are you familiar with it jemp dempsey -- jemp dempsey are you familiar with it. >> i'm not familiar withthe french assessment. i am familiar with our own. >> we talk about sirin gas and other agents. what we here, and i ask if it's close to what your assessment is - the syrians have more than is 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents and precursor chemicals, several hundred tonnes of sarin. it's been suspected that they have missile capability of delivering the chemical wepson? israel -- weapons in israel, portion of turkey, iraq and beyond. what is your assessment of their potential when it comes to the delivery and their capacity when it comes to the amount of chemical agents they have available? >> our assessment closely matches the french assessment. >> i guess my question to secretary kerry is in light of the vulnerabilitiy of these countries, what is the response of the arab and muslim world to this dash - and you listed four or five that support our efforts. it seems if this danger is so profound, that we would have greater support? >> senator. >>> hello, this is al jazeera, and we are w

john ker ary will be here and martin dempsey will be here. we've heard a lot from the man in the middle, john kerry making his case. he's been perhaps the most out front on saying this absolutely needs to happen and the most passionate in his defense of the need for military strikes. chuck hagel is a bit more interesting. he was back before his former colleagues. these two men are former senators, which is another subplot. he has a rough go of it for his on confirmation hearing. with regard to this mission he's talked some publicly but not a lot. a lot of questions will be directed at hagel and martin dempsey because in talking to a lot of the members of congress, some of their main questions are about the military action and how they can be as limited in scope as the president is saying. before i toss it back to you. ted baron and i talked to a source close to harry reid's thinking and he is confident that he will have the votes to pass this authorization for military action in syria through the senate. they know it's possible, maybe even li

first to general dempsey. and i know we've spoken to this before, was i think it is worth repeating. how do we strike the right balance between military action that is too insignificant to actually effectively deter or degrade assad's capabilities and one that is so decisive and overwhelming that it reaches beyond the scope of an authorization and becomes actually a regime change effort. >> well, senator, i won't recommend an option or a set of targets that won't effectively deter and degrade. that's the task that i've been given. and now we'll continue to refine that, not just based on intelligence, but based on the resolution that comes out of this committee. >> and could you, in your view, accomplish that mission with an authorization that is limited in scope, in terms of a time duration, and in terms of not introducing u.s. troops on the ground? >> well, it won't surprise you to know that as the military leader responsible for this, the more -- the broader the resolution, the less limiting, the better off

i'll let general dempsey respond for himself. well, first, very clear intelligence and evidence that the assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people. so we are dealing with a new set of realities based on facts. and i think it is at least my opinion that that needs to be addressed. that needs to be dealt with. for the reasons i've noted. i've said in public and also addressed in my statement, i think in what have secretary kerry and general dempsey has said and obviously what the president has said. so that's the most specific reason. the dynamics have changed. one additional point in regard to your question on this as to your previous question. if in fact, the president is given the authorization are from congress to go go forward and he's already said he believes he has within his constitutional power as commander in chief to act, as well, and he's given his reasons which we all support why he came to the congress. there are parallel actions that would work along with whatever action the president would take. oppositio

you have general dempsey saying that, listen, we don't have to see action this week.could come next week. that would not change our military action or have a great impact if the military is to go through with some kind of limited strike. with that said, you've got republican senator bob corker earlier today saying that the senate resolution could be in mark up and we could see some movement this evening. let me play what he said. >> i think that, you know, there is a push to have a mark-up, not hastily, but to have a mark-up very soon so that members have the opportunity to see it before they come back. depending on progress, you could well see something this evening or early in the morning. >> so this evening, early morning if his timeline is right. to your point, you have these lawmakers who are at home who may want to chew on these details and get more feedback from their constituents, but when they get back to town on the 9th, hit the ground running on this, kelly. >> well, one of the things if we can just add a little glossary term here. mark-up means the committ

i do have a question for general dempsey. general dempsey, what are our goals in a military strike?the president said the military attack would be limit ed in duration and scope. do you believe the use of surgical strikes will achieve the president's stated goal and can you guarantee the american people that the assad regime will be unable to launch any further chemical warfare attacks both at home or against their neighbors after the u.s. mission is complete? in addition, do you believe the region will be more stable after u.s. attack or less stable? >> the mission given to me was to prepare options to deter and degrade and that would mean targets directly linked to the control of chemical weapons but without exposing those chemical weapons to a loss of security. and means of delivery. those things that the regime uses for example air defense, long range missiles and rockets in order to protect those chemical weapons or in some cases deliver them. that target package is still being refined as i sit here with you. as far as whether it will be effective given the limited objectives i

>> dempsey's on the cruise.ld be drunk the whole time. >> what will you do with the cruise? >> i will probably give it to someone. my mother or sister. >> that will be nice. somebody who is not so jaded. somebody whose bathroom isn't adorned with trophies they don't want to look at. >> you have got two kids on the show now. >> technically six. >> why? >> you have to have twins to work network television. union hours. i have twins at home and four on set. >> that's too many twins. >> too much. too much. i'm not sure children should be working in television. >> it's funny. television and movies is the only area where it's okay to make kids work. >> exactly. >> like you couldn't put them to work at foot locker. >> i don't know what it is. it's amazing they get on tv anyway. and they grow so quickly. >> that's the problem. >> and you can't get them to sit still. >> you have got to drug them and keep them there. >> thank god it's a medical show. >> are there any diseases left to solve? are there any cases left for yo

journal dempsey -- general dempsey. the problems with doctrines, some of you guys stick to them sometimes depending on the case. if you were to look at iran and syria, which would you say is the biggest that to america's national security interests? -- irane centrifuges and the centrifuges? or syria? >> the longer-term threat is clearly iran. >> if we are willing to do this over chemical weapons, what stops us from trying to get a resolution to bomb the hell out of iran who is the real threat here find everything that we face in the middle east, but we are focused on discharge so? -- side show? clear that we it have an enormous focus on iran. there is a new president that has taken over and new negotiators. there's a lot of discussion taking place within the about how the negotiations ought to proceed. >> i'm almost out of time. >> i apologize. >> it is not your fault. if we are willing to do this, it you said there have been a lot of negotiations. you're asking congress for a resolution to commit to an act of war again

the first to general dempsey. i think it is worth repeating, how do we strike the right balance between military action that is too insignificant to actually effectively deter or degrade assad's capabilities, and one that is decisive and overwhelming that it reaches beyond the scope of an authorization and actually becomes a regime change authorization? >> i will not recommend an option that will not effectively deter and degrade. that is the task i have been given. not just based on intelligence but based on the resolution comes out of this committee. >> and could you accomplish that mission with an authorization that is limited in scope and terms of time duration and in the scope as has been discussed with secretary kerry in terms of not introducing u.s. troops on the ground? >> the less limiting, the better off i will be in crafting a set of options, but i completely defer to the secretary of state to give me what i need to do that. >> our goal here is to not pass or even consider an authorization that seems so

general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s.orces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. we're also working with our allies and partners in this effort, key participates including france, turkey, saudi arabia and the united arab emirates and other friends in the region have assured us of their strong support for u.s. action. in defining our military objectives, we have made clear we're not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct military force. instead, we are contemplating actions tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to ultimately end the violence in syria. secretary kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties in syria move towards a negotiated transition. we're also committed to doing more to assist the syrian op position but assad must be held accountable. having defined the military interests and objectives, we also must examine the risks and consequences. as we all know, there are

general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s. forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. we are also working with our allies and our partners in this effort. key partners, including france, turkey, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates and friends in the region have assured us of their strong support of u.s. action. in defining our military objectives, we made clear that we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct military force. instead, we are contemplating actions that are tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to ultimately end the violence in syria. secretary kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties in syria move toward a negotiated transition. a transition that means a free and inclusive syria. we're also committed to doing more to assist the syrian opposition, but assad must be held accountable for using these weapons in defiance of the international community. having

but i'll ask general dempsey if he wants to add anything. but we, the department of defense, have not been directly involved in this. this is, as you know, covert action, and as secretary kerry noted, probably to go into much more detail would require a closed or classified hearing. >> as he's answering that, if you can be fairly brief, there is anything about the authorization that you're asking that in any way takes away from our stated strategy of empowering the vetted opposition to have the capacity over time to join in with a transition government, as we have stated from the beginning? is there anything about this authorization that in any way supplements that? >> to your question about the opposition, moderate opposition, the path to the resolution of the syrian conflict is through a developed capable moderate opposition, and we know how to do that. secondly, there's nothing in this resolution that would limit what we're doing now, but we're very focused on the response to the chemical weapons itch think that scent to that we would pro

the first two general dempsey. i think it is worth repeating, how do we strike the right balance between military action that is too insignificant to actually effectively deter or degrade assad's capabilities, and one that is decisive and overwhelming that it reaches beyond the scope of an authorization and actually becomes a regime change authorization e pre-k's i will not recommend an option that will not effectively deter and degrade. that is the task i have been given. not just based on intelligence but based on the resolution comes out of this committee. quick and could you accomplish that mission with an authorization that is limited in scope and terms of time duration and in the scope as has been discussed with secretary kerry in terms of not introducing u.s. troops on the ground ? the less limiting, the better off i will be in crafting a set completely but i different to the secretary of state to give me what i need to do that. here is to not pass or even consider an authorization that seems so narrow that

general dempsey -- so general dempsey does not run out of time with a few seconds to answer, we were going down a road that i want to pursue if i could. you raised concerns in the past about engaging militarily in the syrian conflict. obviously, you are here today to support a limited military reaction. you did start to say in your remarks that there are military outcomes in supporting the opposition. but you qualified as saying, that is not what we are doing here. i am concerned that regardless of our stated intent in this area, that others will not share that same view. that is not our intent. if you could, and in plenty of time i hope, could you just expand upon what your concerns were and maybe are that you had in the past that you stated so we have a better understanding of what they are and given you enough time to see what your views might be on how we can mitigate that or navigate around those concerns in the situation we are right now? >> i want to separate support for the opposition from acting in a limited focused way to deter and degrade the assad regime from use of chemi

general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s.ces will be ready to act when ever the president gives the order. we're also working with our allies and partners in this effort. key partners including france, turkey, saudi arabia and other friends in the region have assured us of their strong support. we have made sure we're not seeking to resolve the conflicts in syria. we're con templating actions that respond to the use of chemical weapons. secretary kerry is leading international efforts to help them move toward a transition. assad must be held accountable for using them weapons. having defined america's interests in our military objectives we also must examine the risks and the consequences. as we all know there are always risks in taking action. there are also risks within action. the assad regime urnnder increasing pressure could feel empowered to carry out more attacks. a refusal of that undermine the credibility of america's other security commitment including the president's commitment to prevent iran from acquiring nuclea

general dempsey testified before the house and senate. it is not just a matter of sending in missiles. they believe they can degrade assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons because they would destroy some of the infrastructure needed to do that. it is not just getting up the weapons themselves, but getting at the ability to deliver. knocking out aircraft, air , the, the runways airstrips. that is what they believe they can do. the timetable is not urgent. they can do this at any time. we mentioned odd couples, how about penpals? pope francis wrote to resident through 10. -- to putin. iiyou will recall, john paul , tose the u.s. war in iraq the point of sending his emissary to the white house to speak to george w. bush, a man of faith, to express that opposition. that, to me, is not a major surprise. acknowledged in the debate, it is not just petty or partisan, but there is a partficant main diminished of the american people in military intervention. to the problem, especially in the middle east. your original question, has he put his

but i'll ask general dempsey if he wants to add anything.epartment of defense, have not been directly involved in this. this is as you know, covert action. and as secretary kerry noted, to go into much more detail would require a closed or classified hearing. >> as he's answering that, if you could be fairly brief. is there anything about the authorization that you're asking that any any way takes away from our stated strategy of empowering the vetted opposition to have the capacity over time to join in with a transition government as we have stated from the beginning? there anything that supplements that? >> to your question about the opposition, the path to the resolution of the syrian conflict is through a developed capable, moderate opposition and we know how to do that. secondly, there's nothing in this resolution that would limit what we're doing now but we're very focused on the response to the chemical weapons. i think that subsequent to that, we would probably return to have a discussion about what we might do with the moderate oppo

one is a clarifying question to general dempsey. as i understand it, your testimony has been repeatedly that you have been given a mission to develop military options to "deter and by that means is chemical capabilities and so forth. you were not given a mission as i understand it to develop military options to demonstrate serious consequences to the neighbors for crossing an american red line. is that correct? >> i am not sure what you be my neighbor's. -- mean by neighbors.>> i'm severely talking about iran, korea -- >> no, the mission has never been didceived as aimed at the terrain -- detouring of others although clearly there is a relationship. >> i see another -- a number of members have stayed for several hours. i understand that some of them will be submitting questions for the record. i would ask witnesses to please respond promptly and with that, i think the witnesses and the members for being here. we are adjourned. if members will just hurled -- hold on until the witnesses can leave.>> mr. chairman, thank you, and member

. >> one president in support said that dempsey looked like he was a hot -- during the testimony. john kerry was aggressive and energetic and dempsey, all of his body language this person said, was almost difficult to watch. >> you can see the tension in the administration between the sort of dempsey camp and the kerry camp. it was pretty evident in that hearing. why is this happening? in part because the pentagon's view, the u.s. military's view of any kind of intervention like this is if you send u.s. troops in you better be sending them in to make a point that no one in the world is ever going to miss. so when the president says we are there to send a warning shot, the pentagon says we don't do warning shots. we do something to make it clear that you don't cross the u.s. military again. gwen: they don't do humanitarian missions either. >> they will if that is the sole mission, but in libya before ben zpwazz -- benghazi and all that that was considered a success not simply because they protected the people of benghazi but because in the end, the government failed and dempsey had

for general dempsey, mr. willson talked to humanitarian refugee cries -- crisis, how that might be added to from a strike but can you talk a little about your assessment, to the extent you can here, planning with the guards retaliation or response from iran or hezbollah as a result of strikes? >> without being specific, as you know, we've got -- we have mutual defense agreements with turkey through nato work jordan directly and of course with and l and we've got forces personnel who at times like this establish crisis coordination mechanisms. we've got personnel in those three countries doing exactly that. we've also both because of the current tension with syria but also the fact that the 9/11 anniversary will be here tomorrow, we've also got forces at heightened states of alert and readiness throughout the re-- throughout the re. >> i want to -- that's good enough for me for now. thanks. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have one question for secretary hagel, two for secr

general dempsey said the u.s. and intelligence agencies have been keeping watch on assad's movements, and the implication that the u.s. knows exactly where potential targets are. so there were--there have been some substantive exchanges as well as obvious political fire. >> mark jacobsen, what have you been taking note of in the hearings since we last spoke? >> i'm not ready to put a price tag on combating moral obscenity, but what is strike to go me is the discussion of complications on the ground, and secretary hagel said it perfectly. we're in an imperfect situation, and we have vie few if any good options. to address what else we may do is a challenge for the administration, not just these hearings, but the closed hearings as well as. most of the hearings have been substantive. one piece i would point to would juxtapose congressman duncan's remarks with the eloquent statement by the congressman from florida talking about the moral obligation of congress to act in this situation. >> if you would, stay where you

this is what i want general dempsey to talk about too. before you answer that, could you answer that - by degrading him, you make the extremists' forces stronger, do you not? >> no, i don't believe you do. as a matter of fact, i think you actually make the opposition stronger. the opposition is getting stronger by the day now. and i think general idris will tell you that, that he is not sitting around and his daily concern is not the opposition but assad - what he's doing with his scuds, aeroplanes, tanks and artillery to the people of syria. it's important to look at this because you raised the question of doesn't this make the united states the policeman of the world. no, it makes the united states a multilateral partner in an effort that the world 184 nations strong has accepted the responsibility for. if the united states, which has the greatest capacity to do that doesn't help lead that effort, then shame on us. then we are not standing up to our multilateral and humanitarian and strategic interests. that said... . >> can i stop you

last up, we have eileen ordman and dempsey. >> hello, tell us what happened to dempsey. >> dempsey was for his adoption and we use him to educate kids about the danger of fire. if it can do it to him, it can do it to you. >> a kid who was just willfully cruel. >> a teenager. >> what is going to happen with his leg? >> he has had ten surgeries at this point. help make his mobility more pain free. >> okay. wow. well, thank you so much. so jesse and taylor, what is in store for the winner? >> the winner gets a cameo. >> dempsey's staying. yeah. taking the spot. >> that's totally fine. >> the winner gets a cameo. you can vote today.com, i believe, you can vote, and october 1st they will announce a winner. >> right. okay. thank you so much. >> thank you. just for the voting, go to klgandhoda.com and vote for your favorite dog and we will announce who that is later. catch "chicago fire" tonight at 10/9 central on nbc. >> what's going on back there? >> gonna bite your butt. [ barking ] >> stop, drop and roll. [ barking ] >> roll! >> oh, nice. >> dempsey, you don't have to do it, honey. >> all

general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s. forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. we are also working with our allies and our partners, key partners including france, turkey, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, and other friends in the region. defining our military objectives, we have made clear we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct military force. instead we are contemplating actions that are tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to ultimately end of the violence in syria. secretary kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties in syria move forward to a negotiated transition. we are also committed to doing more to assist the syrian opposition, but assad must be held accountable for using these weapons in defiance of the international community. having defined america's interests and military objectives, we also must examine the risks. there are risks of taking a

for general dempsey, mr. willson talked to humanitarian refugee cries -- crisis, how that might be added to from a strike but can you talk a little about your assessment, to the extent you can here, planning with the guards retaliation or response from iran or hezbollah as a result of strikes? >> without being specific, as you know, we've got -- we have mutual defense agreements with turkey through nato work jordan directly and of course with israel and we've got forces and personnel who at times like this establish crisis coordination mechanisms. we've got personnel in those three countries doing exactly that. we've also both because of the current tension with syria but also the fact that the 9/11 anniversary will be here tomorrow, we've also got forces at heightened states of alert and readiness throughout the re-- throughout the re. >> i want to -- that's good enough for me for now. thanks. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have one question for secretary hagel, two for

general dempsey -- so general dempsey does not run out of time with a few seconds to answer, we were going down a road that i want to pursue if i could. the pastd concerns in about engaging militarily in the syrian conflict. obviously, you are here today to support a limited military reaction. to say in your remarks that there are military outcomes in supporting the opposition. qualified as saying, that is not what we are doing here. i am concerned that regardless of our stated intent in this area, that others will not share that same view. that is not our intent. if you could, and in plenty of time i hope, could you just expand upon what your concerns were and maybe are that you had in the past that you stated so we have a better understanding of what they are and given you enough time to see what your views might be on how we can mitigate that or navigate around those concerns in the situation we are right now? want to separate support for the opposition from acting in a limited focused way to deter and degrade the assad use of chemical weapons. the former, support for the oppositi

general dempsey especially remembers iraq. remember hagel when i -- and i remember iraq in a special way because we were here for that vote. we are especially sensitive to never again asking any member of congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence. that is why our intelligence committee has scrubbed and re- scrub the evidence. we have declassified unprecedented amounts of information and we asked the ofrican people and the rest the world to judge that information. we can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that our evidence proves the regime prepared for this attack, issued instructions to prepare for this attack, warrant its own forces to use gas masks. we have physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when. not one that rocket landed in regime-controlled territory. not one. all of them landed in opposition control or contested territory. we have a map, physical evidence showing every geographical impact, and that is concrete. within minutes of the attack, 90 to be precise, maybe slightly shorter, social media

. >> kerry, hagel and dempsey testified before the house foreign affairs committee. con citiesinconsisting of 45 mee republicans, and 21 are democrats. the heated exchange whe about te topic of bengahzi. >> this is not about getting into civil war. this is enforcing the principle that people should not be allowed to gas their civilians with impunity. it and assad feeling like he can do this any day he wants to. that's what this is about. he let's draw the proper distinction, congressman. we don't deserve to drag in the discussion of bengahzi when the real issue is whether the congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been wrong twice until assad, hitler and sa saddam hu hussein. libby joins us live from capitol hill. libby, what was john kerry's message today? >> we're hearing a lot of what we heard yesterday, the continuing message that secretary kerry as well as president obama are trying to convince members of congress, to be aware not just how to vote and move forward, but even the discussion because the intern

general dempsey, do you know the strength of the rebel forces? >> i don't have them committed to memory, senator. >> we have them. i can -- >> the intelligence community has that available and we'll make it available. >> you have a pretty good feel for how many would be moderate verse. office al qaeda. >> i have seen document documents that lay that out. >> hugh howe do we know that hezbollah already don't have access to chemical weapons? any feel for that at all? >> i think we need to talk about that in our classified session. but let me just say you that in terms of the opposition numbers, you serangs up to 80, another thousand, 100,000 in total opposition. you see ranges from -- well i don't want to go into the neighbors -- but the tens of thousands in terms of operative, active, combatants, i've even some recent data on the numbers of the extremist. now, they're actually lower than former expectations. i would also say to you, syria historically has been secular. and the vast majority of syrians, i believe, want to remain secular. it's our ju

i think everybody will be watching general dempsey very closely here.ve the opposition forces do have a core to them that is worth backing, were taken aback by general dempsey's testimony previous to this, he said there was no way we could undermine assad's very formidable forces with any sort of small strike. that would be striking a hornet's nest that would be a huge disaster. what has changed his mind on all that is a good question. >> what i understand talking to pentagon officials is the only reason general dempsey is on board with this mission and this strike is that it is so limited in nature, the strategic purpose of it is very narrow, in terms of punishing assad, degrading his ability, his military, degrading his ability and deterring him from using chemical weapons again. the question mark i have is how does it deter him from using chemical weapons again if he still has those stockpiles and he still has the delivery systems at the end of the day after they fire? they won't be firing more than 160 tomahawk missiles because we know that's about

general dempsey can tell you about this.ake -- it would take an exception, a purposeful exception that has been in force since 1925 and make it the rule today. it would undermine our standing, deroad america's credibility and erode our strength in the world. in a world of terrorists and extremists, we would choose to ignore those risks at our peril. we cannot afford to have chemical weapons transformed into the new, convenient weapon. the ied, the car bomb, the weapon of everyday use in this world. neither our country, nor our conscience can bear the cost of inaction. that's why we've come before you at the instruction of the president to ask you to join us in this effort. secretary hagel. >> mr. chairman, ranking member smith and members of the committee, the department of defense has responsibility to protect the national security interests of the united states. and general dempsey and i take that responsibility very seriously. that's why i strongly support president obama's decision to respond to the assad regime's chemic

one person the president didn't consult early was general dempsey. he gave him the cover he needed. >> he gave him cover and it's real. martin dempsey said it was just as effective today, tomorrow, or a month from now. and think of it this way, it's like a feint. the enemy, we watch the enemy, we watch the syrian regime and how they responded to the idea of an attack. where they started moving things. it may be more effective a month from now, because we can train more, we can watch what the syrian regime does and respond. they were ready. they had those destroyers in the mediterranean ready to go. >> this is still a limited strike. >> they say a limited strike to prevent and deter any more chemical attacks. >> for syria, we go to terry moran in beirut. and apparently, a lot of relief in damascus. >> reporter: a lot. this was more than good news, they claimed a victory in damascus. both the assad regime and his supporters. there are many of them here. the deputy prime minister saying it was the syrian army that warded off the aggression of the united

this is what i want secretary- general dempsey to talk about a little bit too.ould you answer that? by degrading him, you make these extremist forces stronger, do you not? >> i don't think you do. you actually make the opposition stronger. the opposition is getting stronger by the day. i think general idris would tell you that, that his daily concern is not the opposition. it is assad. what assad is doing with his scuds, with his airplanes, his tanks, his artillery to the people of syria. i think it is important also to look at this because you raise the question of, doesn't this make the united states the policeman of the world? no. it makes the united states a multilateral partner in an effort that the world has accepted the responsibility for. if the united states which has the greatest capacity to do that doesn't help lead the effort, then shame on us. we are not standing up to our multilateral and humanitarian and strategic interests. >> can i stop you, secretary kerry? if you're talking about multilateral efforts, what we are talking about is the world bei

john kerry and chuck hagel and general martin dempsey will have the first public hearing on the possible use of force in syria. the president is also making his case. >> this is not iraq and it's not afghanistan. this is a limited proportional step. it will send a message to syria and other countries that may be interested in testing these norms. >> president obama is confident he'll get congress to back his plan. others are pushing for them to vote. >> assad did it and hundreds of children were killed. this is behavior outside the circle of civilized human behavior. we must respond. >> this is something that the unites states as a country needs

but i just want general dempsey and secretary hagel to understand whether the mission is to degrade the weapons and deter the use of chemical weapons. have you put into that equation the fact that obviously, syria is aware that we are contemplating military action and therefore, may try to change the equation during this period of time to make it more difficult for us to carry out that mission? has that been brought into your planning stages? >> yes, senator, it has. and you know, time works both ways. you recall about a week and a half ago, there was a significant week of military planning that caused the regime to react. so time works both ways. we have some pretty significant intelligence capabilities and we continue to refine our targets. >> both of you have indicated your concern about american military involvement in syria

so i do think general dempsey is right on this. i might add on that last question about war.you attack a sovereign nation, that's an act of war. we haven't declared war since world war ii. but we have fought in many of them and i remember vietnam quite vividly. >> thank you very much. >>> coming up, john mccain dresses quote unquote scandal head on after he's caught on camera not exactly paying attention. stay with us. [ male announcer ] these heads belong to those who can't put life on hold because of a migraine. so they trust excedrin migraine to relieve pain fast. plus sensitivity to light, sound, even nausea. and it's #1 neurologist recommended. migraines are where excedrin excels. it's back to school time. and excedrin wants to make sure your child's school is equipped to help your child excel. purchase excedrin for a chance to win one of 5 $10,000 donations to your child's school. go to excedrin's facebook page to enter. to your child's school. so you can have a getaway from what you know. so you can be surprised by what you don't. get two times the points on travel and

even though general dempsey warned congress in a letter on july 19th these kind of standoff missions can cost billions, depending how long they last. >> is the congress of united states ready to pay for 30 days of 30,000 air strikes to take out and is there legal justification for doing that. >> reporter: republicans hawks and budget cutters on a collision course as they face debt ceiling negotiations, budget cuts and a month to defund obama care, while being asked to authorize another expensive military operation abroad. >> if we attack, we're open for escalation, and the first briefing i have on this a couple months ago i asked if we get into this, are you going to be serious, how far are we going to go. remember, we're still at war in afghanistan and we have cut about a trillion dollars out of our defense over the next ten years. we're asking them to do more with less. >> reporter: the republicans on the armed services committee suggest escalating costs could require going back to congress for more money. senator james inhofe quoted general dempsey from sequestration hearings earl

i remember iraq, and secretary hagel, who will soon be here, and general dempsey also remember it very well. secretary hagel and i both voted in the united states senate. so both of us are especially sensitive to never again asking any member of congress to vote on faulty intelligence. that is why our intelligence community took time. that's why the president took time, to make certain of the facts and make certain of this case and to declassify unprecedented amounts of information in order to scrub and rescrub the evidence and present the facts to the american people and especially to the congress. through you to the american people. we have declassified unprecedented amounts of information, some of it, i might add, not because initially that might have been the instinct in the sense of protecting sources

general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s.forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. we are also working with our allies and our partners, key partners including france, turkey, saudi arabia, the united arab immigrant -- the united arab emirates, and other friends in the region. defining our military objectives, we have made clear we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct military force. are contemplating actions that are tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only way to ultimately end of the violence in syria. secretary kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties in syria move forward to a negotiated transition. we are also committed to doing more to assist the syrian opposition, but assad must be held accountable for using these weapons in defiance of the international community. andng defined america's trysts and military objectives, we also must examine the risks -- having defin

defense secretary hagel and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey at that meeting. at 11:30 senate foreign relations will have a open business meeting where they will discuss the resolution, continue to rewrite it, possibly vote on it. at noon, as we mentioned, that key house foreign affairs committee. that one is open, and that's secretary kerry, secretary hagel, and again chairman of the joint chiefs, general martin dempsey. so top administration officials here going back and forth between the chambers making their case trying to get everyone on board. >> this is what legislators go to capitol hill to do, paul. thank you so much. let's go back now to stockholm sweden with mike. we got the signal back up. that's good. the president certainly made a lot of news in this joint press conference earlier today. take it away, mike. >> reporter: right. you said it before, richelle. this was supposed to be all about smiles and ceremonies. there are dinners and ceremonial visits, wreath-laying, things of that nature. the first president to have a bilateral visit to

general dempsey will tell you about this. it will take an exception, one that has been in force since 1925 and make it the rule today raided it would undermine understandings and degrade america's security and the road our strength in the world. in a world where terrorists and extremists, we would choose to ignore those risks at our peril. we cannot afford to have chemical weapons transform into the new and convenient weapons, the weapon of everyday use in this world. we cannot bear the cost of inaction, and that is why we come before you at the instruction of the president to ask you to join us in this effort. >> mr. chairman, ranking member smith, and members of the committee, the department of defense has a responsibility to protect the national security interests of the united states. general dempsey and i take that responsibility very seriously. that is why i strongly support the president obama's decision to respond to the assad attack on the people. the heinous gas assault on innocent civilians including women and chil

i remember iraq, and secretary hagel, who will soon be here, and general dempsey also remember it very well. secretary hagel and i both voted in the united states senate. so both of us are especially sensitive to never again asking any member of congress to vote on faulty intelligence. that is why our intelligence community took time. that's why the president took time, to make certain of the facts and make certain of this case and to declassify unprecedented amounts of information in order to scrub and rescrub the evidence and present the facts to