. resolution sent to us on august 31 is obviously flawed. i sent secretary kerry amendment

we cannot have chemical weapons transform into the new convenient weapon. bomb, thehe car weapon of everyday use. neither our country nor our conscience can bear the cost. that is why i have come to ask you to join us in this effort. chairman, ranking member smith and members of the department of defense as a responsibility to protect the national security interest of the united states. general dempsey and i take that really seriously. support president respond to the assad's regime chemical attack on their own evil. the heinous assault on civilians and women and children. i support the authorization for the use of force in syria. i believe that secretary kerry outlined those reasons clearly. has made clear that it is in our national security interest to degrade assad's chemical weapons capabilities and deter him from using them again. as secretary kerry mentioned, yesterday, we outlined a way to accomplish this and of her military action. assadld require the regime to turn over their chemical weapons to international control so they can be destroyed foreve

of course, we would welcome a decision and action by syria to give up its chemical weapons. he whole point is to stop syria and using these weapons again. it is important to keep a few things in mind. the international community has tried for 20 years to get syria to sign onto the chemical weapons convention, joining 109 countries. last week president assad it would not even say if he had time ago weapons, despite overwhelming evidence that he has used them. also tried to work with the russians at the united nations repeatedly on syria and chemical weapons. until now, they have blocked all of our initiatives, including simple press statements. that is the background. to noteso important that syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons around the world. it would certainly take time, researches -- resources to deal with. all that said, we will take a hard look at this. to noteit is important that it is clear that this proposal comes in the context with the threat of u.s. action and the pressure that the president is exerting. it is more important that we do not

chemical weapons. obviously, none of us believe that. none of us agree with it. we are kind of working to try to find a way to give everybody confidence that at any time if bashar al-assad uses chemical weapons again, that the united its of america will act. we don't have to go through -- we don't want to go through the authorization and debate on the floor etc. at the same time, the dilemma that we face is that we don't want to give an open-ended kind of authority to the president of the united states either. we would solicit the input of all members as to how we can address the perception created by this issue, but at the same the legitimate role that the congress plays in determining these issues. i thank my friend from illinois and i hope that all my colleagues will continue to work together. by the time this legislation reaches the floor, perhaps we could have some kind of consensus on it. >> mr. chairman. >> senator durbin. >> i would like to offer durbin amendment number two. >> before you do th

those weapons that were used to deliver the chemicals. it is critically important the syrians be held to fight for themselves. they are dying church tried to get rid of assad we have not facilitated the delivery to vetted military opposition, weapons, antitank which could take on assad's tanks, his auxiliary, his rocket launchers, which delivered those chemical weapons. the opposition is willing to do this. are fighting right inside damascus. but they have not yet been provided with certain capabilities, it including anti--- capabilities. there were military vehicles that helped the attack by using chemical weapons. there were syrian army vehicles in the attack. it will be very difficult for our cruise missiles to go after those particular components of the syrian chemical capability. it would be much easier for the syrian opposition provided we to be provided the capabilities in terms of their other weapons to go after system.chemical weapons to succeedimportant and it will require a number of things in addition to what i have said, it wi

. >> chemical weapons. >> chemical weapons? >> yes. talking straight to the problem of chemical weapons if i understood you correctly. >> but the bush and obama administration's have sometimes talked about a counter wmd role. not just going after a country's nuclear weapons, but after a country's biological or chemical weapons as well. that has not talked about in months, and i don't find that a terribly persuasive role. for exactly the reasons the publicdministration, as as publics success -- discussions suggest, if you can hit those stockpiles, you can disperse them. with conventional prompt global strike, we're talking about a smaller capability. you would be very much less ordinance against the targets ts fewer ordnan against the target. you would want to use as much explosive as you could, and conventional prompt local strike is not a weapons system to do that. cpgs ot release the weapons having a role to play 10 years from now in another syria- type situation. with the security project -- the american security project here in was

>> i didn't understand the question. >> chemical weapons. >> chemical weapons? she is asking the relevance of talking about goes to the problem of chemical weapo weapons. obama the bush and administrations have sometimes counter-w.m.d. global conventional strike. so not just going after another country's nuclear weapons but after chemical or biological weapons as well. hat hasn't been talked about much, and i don't find that a role for ersuasive exactly the reasons that the , at least istration suggests discussion, did not consider hitting syrisyria.ockpiles in because if you start hitting hemical stockpiles you can disperse the stockpiles. t would be truer with conventional global strike because with conventional prompt global strike we are talking a smaller capability so ou would be bearing much less ordnance against the target. if you wanted to go after iological or chemical weapons -- and i'm not saying it is a i'm talking dea, purely in military or technical terms -- you would want to use a ordnance to destroy as and material as you could it is generally reg

weakening this norm could em bolden other regimes to acquire or use chemical weapons. e, north korea maintains a masses stock pile of weapons that threatens our treaty ally, the republic of korea. and the 28,000 u.s. troops stationed there. i just returned from asia. we had a very serious and long discussion with south korea's defense minister about the threat, the real threat that north korea stock pile of chemical weapons presents to them. the allies must be assured that the united states will fulfill its security commitments. given these threats to our national security, the united states must demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. the president has made clear that our military objectives in syria would be to hold the assad regime accountable and degrade its ability to carry out these kind of attacks and deter the regime from further use of chemical weapons. the department of defense has developed military options to achieve these objectives. and we have positioned u.s. assets throughout the region to successfully execute th

force to do chemical weapons custody. standing by a factory while people are getting murdered, killed, brutally with conventional weapons. we have to watch it. that is of course an open door to further involvement. it is very hard to imagine how the current war in syria does not suck more people in. people start to get on it. >> you have to take into account, the possibility. one of the things the russians are trying to do with this. is reinforced the agreement with the government of syria. which is something that we reject. and, the other nations reject. and but the russians, believe me, they want them to stay. >> they will try to turn it into that. i don't think it legitimizes assad. >> chris matthews? >> they can do us a favor. let's be optimistic about geneva on thursday. good things have happened in geneva. it carries a first rate diplomat. the foreign minister is worth. we'll find out within a number of hours now. my concern, we are better off than we would have been. had this sailed through or squeaked through the s

we're ready to disclose the facilities storing chemical weapons and this continued production of chemical weapons to grant access to experts from russia and other countries like the u.n., we're aimed at the complete surrender of all chemical weapons. implicit within that, i think, that they do have chemical weapons. >> the foreign minister of syria, former syrian ambassador to the united states, well known to a lot of officials here in washington. my assumption is, nick, you have been in the region, you know a lot about what's going on. if let's say on thursday, when john kerry meets with the foreign minister of russia in geneva, switzerland, let's say the two of them basically reach a compromise, an agreement, i assume the russians will be able to bring the syrians along, i assume the u.s. will be able to bring britain and france and all the other allies along, and that would set the stage for a serious u.n. security council resolution that potentially could get unanimous support. >> reporter: that's a possibility, but if you look at what's happening today, those talks about attacks seem

chemical weapons since the late 19th century, the chemical weapons ban.use of war and destruction on humanity that we know. and going back to something we were talking about before the break, if america has lost its greatness and influence and might under varied circumstances. we can look at bush and today under this president. and if we are not able to find resolution as a country on syria, our credibility and -- is going to go down the toilet and right now iran is watching, north korea is watching and like it or not we are the world's conscious. we are the cop on the beat. i'm not for intervention. and back to what -- can i go back to what -- >> you -- >> you have made your point quite well. but isn't that what people say about the war in iraq. that iran is watching? >> that's the other fascinating possibility here. is that -- just is that if this russian thing comes about if assad is pressured, iranians he is their client too. and rowhani could use this as a way to engage the united states to reach some deal. the second thing is how to solve the proble

could threaten allies like turkey, jordan and israel and a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions and enbolden assad's ally arran which must decide to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or take a more peaceful path. this is not a world we should accept. this is what is at stake. and that is why after careful deliberation, i determined that it is in the national security interest of the united states to respond to the assad regime's use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. the purpose of this strike would be to detour assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade the regime's ability to use them and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. that's my judgment as commander in chief. but i'm also the president of the world's oldest constitutional dem mac see. so even though i possess the authority to order military strikes, i believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to the security to take this debate to congress. i believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts wi

over chemical weapons. have there been any discussion toss date? >> look, there have been discussions on the issue of chemical weapons for some time now. an ongoing diplomatic subject for americans and russia. on this point the russians came out with it today. we'll have to follow up with them and other countries going forward to discuss the seriousness of the proposal and assess whether or not the syrian government will follow through on any commitment they make in this regard. again, at the same time it's going to be important we don't take the pressure off. you can be assured if the united states removes the threat of military action that the syrian government will never follow through on any commitment they make to the international community. >> i want you to take a listen to something ban ki-moon said this morning and have you respond on the other side. take a listen. >> i have already been considering certain proposals that i could make to the security council when i present the investigation report.

even assad supporters, russia and iran, say publicly that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. guess what? even iran and syria itself acknowledge that these weapons were used. they just pretend that the other guys who don't even have the capacity to do it somehow did it. so some will question the extent of our responsibility to act here. to them i say, when someone kills hundreds of children with a weapon the world has banned, we all are responsible. that's true because of treaties like the geneva convention and the chemical weapons convention, but it's also true because we share a common humanity and a common sense of decency. this is not the time for armchair isolationism. this is not the time to be spectators to slaughter. this is not the time to give permission to a dictator who has already used these weapons the unfettered ability to continue to use them because we stepped back. neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence or inaction, so we have spoken up. the president of the united states has made his decision. the president has decided we need

if you really want to take away the ability to use chemical weapons again, you have to secure the chemical weapons stockpiles. if russia wants to continue to have a warm water sea port in the mediterranean, it is their problem to solve. i don't think putin wants to see syria fall into the hands of radical islamists or wants us to become engaged there either. >> it's good news vladimir putin is stepping in. >> good news, but it makes us look bad because he stepped up. >> assuming he can carry it out. >> i think he will if he wants to. first he'll embarrass our oh president. >> congressman, thank you. >> thank you very much for having me. >>> senator rand paul is against military action in syria and just a short time ago asked his senate colleagues to join him in blocking the u.s. from entering syria's civil war. senator paul joins us. good evening, sir. >> glad to be with you. >> before i get to the letter you have written to your senate colleagues let me ask you about the news today that the russians, president vladimir putin and syria may be considering putting the chemical weapons, the s

as i said the last time we spoke, this chemical weapons ban matters to us, to the united states. it is a ban on the worst kinds of weapons that are indiscriminate that don't distinguish between somebody in union form and an infant child and for that reason the overwhelming majority of the world has said you can't use this. and my intentions throughout this process has been to ensure that the blatant use of chemical weapons that we saw doesn't happen again. if narcotic there's a way to accomplish that diplomatically that is overwhelmingly my preference, and, you know, i have instructed john kerry to talk directly to the russians and run this to ground, and if we can exhaust these diplomatic efforts and come up with a formula that give us the international community a verifiable, enforceable mechanism to deal with these chemical weapons in syria, then i'm all for it. but we're going to have to see specifics and i think it is reasonable to assume that we would not be at this point if there were not a credible military threat standing behind the norm against the use of chemical weapon

now, don't talk only about chemical weapons. is an ongoing massacre in syria. >> i know there is. >> we should stop this dictator's cycle. we need to tell him, go away from this country. leave them. [ overlapping speakers ] >> part of your argument is that this will only let them buy time. buy time for what? what are you afraid that assad is going to do with this time? >> continue the war. >> just imagine what happens, what happens for 1 1/2 years. he will kill another 200,000. and meanwhile, meanwhile, he might just -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> the question is, whether the american people should pay in treasure and cost of arms, why it's their job, why the american people in iowa, in indiana, in texas and all around this country, it's their job to solve this problem. why? >> well, because to be frank, andrew, president obama started this two years ago in saying -- >> because you are the superpower. >> there's that. but also president obama said assad must step down. >> we have a huge military. huge military that's largely use

us bombing and is not about the world doing nothing, but which is specifically about syria's chemical weapons, specifically about the specific problem. it's specifically about syria turning those weapons over, as john kerry proposed today. >> reporter: russia, perhaps seeking a way out, chose to take him seriously. only three hours later in moscow, foreign minister sergey lavrov said, "if the establishment of international control over chemical weapons makes it possible to avoid strikes, then we will immediately get to work with damascus." syria's foreign minister also in moscow said his government welcomes the russian initiative. >> this is amazing. if anybody told you this was going to happen in advance, you wouldn't have believed them. but that's how this went today. john kerry says, listen, the only way out of this is if syria hands over its chemical weapons stockpiles right away, how likely is that to happen? that's not going to happen. and russia says, really? well, turns out, we can get syria to hand over their chemical weapons stockpiles. and syria responds to that by saying we agree

giving syria chemical weapons?chemical weapons are, like, cooking meth in your kitchen. i'm sure they got, they got the basics. they got, they got the basic ingredients from there. [ laughter ] >> it doesn't require putin to have given syria chemical weapons. >> wouldn't give syria chemical weapons. >> they are very easy to make. >> chemical weapons, which has been an outlawed form of warfare and treatment for decades. so there is a legitimate case to be made about that. >> do you think assad used and called for the use of chemical weapons? >> without question. i don't have the slightest doubt about it. >> do you agree with mort on that? >> they haven't proved that. the major-- >> the assad regime-- >> -- chemical weapons in the last 25, 30 years, iranians, iraq, doused them with gas and the americans knew of it. >> the assad regime used them. they were delivered on rockets that only the regime has. whether mr. assad is in control of his government or not, i don't know. but sure did well on the charlie rose show ac

he said to a.p., look, we had chemical weapons as an attempt to create a strategic balance with israelear weapons. they keep giving little details about what's going on. and they fully expect, they said, to put them under international supervision. >> christiane, david, thanks to both of you for joining us. >> thank you. >>> up next, painful tributes and new fears on this september 11th. stand by. the new york city police commissioner joins me. he has a very disturbing assessment of the terror threat 12 years later. i had pain in my abdomen... it just wouldn't go away.thing. i was spotting, but i had already gone through menopause. these symptoms may be nothing... but they could be early warning signs of a gynecologic cancer, such as cervical, ovarian, or uterine cancer. feeling bloated for no reason. that's what i remember. seeing my doctor probably saved my life. warning signs are not the same for everyone. if you think something's wrong... see your doctor. ask about gynecologic cancer. and get the inside knowledge. everybody has different ideas, goals, appetite for risk. you can't s

three days of talks, secretary of state john kerry and sergei lavrov have reached a deal on chemical weapons. if the syrian regime fails ocomply, the u.s. resolution can kick in. punitive action, u.s. officials acknowledge they're not seeking military authorization from the u.n. which russia says it would veto. weapons inspectors will be on the ground in syria in november. this agreement calls for syria's entire chemical weapons arsenal to be secured or destroyed by the middle of 2014. for more we are joined by phil litner in geneva. phil, in some ways it's very particular and some ways it's a bit vague too. tell us more about this agreement. >> well, richelle, this is the agreement here and it was released a couple of hours ago. as you mentioned there are a lot of things that are left unsaid in this proposal. it really specifies how to gain control of the chemical weapons stockpile in syria. it doesn't place blame on the assad regime for the attacks on the 21st of august which sparked this crisis. it doesn't clearly say that if the assad regime doesn't comply with these stipulations that th

let's talk to chemical weapons expert professor james tour he joins us live now from the u.s. professor suspected that sarin was used in that chemical attack in syria what is it and is it easily produced it's easily produced sarin is a nerve gas and stiffer in. typical chemical weapon being a nerve agent it's a lot more toxic and if you are a victim of a sarin attack are you likely to die or can you actually survive an attack of this kind. well. people can survive but the likelihood of death is really quite high was sarin sarin is being a nerve gas it's much akin to when a person sprays an insecticide on an insect and the insect starts rising in pain for a couple of minutes and then dies it's very much the same with with a nerve agent it works the same way that an insecticide worse than an insect at their ends a magic cavity is a little bit different than the size of our and sematic cavity and you design the molecule a little bit differently and so it would not affect an insect but for people what it does is it. they do small motor control and they can no longer even even contr

the issue, the weapons inspectors cannot reach a judgment on the a at -- they cob collude the chemical weapons are used inthe eye of this country and the world it con fevers legitimacy on the finding beyond the view of my country or intelligence agency. what is more possible that what the weapons inspectors discover could give the world greater confidence and identifying in the perpetrators of this horrific attack. the second step, mr. speaker, our road map makes clear compelling evidence for the syrian rgime responsible for ate tack. i welcome the lecture from the joint intelligence committee today. and i note the arab league's view of president assad's capability. as the prime minister said, in conflict there is reason for doubt. but the greater the weight of evidence the better. on tuesday we were promised it will be american intelligence and proof of the regime capability. we await the publication of the evidence, which i gather will be later today. that evidence too will be important building up the body of evidence that president assad was responsible. >> the leader of the opposition sai

mr moroney said the last chemical weapon site in the u.s. isn't even set to start just posable until twenty twenty eight he goes on to say that disposing of chemical weapons lowly and faithfully is extremely expensive and difficult the us is one of the few countries in the world who have any experience with it because they are one of the few countries in the world who defied the hague convention and created chemical weapons in the first place. so the question to ask our government now is if we know chemical weapons are so awful why the hell are we one of the only countries who have them. maybe it's because we're also the only country that drops atomic bombs tonight let's talk about that by following me on twitter at the resident. well that does it for now for more on the stories we've covered today go to youtube dot com slash r.t. america or check out our website at r t dot com slash usa you can also follow me on twitter adam you're a david and don't forget to tune in at nine pm tonight for larry king now tonight's guest is famous actor and

one is the chemical weapons threat that posed by the use of chemical weapons.y the threat posed by the regime, iran, terrorism, and ultimately nuclear capability. >> and the, we have an unusual situation here. in which republican senator rand paul took it upon himself to deliver a rinse to the president which has been, which he has done while i have been doing this show. i haven't seen it. we have a little clip from 10:00. let's listen to that. >> some argue american credibility is on the line. that because president obama drew a red line with chemical weapons. america must act or lose credibility. i would argue america's credibility does not residen one man. if our enemies were to know if america will defend herself, let them look no farther than our response to 9/11. >> what is your reaction to that? >> i think senator paul is wrong. and a dictator or terrorist organization, uses chemical weapons. that is a threat to the world. and i would argue that is a threat to the troops. in the near term. but what he doesn't point out is that ten years ago, the congress

they probably think assad can sustain him receives without chemical weapons, give up the chemical weapons. to some degree if we did strike against assad, it might be a concern who gets access to chemical weapons, even if it's russia, even though they have been helpful to assad in this regards. there's a lot of variable factors here. at the end of the day, the russians must be will put to the test. if after you offer the opportunity, and the opportunity ends up being hollow, i think the russians pay a consequence. we'll see how those dynamics play out. it's not fully an upside for the russians. >> thank you so much senator bob menendez. joining me now from washington, nbc chief white house correspondent and political director and host of msnbc's "the daily rundown" chuck todd. what's been the reaction in the white house. this obama putin relationship has been fraught with drama all along. what is their response to the latest? >> they are being very -- they are not trying -- they are acting as if they don't want to take the bait. they don't want to pick a fight. they are covering ears on th

and even admitting that it has chemical weapons? >> look, first of all: russia is a strong supporter of an idea, nonproliferation, of any weapon of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical any kind. and russia pushed this idea in the middle east for a very long time. who is opposing it? opposing the united states because they don't want to touch israeli potential, nuclear potential. so when we are now talking about chemical weapon in syria it is correspond, basic approach to middle east, there is no weapons of mass destruction should be there. in this point we met american very clearly. but now they are turn to americans. are they ready to acknowledge that our efforts is joint manner, give the result? why they refuse to cooperate in other fields, to peaceful solution of syrian crisis. >> right, okay. >> they insist syrian regime to change the regime? why should we do that? we should provide one solution, give the syrians to elect under strong international control. why not. >> we are going to have to leave it there. it was very good to sp