more but it also depends on what assad does. so that doesn't really tell us what they're thinking and are prepared to do and what the various options are based on if assad uses chemical weapons again, what we'll do, et cetera. she's obviously shown determination and she's being very firm with not only assad but with russia. but it doesn't give me any insight into what their plans are. that's why i think we need to have congress -- congress ultimately has the authorization. the president has limited ability to do things. i think what he did fits within his parameters, but i think at this point we do need to have the discussion in congress. i think it would be healthy for the country, i think it would be healthy for our foreign policy, and i think it would be healthy in terms of the president's relationship with the congress. >> what's your greatest concern about the administration's policy given this 180 we're seeing by the president? >> again, i think what the president did here...

time is right, we should come back into session this week and we should discuss the situation in syria. we should discuss more broadly what we're doing against the islamic state. and we should have a new authorization of military force for our efforts against terrorism and i think we should put one in place for whatever we decide to do in the future with syria. so i think for this initial kind of response, i think the president acted within his thoe authority. i don't think he had to go to congress. but now we know this has happened. since we don't know what assad's response will be or russia's response will be, i think we need a new authorization of military information not only for terrorism generally but also for the situation in syria. >> so then as you call on the white house to work on a strategy for syria. >> yes. >> are comments by nikki haley at the u.n. giving you a clearer sense of the administration's policy moving forward? >> no, not really. what she's basically said is...

cooler talk among my friends and family, here's what scares people. north korea is believed to be developing a long-range missile that can hit the u.s. with kim saying he could test launch one at any time. what is the real timeline for north korea to develop a weapon like this? >> north korea has taken actions over the past years to expand its ballistic missile capabilities but it's still very far from having a missile with a range long enough to target the united states. right now it's unlikely they could even reach guam. but north korea is taking troubling steps that indicate that it's moving in that direction.

korea from developing that capability is what the trump administration really needs to be focused on right now. >> do you have a timeline? is it years, months, decades? how long before they can do something like that? >> well, they are testing rocket motors right now that would give them a longer range missile and they are displaying those systems in parades. so certainly if north korea starts testing those longer range systems in the next year, then within the next several years, i think that that capability could be something that north korea is able to deploy, albeit not reliably. i think that really underscores the urgency then for a new diplomatic initiative. >> really quickly, some analysts see the syria strike as a direct message to pyongyang. do you agree? >> i think that north korea is watching situations like syria very closely. they certainly learned from the libya case that there can be consequences for giving up your weapons of mass destruction. but i think these cases...

coming up. what's it like to be in good hands? like finding new ways to be taken care of. home, car, life insurance obviously, ohhh... but with added touches you can't get everywhere else, like claim free rewards... or safe driving bonus checks. oh yes.... even a claim satisfaction guaranteeeeeeeeeee! in means protection plus unique extras only from an expert allstate agent. it's good to be in, good hands. and you're about in to hit 'send all' on some embarrassing gas. hey, you bought gas-x®! unlike antacids, gas-x ® relieves pressure and bloating fast. huh, crisis averted.

one is placing nuclear weapons inside south korea. the other is killing kim jong-un. joining me now is kelsey davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the arms control association, a nonpartisan group. i wanted to get your thoughts on those two options, but first, what do you make of putting nuclear weapons in south korea? >> well, i understand why the trump administration is considering these options. as part of a policy review, it's good to cast a wide net and to become familiar with the costs and consequences of certain activities. but i think putting nuclear weapons back in south korea would be dangerous and overly provocative. first, it sends the wrong message to north korea that the united states is committed to denuclearizing the korean peninsula. also it's unnecessary, because u.s. strategic assets can protect south korea both with our nuclear weapons on submarines and bombers but also through our conventional forces. >> what about the assassination option? how...

benefit for north korea if it's willing to take those steps. >> when you listen to water cooler talk among my friends and family, here's what scares people. north korea is believed to be developing a long-range missile that can hit the u.s. with kim saying he could test launch one at any time. what is the real timeline for north korea to develop a weapon like this? >> north korea has taken actions over the past years to expand its ballistic missile capabilities but it's still very far from having a missile with a range long enough to target the united states. right now it's unlikely they could even reach guam. but north korea is taking troubling steps that indicate that it's moving in that direction. that's why a new diplomatic initiative, a new strategy and a new policy targeted at freezing those launches to prevent north korea from developing that capability is what the trump administration really needs to be focused on right now. >> do you have a timeline? is it years, months,...

try super poligrip free.

>> it will clearly antagonize russia but i think that's the point. they have clearly been supporting assad so i think russia is complicit with respect to these chemical attacks. that doesn't bother me that this potentially antagonizes russia, because i do think we need a firm pushback against russia. obviously anything is possible. i think the likelihood of this leading to a conflict between russia and the united states in my own opinion is very, very low. of course anything is possible. but i think that's a very low probability. and i think, again, this action relative to the very small probability of that happening i think was the right answer. >> finally looking forward here between syria and congress' investigation into russia's involvement in the u.s. election, what should we expect when secretary of state rex tillerson meets with russian officials, possibly even with president putin in moscow next week? >> what i'm hoping is that secretary tillerson is very firm with putin about...