they've got obligations under the cwc. they are not in compliance with the cwc, according to the state department, which mr. obama -- >> but if they had reached out to sweden or brazil, they have no leverage over syria. i mean, look, i don't like putin, i don't like what russia stands for, but you've got to deal with the facts on the ground. russia is a fact, putin is a leader. he's got the leverage. isn't it a good thing that obama got him in the game? >> it's great to be in the game, the problem is, is he giving us an answer? and i don't think we're getting a real answer. what we're getting is a delay. and i've got to say, if the president of the united states comes within two weeks or three weeks and says, that really didn't work. but now things aren't going well, so please give me this authorization, tell me, what's going to happen? >> it's not going to happen. >> bin go. >> but it's been true now for two weeks that it's not going to happen. the current talent at "the washington post" website is 25 members of the house

united states agreed on, which is the most far-reaching chemical weapons removal effort well beyond the cwc that has been designed. now, this will only be as effective as its implementation will be. president obama has made it clear that to accomplish that, the threat of force remains. the threat of force is real, and the assad regime, and all those taking part need to understand that president obama and the united states are committed to achieve this goal. we cannot have hollow words in the conduct of international affairs, because that affects all other issues - whether iran, north korea or any other. the core principles with respect to the removal of these weapons, and the containment of these weapons, which we want to achieve, as we said in the document - in the soonest, fastest most effective way possible. if we achieve that, we will have set a marker for the standard of behaviour with respect to iran and with respect to north korea and any other state, rogue state, group that decides to try to reach for these kinds of weapons. the core principles will have the full backing of the inte

there's 189 countries that have signed the cwc resolution or agreement. i want to know where the other 188 are. we give foreign aid to a lot of these countries. we need to demand that they come to the table and we sit there on one side and we get president assad on the other side and we have a peaceful resolution to this. and i don't think we've gone that route. the thing i'm encouraged about is that russia said if the results were conclusive, they would ask for a u.n. resolution and to sit down. i think if we can do that, there's no reason to rush into this. i think diplomatic solutions are a better way. this is a way for america to lead on foreign policy and a redirection of foreign policy, especially in the middle east. we can win this. it can be done with diplomacy and not with bombs and guns. >> and i think we always -- and i am delighted that you are amongst those being cautious and leading on the issue. >> well, thank you. >> because this is not a time for people to rush to conflict. it's unseemly for a superpower, we're the world's only superpower

that is not in normal cwc procedure. it will be embraced through a u.n. resolution as part of the process that exists here. so we have high anticipation that as i said, if fully implemented this will have an ability to be both verifiable, accountab accountable, and the world would make its judgments as we go along. with respect to the question of the use of force, first of all, the president of the united states under our constitution as manneder in chief always retains the right to defend the united states of america and our interests, and he always has that right even as he asks congress to approve. he retained a declared and understandable time-honored right with respect to his power as commander in chief. but the president also said he wanted to find a diplomatic solution to this. now, the potential of the threat of force is clearly one of those options that may or may not be available to the security council and the subject of deba debate. everybody knows the differences of opinion about it. depends on what assad does, that possibility existing eithe

go back to the cwc.reement was stated that any country that produced, stored, transported so or used chemical weapons or wmds were in violation. so when do you start doing that? when do you draw that line and i don't want to talk about red lines, but once you do that do you act in totality or do you act in, you know, we'll pick and choose who we're going to attack? i think it's a dangerous thing and we need diplomacy at this time in our country. >> gene robinson, that's the argument he made that why should we be the world's policemen of the international norms if they're not going to take steps? >> maybe we shouldn't have to be, but guess what. if we're not, nothing's going to happen. i mean, it's very clear nothing's going to happen. u.n. security council is going to do nothing because russia is an ally of syria and they won't allow anything to happen. and where are the other nations? some are supporting publicly. a few supporting privately. but they're not going to do anything. and when you look at the

he seems to presume that the inspection process, international process, will be the process of the cwcemical weapons convention never designed to be applied to someone who recently used chemical weapons. in fact the very process allows 180 days to take effect for the country, then to produce inventory, which is additional time, and all of the monitors do is go to the country and the country says, here are our weapons, count them, monitors go away they periodically come back to verify the weapons, ones they were shown by the country, were in fact there. the process of destruction is left to the country to develop. that doesn't strike me as what is necessary in a case like this. >> i think destruction is very much on the list of what the world is demanding. if it gets to the point where there is destruction, not just identification but verification and then destruction presumably that would be done on site, how difficult is that? moving it could be problematic, and again, something you touched on yesterday, the time that this would take. >> well, i don't think moving it is actually a go

it really shouldn't be the united states, it should be the international community of the cwc.hat's the organization that has the clout and the power to make sure they are going in and complying. if we don't believe they are complying, we can bring that on them and the rest of the world. they have already said they will comply, they want to comply. if they are not going to, we've shown them you can't be trusted in the international war. we've shown them russia doesn't mean what they say and it's all a facade. we've got to use diplomacy to get to the cwc who has authority and has the respect of the world. >> i don't think at this point we should trust what anyone says. i think we need to trust what they do and need to be able to verify what, in fact, actually happens suas a result of this effort at diplomacy. we continue to move forward with the proposal, dialogue with colleagues, dialogue with administration in the hopes we will be prepared to speak with one voice in this country, which i think is a trit cal ccritical of what we're trying to do here. >> we shouldn't snub our no

we need to lead by example, there are 189 countries that assigned the cwc resolution or agreement. want snow or the other 188r. we need to demand that they come to the table and that we sit there on one side and we get president assad on the other side and have a peaceful resolution. russia said if the results were conclusive, they would ask for a u.n. resolution and sit down. if we can do that whether it is no reason to rush into this, diplomatic solutions are a better way for america to lead on foreign policy and redirection of our foreign-policy especially in the middle east, it can be done with us diplomacy, not with bombs and guns. lou: we are delighted you are amongst those being cautious on the issues because this is not a time for people to rush to conflict. it is unseemly for the world's big superpower it seems to me to ask because this is a nation, a small nation that we could attack and inflict damage with impunity just because we have the power and the technology to do so certainly does not warrant a smug response on our part and a disdain for the damage and the pain an

indeed very glad that syria has committed to the accession of cwc. because we ourselves as you recall are victims of chemical weapons. we feel the pain those weapons create. we've expensed it. >> rose: do you think happened on august 21? when chemical weapons, according to the united nations were used an attack on the syrian people in a rebel-controlled area and a rocket came from an area controlled of the regime. >> we categorically denounce the use of chemical weapons no matter who uses them. but in syria we, more work needs to be done to really ascertain who did it, what equipment was used. you know that even before chemical weapons were used in the suburbs of damascus -- these chemical weapons were also used. previously around that time we had informed the u.s. officials that terrorists in syria have chemical weapons facilities in their hands. but as to who used them, i think it's fair enough to expect more work needs to be done. >> rose: a reporter, distinguished reporter here just had an article in the new yorker magazine talking about the head

they just signed the cwc. in theory that gives them a month to start reporting data. they have to pass internal laws. the hard work of locating, verifying chemical weapons, supposedly they have four production facilities, as many as 30 different locations. joint chiefs of staff said 75,000 foreigners into the country to do this work. i think that we're losing sight of a raging internal religious civil war and we're trying to carefully calibrate how much aid we provide the opposition. we need to bring assad down and his senior people, get them out of the country and then try and moderate the ensuing civil war which will then occur against the alawites, the christians, the kurds, et cetera. >> general mccaffrey, it's always good to see you, sir. thank you. >> good to be with you, chris. >>> now let's go to the east coast where the jersey shore is once again facing the daunting task of rebuilding. just months after the shore got back on its feet from hurricane sandy, several blocks of the seaside park and seaside heights boardwalk have been obliterated by a massive wind-

first of all, it would be great to have assad on record signing the cwc because once he then uses the chemicals, it's harder for him to deny that he did because he didn't have them. he now has a legally binding commitment that opens him up to legal action and makes it easier to set the legal precedent for the use of force. remember, this time around, that was one of the biggest problems the obama administration had, especially with our international allies, there were lots of countries saying it would be illegal to use force against assad. this starts to the lay the predicate to how to make the case internationally. seconds, if you can get inspectors in there in some way and take the chemicals away, you are starting to erode the regime's capacity to use them. you're also probably eroding to a certain extent the regime's mora morale, that they don't have complete freedom of action and are subject to these kind of international constraints. >> if syria signs it, you have a disincentive to people below the level of assad, they'll think if they end up at the international court if they lo

. >> does the cwc, or according to you secretary kerry, is there a doctrine that the u.s. should lead in world conflicts like this? why is it always america out front? i know we have the best military and i'm very proud of that, but why are we out leading this again? >> well, let me answer that. mr. chairman, i have to taymor than 40 seconds to do it, but it's a vial, vital questions for americans. congressman, i wish the world were a little more simple. i grew up in the cold war. i think all of us did. it was pretty east/west, communism, you know, the west, that's not the world we live in today. when the berlin wall fell, so did all of the things that tamped it down, a lot of sectarian, religious and other kinds of conflict in the world. the truth is we're one week away from 9/11 commemoration. 9/11 happened because there were ungoverned spaces in which people who wanted to fight the west, who culturally and historically opposed to modernity, want to attack us, and they did. i think most people in making judgments about how to keep our country safe make the judgment that

they are not a cignaer to, the cwc. they have to join the convention, get inspectors in.a fight to the death. there won't be a negotiated end to this war. the christian, the jew, the kurds they will get slaughtered. >> let me stick to this putin plan. first of all, do we know where these chemical weapons are in syria because they have been moving around and second of all, to go back to putin and assad, these are two people we've never trusted. why should we trust them now? maybe assad tells us, for example, us, the u.n. or whoever, we're 20% where the chemical weapons are but that doesn't help us with the other 0e%. see what i'm signing. there's so many loopholes and openings here. how can we know. like an operational question. >> you know, we absolutely can't. it's 100% guaranteed if we got in there with u.n. inspectors led by the russians we would go the fourth army division and interview assad's younger brother whose units fired these chemical rockets. obviously they are not going to do that. in an unclassified session we're saying there's either six major concentratio

and he highlighted both the cwc, as well as the 1925 chemical weapons act. note that these are things that most americans probably never heard of. yet it almost got to the point where it appeared in the washington bubble that he was begging his presidency on taking a military course of action to address these two relatively obscure but important arms control agreement. and that was on the 10th of september. shortly thereafter, it became pretty clear, i think, and i am not a political person, but congress is not really going to go along with that. the administration and more particular with its position on the narrow focus on chemical weapons was really wobbly. well, in that speech the criteria was twofold. one was to decay that capability and deter. these are the two elements that he set out as an objection for a military struggle. he always puts his fingers like this is a very carefully targeted military strike. it's a very careful military strike would a limited objective to deter this were to grade this syrian capability. so what happened after that? he l

chemical weapons convention since it entered into force almost 20 years ago or from iran, a party to the cwct happily, as has north korea. this really, this agreement, had the consequence of buying time for the bashar al assad regime, which is what they needed militarily inside syria. >> how do we look on the world stage then? we've threatened potential strikes of some kind in syria. russia says we have this agreement. we go along with it, essentially saying that looks legitimate, it's a good solution, it's diplomatic, that's what we'll do. if you're saying it has no teeth, does the rest of the world look at it at way? do we look foolish? >> i think we look weak and indecisive. if i were rouhani, i would be focusing on some encounter with president obama to launch these negotiations. remember, rouhani was iran's chief nuclear negotiator ten years ago. he followed the same playbook then of buying time for iran's nuclear program to move closer to success. i think he's going to do the same thing here. >> is he -- though essentially truly calling the shots in iran? we always hear so much about h

if he signs up to the cwc, which is the chemical weapons commission, there is an organization in place says he is going to do. he has got the world's spotlight on him now and he has russia saying they will help him do it, to basically get rid of his weapons. for us not to take hold of this and use a diplomatic sources that we have and all the diplomatic persuasion trying to bring a peaceful resolution, then a strike, which maybe could lead to a war is something i think we should explore. jenna: you want him to change what we haven't seen in the last 20 years which is that he hasn't signed on to this to give up his chemical weapons to say he is not going to use it. you want him to change his tune in 45 days. why do you think that's possible? >> basically you're not going to change everything in 45 days but you can get him to sign up and quit using these horrific weapons on his own people and innocent people that is the thing -- jenna: but, senator what is the message then? that he can go on killing him his own people with conventional weapons and we don't do anything. >> well, if you wa

given that syria is signing a cwc under the offices of the chemical weapons convention, it is the responsibilitythe country to provide security for the inspectors to it is the assad's government responsibility -- for the inspectors. it is the assad government responsibility. will they want their own security with of them? i'm not sure, that is not typical. this is an atypical situation. the agreement outlines that the inspector shall be given unfettered access by assad regime. it also means security at the sites. james in indiana, independent caller. welcome to the conversation. good morning. i would like to know who is going to withstand the cost of destroying these chemical weapons? states has ated contingency fund for situations which we can help eliminate a dangerous weapon stockpile. this was done in libya, it is being done in libya. i think the state department fund will be utilized. also the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons has a budget that is provided by the u.s. and other donor nations . that is going to be called upon. this operation, depending on how long it goes,

the cwc agreement signed by 189 countries says that the is that transport or create chemical weapons are in violation. they're possibly supplying them with chemical weapons. maybe iran or china. there are probably other countries so we have to act now and do we act in totality? do we act now? once you stop, and this goes back to our confusing foreign- policy, it was a red line, it was not a red line. i just think we need clarity. i want to know where the 188 countries are that signed the agreement. if demanding that we come to the table on one side and mr. assad on other. i implore the administration to find a diplomatic solution because all i have heard his military intervention. i know you have talked about diplomatic solutions and that we supply the majority of the foreign aid around the world so we need to demand people come to the table and this is a moment in time, and history, where america can lead a new direction for a coalition of countries where the other 188 who signed can issue a political and diplomatic solution. it is time for a new foreign- policy. if we can win this

that's why i believe it should be in the cwc, i said that.ours is very clear, and it gives him the authority at the end. and in 45 days it basically acknowledges the war powers that he has, the war powers act that he can rely on and do what he thinks -- >> what authorizes force? senator levin said he wasn't sure -- >> it's very clear what ours does. get right to it. at the end of 45 days if the government of syria does not comply with the convention within 45 days after the date of the enactment of resolution, all elements of national power will be considered by the united states government. he has the right to consider everything and every force they need. >> so that's really requiring another vote -- >> doesn't require another vote. basically, we believe that's constitutional and lawful. >> [inaudible] >> 1925. [inaudible] >> but do you think that was -- today said they won't accept it, and if it's along those lines, they will. [inaudible conversations] >> senator joe manchin of west virginia. democrats have had their meeting with president

important area is damascus has shown readiness for real cooperation by joining the cwc. syria has started the limitation by providing the opcw with a detailed list of its holdings. we believe that damascus will continue to cooperate with the national and spec tours here at the responsibility for and lamenting this lies not only with the government of syria but with the council. reports shall be submitted regarding the course of implementation regarding the resolution. we will have to recover the situation. it is not fall on chapter seven of the u.n. charger or allow for any automatic use of course. it reaffirmed the agreement which was reached in geneva regarding the fact that violations as well as the use of chemical weapons by anyone will have to be carefully investigated by the security council whittle stand ready to take actions under chapter seven to standwill be ready to take actions under chapter seven. this will have to be improvement by 100%. thee who sponsored operations have to make sure weapons do not fall into the hands of extremists. there are relevant requ

the initial information provided neisseria that would fall under a one-week timeframe and a formal cwcdeclaration, the chemical weapons declaration which is on a 30 day timeframe. we will evaluate serious compliance as we see syria. the >> it doesn't necessarily indicate -- [inaudible] >> the initial provision of information and that is the one-week deadline and will evaluate compliance when we see what experience have provided and then there is a 30 day deadline in accordance with the convention. the sba at >> not asking you about the action, but about the president's performance on the economy. when the fed says the economy simply not strong enough to take the training wheels off, is that not an indictment of present policies? >> no. again without commenting on fed policy, it is some in the president says every time he speaks about the economy that he is more work to do. all the actions taken at various levels to address the severe economic straits we witness the nation were meant to do was to help propel this economy in a different direction. >> there's other potential depression. >

of time before the cwc was passed.as no osha and we did this safely but we were able to do it in that environment. it will be interesting to to see in the syrian decoration if they have destruction capability which they declare. i kind of thought they might exist if you have got chemical weapons for several decades in your inventory they are not like wonder bread. they don't last forever. there is at best if used by date so you have got to do something with the stuff you made in 1970 and in 1990 or something. i would look for it -- they may have internally some destruction capability but if they don't the weapons inspector very quickly make decisions is it better to reconfigure equipment which which is therefore destruction nor can we get some group of international countries to accept the delivery of that? getting it out i don't think will be that hard. i have recognize there is an insurgency going on but the syrians have been moving the stuff around pretty regularly for the past three or four years. >> arrow kimmel.

they needed to adjust some of the components of the opcw and most, for example obviously, the cwc prohibits the removal of chemical weapons from a country. one of the most likely avenues for addressing the syrian chemical weapons inventory problem is to take the stuff out for destruction. are some elements like that which had to be done in a as logic played out, the americans and russians were able to balance a mutual interest and they have a draft resolution which is again about to be passed. there were a couple of other aspects, technical aspects about how inspections are done and under how under opcw a country can refuse certain specters if they don't like them or if they are from a country they don't like. that are a few things like , but the messy part in all this is the relationship between opcw and the security council. that isn't still well wired as near as i can tell. you can think about this i simply asking yourself who is in charge of all this? who is the guy or the woman who is going to be the chief person on this is it theivity e director general of opcw? i don't think so. is i