not face any consequences while assad goes to the i.c.c. . mark going to reply to that but i think john one the best the best consequences is assad self removal in other words he should step down but to your point about international law i think that's why we saw last thursday and friday the white house being so reluctant to say that yes an absolute red line has been crossed this means intervention precisely because the ghost of iraq is there this administration is not going to act like the bush administration and go in without some sort of official sanction i think that yeah hey look at the history so i think i think there needs to be a more nuanced view as to what would constitute something that triggers a u.s. response without an approach without appropriate international sanction and i think that's a fairly high threshold for this administration john you know to jump in there. yeah i would just submit that it's probably a little less that they don't have legal sanction and a little more that it's not perceived in u.s. interests the obama

not face any consequences while assad goes to the i.c.c. . mark going to reply to that but i think john one the best the best consequences is assad self removal in other words he should step down but to your point about international law i think that's why we saw last thursday and friday the white house being so reluctant to say that yes an absolute red line has been crossed this means intervention precisely because the ghost of iraq is there this administration is not going to act like the bush administration and go in without some sort of official sanction i think that yeah ok i look at the history so i think i think there needs to be a more nuanced view as to what would constitute something that triggers a u.s. response without an approach without appropriate international sanction and i think that's a fairly high threshold for this administration you know to jump in there. yeah i would just submit that it's probably a little less that they don't have legal sanction and a little more that it's not perceived in u.s. interests the obama admi

he's he's he's talking about the removal of assad now he's talking the removal of assad you know when it's important to try and have an even mind about this if assad is supposedly committing all kinds of war crimes then how is it legitimate for the united states to lead an effort in committing a war crime syria presents no imminent threat to anybody or any of its neighbors especially to the united states and so what you need at least legally speaking is a u.n. security council resolution russia and china will not agree with what i said exactly that that's exactly but that's exactly what you need is a u.s. right here and we have as aleutian and nato will not act without it the united states will not act without it and you're exactly right this is time well actually it will be that his have a valid point about ticket toleration they've got it other with the guitar is act without it. and also we have a history of acting without a security council resolution in iraq and you know this this is a problem that would constitute a violation of international law one wrong when you know two wrong

it was liberated from assad's army more than three months ago. >> narrator: the army of the assad regime has been pushed back across the valley to the other side of t orontes river. ahmad's village is well within range of their artillery. shells and mortars are routinely fired into this village. >> (translated): god willing, bashar al-assad's army can't get in here. we run things here now. >> narrator: doctors and nurses are ordered to report immediately to the local hospital. ahmad is already there, using his phone to film casualties. >> (translated): i ran to the area to see who was injured, to see how i could help. these people's lives are over. this is what god had written for them. i just despaired, and thought it was time that arab countries felt our suffering. >> narrator: ahmad and the people of his village have witnessed these scenes many times, fearing they will be next. today, it's mohammed mattar who has lost members of his family. >> narrator: mohammed is surrounded by the bodies of three of his nephews. they were killed 20 minutes ago by a government shell. inside the hospi

it would only be the assad regime that has access to these weapons.at they haven't connected the dots well enough yet it make the actual charge and to have crossed the red line. what do we do next? >> this is a major test for the obama administration. as you know, when you draw a line in the sand and challenge someone not to cross it, and when they apparently cross it. then your own credibility is at stake if you don't react in an effective way. having said that, i do think the president is right to proceed cautiously. we got our intelligence estimates wrong back in going into iraq about whether or not there was wmd, weapons of mass destruction there in 2003. that was disastrously wrong. the president is right, we need conclusive proof before we act. he can proceed with investigations urt through the u.s. government and syrian rebel forces or through the united nations. can he certainly warn assad not to use chemical weapons or else there will be severe consequences. he can warn them again. he can try to enlist russia and china, although i don't think

not face any consequences while assad goes to the i.c.c. . mark going to reply to that i think john one the best the best consequences is assad self removal in other words he should step down but to your point about international law i think that's why we saw last thursday and friday the white house being so reluctant to say that yes an absolute red line has been crossed this means intervention precisely because the ghost of iraq is there this administration is not going to act like the bush administration and go in without some sort of official sanction i think that yeah ok i look at the history so i think i think there needs to be a more nuanced view as to what would constitute something that triggers a u.s. response with out an approach without appropriate international sanction and i think that's a fairly high threshold for this administration john you know to jump in there. yeah i would just submit that it's probably a little less that they don't have legal sanction and a little more that it's not perceived in u.s. interests over the oba

believe that any use of chemical weapons in syria would very likely have been originated with the assadtter states, the president has made clear that the use of chemical reference or the transfer of such weapons to terrorist groups would be unacceptable. the united states has an obligation to fully investigate including with all key partners and allies and through the united nations evidence of chemical weapons use in syria. over the past week i've traveled, as you all know, to five countries in the middle east. all of whom have expressed concern about the deteriorating situation in syria. and you've asked me on several occasions about the chemical weapons use. as i have said, this is serious business. we need all the facts. the letter will be available as soon as george gets it to you. and as you all know, i have no more to say about this until we get the full story as i think that will be the position of the administration. with that, ask any questions. >> secretary, does this cross the red line? >> well, first, i would answer your question this way. we need all the facts. we need all

not face any consequences while assad goes to the i.c.c. . mark going to reply to that but i think john one the best the best consequences is assad self removal in other words he should step down but to your point about international law i think that's why we saw last thursday and friday the white house being so reluctant to say that yes an absolute red line has been crossed this means intervention precisely because the ghost of iraq is there this administration is not going to act like the bush administration and go in without some sort of official sanction i think that yeah hey look at the history so i think i think there needs to be a more nuanced view as to what would constitute something that triggers a u.s. response without an approach without appropriate international sanction and i think that's a fairly high threshold for this administration you know to jump in there. yeah i would just submit that it's probably a little less that they don't have legal sanction and a little more that it's not perceived in u.s. interests the obama admin

thank you. >> simple question, has the assad regime used chemical weapons, crossed the red line?r assessment says yes, also by britain and the united states. >> this week, israeli's top military analysts said, according to our professional assessment the regime has used deadly chemical weapons against armed rebels on a number of occasions in the past few months. he pointed to a march 19th attack in which, quote, victims suffered from sunken pupils, foaming from the mouth, and other symptoms which indicate the use of deadly chemical weapons. the white house ambassador says there's not enough evidence. who's right? >> it's an intelligence assessment. that's what intelligence agencies do, make assessments. it's not definitive proof, of course. the chemical weapons situation in syria is highly complex. we're dealing with the largest chemical weapons arsenal in the middle east, one of the largest in the world. it's diverse. it's stored in different ways. and access to syria i is very, very limited. they won't let u.n. inspectors in at all. our assessments are similar to the united sta

intelligence believes the assad regime used serin gas against its opponents. we he invited the israeli are ambassador to discuss what is really going on and what it means to the u.s. and its allies. >> good to be with you, chris. >> chris: has the assad regime in syria used chemical weapons against its own people? has it crossed the red line. >> our military made an assessment and looks like a high probability of usage. similar assessment by britain and and france and, yes, by the united states. >> chris: this week israeli's top entell against military analyst said this. according to the professional assessment regime has used deadly chemicals against armed rebels. quoted to a march 19 attack which indicate the use of deadly chemical weapons. the white house ambassador says there is not enough evidence. who is right? >> it is an intelligence assessment, chris. intelligence agencies make assessments not definitive proof, of course. the chemical weapons situation in syria is highly complex. we are dealing with the largest chemical weapons arsenal in the middle e

support,>> with that how much longer does this give the assad regime in power? >> with that support, the time horizon has extended indefinitely. this is one of the real challenges that the international community faces. the goal of the united states and of its allies is to create conditions that will lead to negotiations between elements of the assad regime and the opposition. but right now, the regime is feeling even more confident than it was a year ago. it feels as if it can prevail. and so there has been no shift in the strategic calculus of the inner circle of the assad regime that might lead them to enter negotiations. and that leaves the west and it leaves the opposition itself trying to figure out what to do about this shifting dynamics -- shift in dynamic. >> assad has this outside financial support. what are the options? america has spoken about this red line of chemical weapons hewed what are the options on that front? -- chemical weapons. what are the options on that front? >> we have seen an interest with -- from the united states -- eepen its in pa

the russians would finally say, yes, we agree, bashar al assad must go. then the mechanisms that have been prepared by former secretary general kofi annan would go forward. >> would they take the assad family to russia? >> they might. that's been discussed in the past. on the question that you ask, if the russians refused to support a negotiated settlement, the u.s. is going to have to take action, i think, and so they're looking at a menu of options and you can imagine it, it ranges from syrian command and control facilities, facilities associated with this chemical weapons program. the special units that have been the scourge of the syrian population in this war. those are all very heavy -- >> you mean bombing -- >> heavy duty military operations. >> bombing missions. >> well, they might be bombing. various ways you could do it. they're big operations and they require precisely the kind of major commitment that the u.s. has wanted to avoid. >> what would be our right to do that? this has gotten to be so practiced now, i guess it's an odd question. what'

are the russians going accept assad? the ideal solution is assad goes to russia, this thing's over. that's the deal. go in the summertime when it's nice at least. hen go somewhere else. get them out of the country to bring the regime down unless you annihilate them. i don't know if the u.s. wants to go in there and bring down that regime by force of our arms which is troops on the ground. >> the truth is assad has given absolutely zero indication of a willingness to go anywhere. this is a man who 70,000 of his own people have already been killed. >> well, what's your solution? >> thankfully, i'm not in a position to offer that. i think i'm in agreement with you. >> as they say, throw it back to new york. to you. i think this is -- >> thanks, chris. >> take moral responsibility for the country. and what happens -- we watched this gory hanging, this absurd hanging of saddam hussein while these thugs went about this thing on television. we watched it. on our watch. it happened because of us. we gave them the power to do that to the guy. okay. you start making moral decisions like the t

they believe the assad regime is responsible for the deaths. but they don't know how yet to track that. we have people on the ground. the u.n. is not on the ground to trace that change of custody for proof. >> they say the evidence is not conclusive. that's why they need further investigation. several weeks. >> we have people on the ground, it dissipates quickly. it could take longer than that. >> mike rogers, you have looked at a lot of this evidence, is it conclusive for you? >> it is. we have classified evidence i think what we have strengthens the case. some amount of chemical weapons have been used over the last two years. the president has laid down the line. it can't be a dotted line. in more than just syria, iran is paying attention to this, north korea is paying attention to this. i think the options aren't huge but some action needs to be taken. the destabilizing impact, right now, chemical weapons have been small in use. if you have a large use -- >> how do you explain it was such a small use of chemical weapons, presumably president

taking out assad?at the white house is saying is we're not going to rush to judgment. let's get a second, let's get an international body to confirm what our intelligence is saying. >> this is really, where the tire hits the road, you've got israel insisting through netanyahu, the prime minister, that there was use of chemical weapons. and then you've got the administration saying through hagen and kerry. we're going to prove it ourself before we move any further and now we're going to a third party. >> we've proven it some and then the caveats, we don't know the chain of custody. we know it's been used, we believe it's the syrian regime that's used it. and now what they're saying is we want the full-fledged investigation by the united nations. other people are going do say is that buying time? but i think at this point when you consider what the action would mean, us inserting ourselves into a civil war, no matter what, having an international body supporting your finding, is probably a lot more helpf

the white house says the assad regime is using chemical weapons. the question is how will the united states respond? by the way, you got any weekend travel plans? congress actually does. the deadline pushing lawmakers to end the air traffic controller furloughs by the end of the day. first let's get to our top story here at 5:30 a.m. at 30 rock in new york city. >>> we begin with chilling details behind the tsarnaev brothers alleged plot to attack the heart of new york city after, of course, causing so much damage in boston. according to city officials, the two marathon bombing suspects discussed driving to new york to detonate their remaining explosives in a spontaneous assault on times square. at the time their arsenal included five pipe bombs, one pressure cooker bomb, similar to that one, of course, and the two used in last monday's deadly attack. police say the young brother had visited times square at least once last year. however, their plan fell apart after realizing the mercedes they carjacked last thursday night did not have enough gas to

there has been discussion on if assad of false, a lot of people think is when assad defaults, what is your assessment assessment of what we are doing to address the possible if not likely advent of further fighting between these rebel groups, and what they may mean? >> thank you for your treatment. we appreciate it. the men and women of the intelligence community do appreciate when you visit and take interest in what they do. we all appreciate that very much. i think our -- our most likely scenario that we see is even after assad falls, it is probably more fractional was nation -- fractionalization. for some. of time, there would be continued intersectoral competition and fighting, which would be localized. ofre are literally hundreds these militia groups that are fighting us on a local basis, in the north and east of the country. they are gaining more control of the area. i think that from an intelligence perspective, that is what we see. he even after he falls, there is a current presence in the north, about 65% of the population of syria, about 22.5 million people are sunni. we exp

he wants to accelerate negotiations between the assad regime and rebels.'s not a lot of appetite for that within the assad regime or amongst the rebels. of course, this is the obama administration's plan to negotiate a solution between the two sides. that doesn't seem to be happening. that is the only reason because the only other alternative is to further exacerbate the war, so it really is a situation where there are two bad options here and right now, the obama administration seems to be choosing neither. >> three people i always want to hear from first on these issues. you're two of them. jeffrey goldberg is the third. i recommend to everybody, follow these two guys and my friend jeffrey goldberg particularly on this situation. thank you both. >>> up next, we're live in boston. the developing news from the investigation. the survivinging suspect is now in prison as we learn more about what happened during the long night of terror that ended in his arrest. but first, today's trivia question. how many sitting u.s. presidents have visited syria? first per

, then assad is going to say wait a minute, the dynamics changed for me.i can ultimately find myself dead or i can stay alive in another part of the world. >> do you think we have the power and the ingenuity to turn that war around so that assad loses? >> i do, i do believe we would have to bring in an international effort. look, you know, to believe that the french and the israelis, who came to this conclusion -- and i understand why the administration wants to nail it down. because if you're going to go to the security council, you don't want to have a history of the repeat of the war in iraq. but by the same to comsame' tok sees himself in a moment which he makes the decision to go ahead and use it because the world is not responding, you have a much greater challenge. and those are the tough consequences we're making. >> just want to make sure we're right before we go in there. thank you, senator. up next, back to dallas and former first lady barbara bush's stunning statement, she doesn't want her son to run for president. she says we have had enough b

the syrian president bashar assad has long denied that he attacks his own citizens. two years ago in an interview with abc he insisted no government in the world kills its people unless it's led by a crazy person. draw from that what you will. wall street broke a record today and we'll tell you about that next. a veteran pro-basketball player tells the world he is gay and receives overwhelming response. from celebrities to fellow players to the first lady of the united states. you'll hear what people are saying about his enormous announcement. a pro-football player who had to delete his tweet and say he is sorry. it's all ahead from the journalist of fox news on this monday fox report. ♪ [ male announcer ] pain not sitting too well? burning to feel better? itching for relief? preparation h offers the most maximum strength solutions for all hemorrhoid symptoms. from the brand doctors recommend most. preparation h. don't stand for hemorrhoids. from the brand doctors recommend most. ♪ it was the best day ♪ ♪ it was the best day yeah! ♪ it was the best day ♪ecause of yo

does this change russia's view on assad? do the russians publicly come out and could not chemical this at some point? they have said for them, chemical weapons is a red line. does the u.s. government feel they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt here, that was certainly the pledge they were trying to send in this conference call. we need to prove it beyond doubt. the intelligence community is one thing them want more tangible facts. >> thank you very much for joining us. >> let me bring in bob menendez, the chairman of the committee. thank you for your time. you heard chuck there bring up a number of questions. first and foremost, the timing of all of this information coming from defense secretary chuck hagel. can you talk to me about the timing before we get to what's next? >> well, look, several of us sent a letter to the president yesterday saying can you answer in a nonclassified way, were chemical weapons used? we had the israelis, the french, the british say that in fact they believe that in fact intelligence point

assad is not cooperating. wherehad to be sure pseudonymous jane was at. assad is not cooperating. you mentioned limited the use by the armed forces. this information sounds fairly sketchy. >> is a sketchy to me. i am quite confident our intelligence community has far more specifics out there. sketchy from what i have heard. fromat is your best guess what you understand happened at? ? it is likely that they use chemical weapons. what is the burden of proof for you? out what level do you become satisfied that the intelligence is good enough? it will never be perfect. >> i'm not going to make a best guess as to what happens. gases are highly irresponsible. are highly irresponsible. 95% certainty that chemical weapons were used. we crossed that threshold. i am not sitting here saying it is not proven. it seems very clear that chemical weapons were used. the details are what i am not going to guess about. what do we do about it the? ? how do we take a step that will get this to a more peaceful place in syria? there are no easy answers. talking to colleagues. we have gotten enough casua

what is the future for assad if he gives up?e will lynch him, torture his family and kill him. why should he give up? i don't understand the demands from secretary clinton and all the secretaries. why should he quit? >> he's had a series of offers made to him. he can go live in russia. he hasn't been willing to do that and the russians obviously haven't changed their own equation. they think that assad might be able to hang in there. if, in fact, we harness all of our regional allies in that area, have a defined plan as to how we help the opposition, the vetted opposition inside of syria, if we bring to bear an opportunity to have them change the tipping point, if we at the same time look at the opportunities to undermine the extremists and, by the way, undermine iran which is sending enormous amounts of assistance to assad, then assad is going to look and say, wait a minute, the dynamics changed for me. either i can ultimately find myself dead or i can stay alive in some place, another part of the world. >> do you think we have

assad is going to fight to the bitter end.he question is, do we know enough about the opposition to arm it. so far, the united states has said, no, we don't know enough to directly arm the militants on the other side. because we don't truly understand who the opposition is. i think if there was a credible alternative to put in and you can do what was done in haiti where you sort of bring out the old government. i just don't know that the united states has number one the credibility in the region to do that or the intelligence or know enough about the other side to do that. it's really a frustrating situation, i think for those like alex. and she's absolutely right who are concerned about the humanitarian situation but it's a difficult thing to figure out what to do. would american troops on the ground make it better? i don't know. >> i'm talking about a deal here. we just talked about dzhokhar tsarnaev who has lawyered up in massachusetts. do you decide which person gets hanged first, his wife or him or his whole family or all

hagel did not say where or when it was used, but he made it clear that the blame lies with assad. >> our coverage begins with this report. >> are arriving in abu dhabi, the u.s. defense secretary said washington believes the assad regime has used chemical weapons but admitted there was some uncertainty. >> the white house delivered a letter to several members of congress on the topic of chemical weapons use in syria. the letter states that the u.s. intelligence community assesses with some degree of varying confidence that the syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin. the united states has an obligation to fully investigate, including evidence of chemical weapons used in syria. over the past week, i have travelled, as you all know, to five countries in the middle east, all of whom have expressed concern about the deteriorating situation in syria. >> on tuesday, israeli intelligence accused syria of using nerve gas several times, including on march 19, as seen here on syrian state tv. the regime claims that attack on the

even if it is proved to be sarin did "z" it come from the assad regime?t is the chain of custody the president refers to that in the letter. and does this small scale qualify. the president said if we see large numbers of chemical weapon. but he had what saddam hussein did. we haven't seen anything like that. >> john: okay then the red line has not been crossed and it's not an air tight case, why would the administration release this evidence today? is this an temperature to get the region riled up about it or put pressure on russia? >> it's clear that some of the intelligence agencies were coming forward with this kind of evidence, and we heard officials from great britain france and israel start to make claims about this. when that happens members of congress, especially the opposition party will be swarming all over this. you're going to get leaks so the president was ahead of this laying his cards on the table. this is what we know and this is what we're calling for. in the letter that he sent he said we're now pressing for the united nations investig

and the staying power of assad. >> i think assad's staying power is diminishing gradually, too slowly, but continues to diminish. it's hard for anyone to imagine a way that he will ultimately survive this. and keep his hold on power. the question is how will power dissolve? that's what we have to be focused on again to ensure that the wrong elements aren't empowered in the process, that the extremists aren't the ones who step in and fill the vacuum. >> charlie: should the rebels set conditions suggesting, saying that, you know, we're prepared to talk about the future but only if assad goes. is that a legitimate and credible and understandable and perhaps necessary position on their part? >> i do think assad's departure from power has to be... >> charlie: a precondition. ... part of any agreement. you know, whether it's a precondition or simply an accepted part of a phased plan, interestingly i think that what has happened the transition that was negotiated in yemen is instructive where it was a negotiated transition, where it was understood he would step down but it was done in a seri

the day assad falls there will be a conflict between the majority of syrians who want to move forward and a small a small group of jihadists. that conflict need to be planned for. , the betterassad for the world. >> questions? >> [indiscernible] >> what about boston? >> we have had a briefing on that. >> we had a briefing on that. >> north korea? the chinese still hold the key to north korea. there are some signs that they are getting a little weary of the ethics of this young man, -- the antics of this young man, but still it is a precarious situation. let me point out again --the situation in syria is unacceptable. the president said this would be a red line if they used chemical weapons. the president has now called us, saying that they used chemical weapons. those stocks of chemical weapons, some of which are in disturbed areas, must be secure, and we must give the opposition the capability to dr out ass. our relations with russia should be directly related to their assistance to assad. >> does the administration have any plans to respond? >> [indiscernible] the insistence that th

it somehow interdicting support for the assad regime. the chairman mentioned the over flights from iraq, but that support is coming from most notably iran. so that coming in, positing even an increase may be in the bombs we provide, the assumption would be that that would be matched unless we took proactive steps, or someone took proactive steps by further escalation to support assad? >> i'm not sure i understood the connection. >> the connection is this, that we already, it's already public reported that the iranians and others have a vested interest in the success of the regime. they're providing support, et cetera. again, if you're looking at both sides of the conflict, supplying one side while the other side continues to draw resources, may have no effect. so part of the calculation has to be, and it goes to the diplomatically to our relationship with iraq, somehow suppressing the supply of support, both money, arms, political support for the assad regime. is that a fair point? >> it is. >> it strikes me, too, talking about a safe ar

policy that can bring down the assad regime. joining us now, fox news middle east and terrorism expert dr. waly will ferris, this -- dr. walid phares. thank you for joining us. that was about as confusing remarks about game changers and red lines as i have heard, your react? >> look, narrative by obama administration by itself, is ry telling. telling us that they don't want to intervene at this point in time. in any form or shape that would crumble that regime. for example they say a degree of varying confince. they know this is the use of the weapon, defensive judgment is there the not there yet. and likely originated from the regime, when you have such a language, not really clarifying that regime is responsible in terms of using that evidence, we don't know whether the evidence is coming from. still that obama administration will have to bring the case to congress, security cnt, how odd in 2003 we had a similar situation, and obama administration at the time of the critical of it, it is not a clear pture of what is happening