goal number two, deter this behavior in the future. and goal number three, deter their capacity to allow this in the future. the questions that i have, quite frankly, i'm a bit skeptical, that what the president is asking for will provide the support needed to achieve these objectives. and that these objectives are even realistic at this point. here's my first question. and i'll ask this of senator dempsey. the calculation that assad has made is that the reason why he's using these chemical weapons is because he's afraid if he doesn't, he can lose this war, be overthrown and kill. that's the calculation that he's made. he wants to beat the rebels. so my question is this. can we structure an attack that tips that calculation, where we'll basically decide that he would rather risk being overrun by rebels than risking a limited attack from the u.s. if he uses these chemical weapons? he has to decide, i'll use chemical weapons and take on a limited u.s. attack in the future or i'll risk being overrun by the rebels. how are we going to unba

do we keep it to the goal of degrade and deterring? >> the task was to do that, deter and degrade, not - and to be limited and focussed in scope and duration. that's the task i have been given. >> how can you calibrate that? >> we can calibrate it on our side. there's a risk of escalation on the other. they have significantly limited capabilities to do so. most of the intelligence informs us - we can talk about that in the closing. >> what planning is being undertaken now in case this does spin out of control? we are talking about potential for boots on the ground. secretary kerry, i'm glad to hear you are bringing into the equation, the chemical weapons falling into the hands of al-qaeda elements or hesbollah. what commitment long term do we have, how do we know we will prevent that from happening? >> at this moment in time, as the president has said, he is asking for a limited military response recognising that neither he nor most of america want to be dragged into a civil war in syria. >> our goal is to get rid of assad. >> our goal

they will also replace the deter ated stucco in kind, and upon completion of the structural work and repaint the front to match the 1940s light with black detailed paint scheme and they will also replace the 2 story medal frame, lobby window with the two wood frame windows flanking the entry at the first and second floors all in kind. and i do have a new detail for the medal framed, lobby window. and which they were able to submit this week and we will look closely to the original glazing profile and then what is, it is shown in your packets what i shown in your packets has rectangular and what is submitted will have a spoked profile. >> and next, there will, rebuild the raised planner beds in the front and set backyard area and replace the non-historic glading with a raised black tile to closely match the original with the tile and the metal detail as shown in the 1940 photograph and the product sample of the tile of what they are planning to use and next they will replace the damaged metal front doors in kind also, to replace the handles to match the original 1940s design and next

two is to deter this behavior in the future. and three is to degrade assad's capacity to carry out these attacks in the future. this is the president wants us to authorize a limited strike that would accomplish these three things. the questions that i have quite frankly, i'm a bit skeptical. that the act what the president is asking fwlor provide the support needed to achieve these objectatives and that these objectives are even realistic at this point. here's my first question and i think i'll ask this of general demp i. the calculation that assad has made is that the reason why he's using these chemical weapons is he's afraid if he doesn't, he could lose this war, be overthrown and killed. that's the calculation he's made. that's why he used these weapons. he wants to beat the rebels. my question is this. can we structure an attack thaech indianapolis that calculation where he'll basically decide that he would rather risk being overrun by rebels than risking a limited attack from the u.s. if he uses these chemical weapons? he

deterring the use of chemical weapons. degrading assad's capabilities.others have asked if it is worth doing if we do not take out assad. some members of congress said there is no point in doing a pin prick strike in syria. let me make something clear -- the united states military does not do pin pricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. i don't think we should remove another dictator with force. we learned in iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. but a targeted strike can make assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons. other questions are about the dangers of retaliation. we don't dismiss any threats, but the assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats we face every day. neither assad, nor his allies, have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. our ally israel can defend itself with force, along with the support of the u.s. many of you hav

in other words, regardless of what happens with this particular issue, deterring assad, there will be continued u.s. support of the opposition on the ground. >> mr. jacobsen, stand by for a moment. we have interesting poll numbers to share with people. according to the latest polling, president obama is facing an uphill battle to convince americans to support military strikes in syria. the pew research center surveyed 1 # thousa-- 1,000 people. 29% said they support military action, but nearly half, 48%, said they're against it. 23% said they don't know. the survey also asked if americans fear a long commitment in syria, should there be a u.s.-led response? about two-thirds of those questioned, 61% said yes and and 26% not no. they asked if you enthuse a military strike will discourage the use of chemical weapons. 33% said yet and and 16% it issed they don't know. back to randall pinkston. when you hear numbers like that, it is clear what the president and his team are up against, and it's clear that today secretary of state kerry, secretary of defense chuck hagel, chairman of the joi

he is asking for authorization, targeted and limited to deter and degrade bashar al-assad i will make it clear. for those who feel that more ought to be done and in keeping the policy that assad may go, the degradation has an impact on the totality of the weapons available. it will have an impact on the battlefield. today i read an e-mail to me about a general, the minister of defense and has just dissected and is now in turkey. we are hearing about the potential. shere will be downstream impact though that is not the principal purpose. if we do nothing, what is the likelihood in your country that last year all assad will use chemical weapons as a routine weapon to turn the tide of the civil war? >> the likelihood is very high. he would use them again. >> mr. secretary. >> i agree completely. i may even put it out 100%. should go check the intel on it. i think you will be convinced. probably 100%. >> if you are right, that it is 100% we will see them used routinely in the civil war, what is the probability that such weapons will also get into the hands of has both the and other elemen

>> 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 narrow that it prevents any effective message to be sent here, as i think you said in a compelling way in your opening statement. our actions here are not just meant to deter assad but to send a strong message to actors around the world who might use chemical weapons or who might keep nuclear weapons. how do we craft an authorization, how do we take action that is effective in deterring other countrie

which would indeed deter the great. honorable members i think when asd a point a number of ways how can we be certain any action will work? any action wouldn't have to be repeatedded. flankly, these are judgment issues. the only firm judgment i think question come to if nothing is done we're likely to see more chemical weapons used. giving away a lot the joint intelligence committee say that back to the motivation for us assad using chemical weapons, they say they have a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgment o the regime is responsible. i appreciat the prime minister cannot share such intelligence with the house as a whole. members of the all-party intelligence and security committee have top secret clearance to look at precisely this sort of material. as members of the mmittee some support and some oppose the military intervention would he be willing, for members of the committee to see that material? >> i'm very happy to consider that request, because the intelligence and security commit

theegrading and deterring use of chemical weapons. if at any moment assad were foolish enough to believe that this time of waiting is somehow an invitation to do more of this criminal activity, i can assure you that the president of the united states -- and i think you all would probably speed up your process and hope the president would respond immediately. this is working. there are defections taking place. there is great uncertainty in syria. we are building support and greater understanding, and i would far rather be playing our hand at -- then he is at this point in time. i don't think we are losing anything. i think the president made a courageous decision to take the time to build the strength that makes america stronger, by acting in unity with the united states congress. >> if i may, i can surly therstand that that is secondary goal, or the primary that in the intervening time, and causes our allies to get with us, and causes russia to maybe put the pressure on to the assad regime, something like that is great, but purely in

nobody has said other than to deter, degrade. but what happens if it doesn't deter? what's next? nobody knows that. >> boots would have to be on the ground. >> nobody is talking about getting rid of chemical weapons. if you don't, how can you prevent him from getting them again, and if the bigger goal is to stop the violence in the mideast, we're looking at 30 years of war as radical sunniess and shyites line up. >> when john mccain and lip si gray lamb met with the president to discuss this, they came out of the meeting, mccain's point of view -- there are were more assurances for toughening this up, beyond lobbing missiles and calling it a day. some might say we're being very clear about our goals and put some teeth into this. others would be just as much dissuadessed by the motion that we're -- he i doing -- the president -- what we thought. >> they're talk out of both sites of the mother. secretary kerry keeps saying no boots on the ground. senator mccain said the president's going to make a real difference, going to deter them, going stop them you can't have it both ways. i

. -- degrading and deterring the use of chemical weapons. it has to be done in a way that the text civilians the best we can. it is going to be a very limited duration. i want to come back to the point that the chairman raised in your own comments. you said we should shut that door as tightly as possible when dealing with putting our troops on the ground in syria. i have read the resolution that you presented to us. i think it is rotter and what you have -- broader than what you have stated. i understand that and i understand the president's strong desire to keep the mission very tight. it certainly does not close the door on the introduction of ground troops. i have also heard your comments about the unexpected, something could happen. i would just point out that the president as commander-in-chief has the authority, the inherent authority to act in urgent situations when time requires that action. i would suggest as you have come to congress for this authorization, if circumstances change and there's time to come to congress, you will have

obviously we heard him define a strategy last night about deterring and degrading assad from using chemical weapons and there's an opportunity there clearly for russia. but he has outlined a plan for stabilizing the region and toppling assad. and he's been actually exercising it for the last two years. $1 billion in humanitarian aid. crippling sanctions and supplying weapons to the vetted opposition, the moderate opposition so that they can fight assad's forces -- >> stephanie, he still -- >> that's the plan. >> he still wavers between having a military or a political solution. >> why can't you do both? >> i disagree with you. >> yes, he is. >> he said he's going too far too fast and he should do something other than military. >> your caucus is doing the same thing. >> correct. and now there's the potential to satisfy them, those in your caucus and my caucus who don't support a military strike. now you're criticizing him for trying to satisfy that possibility. i think we've got to keep reasonably all the options on the table and make decisions based on what is in our best interest. and reme

presidents often draw red lines in order to deter action.usually, they deter that action to our benefit and at no cost. when the president drew that red line for i'm not aware of anyone in this room who criticized it or disassociate themselves from that red line. now assad has crossed that red line. it is america's red line. if we do not act, he will use chemical weapons many times in the future. they may be decisively successful for him. and dictators for decades to come will learn from assad's lesson. chemical weapons use on civilians in and mass scale the is effective. in picking targets, gentlemen, you will be torn between the germane and the effective. germane would be directly related to chemical weapons. but we want assad to keep control of his chemical weapons. you'll be seeking out targets related to the storage or delivery or control of chemical weapons. instead, i think you should focus on punishing and deterring assad by having a valuable asset that will demonstrate to him that it was a military mistake to use chemical weapons. e

if assad was not deterred by a few words why would he be deterred guy eye fe a few missi. neil.eil: thank you peter. we have on phone with us former house majority leader dick earl, army, a crucial vote on the iraq war that bush front wa 41 was seekit did you think of this president? did he change minds? >> i thought he did -- he gave a good speech, if i didn't know who the man was, i might have felt a great deal of commitment there. but, my problem, i think in his problem with this, everyone will remember benghazi. he does not have the credibility to for this speech to hole hold up for long, i don't think in long run, his speech gets him any more than a handful of democrat votes. because i don't think he has the personal credibility to support that speech after a few moment spot with anyone on the republican side of the aisle . neil: so, the house even with delayed vote still votes again it senate, does the same. would the president be in any legal hot water, constitutional hot water, if he were to pursue act on his own? >> i don't think so, there has been a pattern of congress

if assad was not deterred by a few words why would he be deterred guy eye fe a few missi. neil.eil: thank you peter. we have on phone with us former house majority leader dick earl, army, a crucial vote on the iraq war that bush front wa 41 was seekit did you think of this president? did he change minds? >> i thought he did -- he gave a good speech, if i didn't know who the manas, i might have felt a great deal of commitment there. but, my problem, i think in his problem with this, everyone will remember benghazi. he does not have the credibility to for this speech to hole hold up for long, i don't think in long run, his speech gets him any more than a handful of democrat votes. because i don't think he has the personal credibility to support that speech after a few moment spot with anyone on the republican side of the aisle . neil: so, the house even with delayed vote still votes again it senate, does the same. would the president be in any legal hot water, constitutional hot water, if he were to pursue act on his own? >> i don't think s there has been a pattern of congress eve

another goal to the president deterring chemical weapons in future conflicts against american forces. you're right. people say there are already 100,000 people killed, why ban chemical weapons. there's a reason the world since world war i has had this prohibition it's because they are mass killing machines and they kill people indiscriminate indiscriminately. let me make this final point. if you look at the largest massacre in syria with conventional weapons, about 100 people got killed. it was awful. in the chemical weapons attack ten times that many people got killed because of their mass indiscriminate nature, which is why the world made the decision these are different kinds of weapons that should be banned. >> to be clear, i think there are a lot of people that support both the ending of the humanitarian disaster and a clear statement and action on the question of international weaponry and international quorum to make sure bad actors don't have them. to jonathan capehart with a question for you. >> back to the proposal you have. there's a 30-day window for the president to act u

will they deter assad or make the situation even worse?nvolvement in the syrian civil war? joining me now to discuss all this is michele flournoy, former undersecretary of defense in this administration and key adviser to development of national security and defense policy. now a senior adviser for the boston consultant group. >> good to see you. >> what is the answer? would limited air strikes make it worse? would it deter assad? >> look, i think there are very important stakes involved here. first, the issue of upholding the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. second, u.s. credibility and leadership in the world. and third, knowing that the rest of the world is watching. what messages does iran take from either action or inaction? so i do think that limited, focused, strikes, focused on deterring further use of chemical weapons, degrading assad's ability to carry out such attacks, that those are something we need to support and we need to do. but i also think we need to better explain to the american people and to con

this is a limited strike tois m program to deter assad from using again but also deter others watchingrosecute using chemical weapons so the united states means what it says. there are consequences to violating this international norm that's been in place for a very long time with 98% of the world population signed onto. now, you always want to use military strikes with the american people behind you. let's face reality here. this is a fatigued country when it comes to war for very good reason. we've been at war for over a decade. some of it was fumbled. i'm not trying to place blame on a previous president, those are realities that we're dealing with. that's particularly why the president went to congress. he knows how grave the decisions are and wants american people behind him. now, does commander in chief have the ability to act even when the american people aren't behind him or without congressional authorization? yes, he does. will this president do that? i don't know. >> let me ask you a question here. let's say congress says no. forget what the president then does. what does th

prevent or deter the use of proliferation. toluding the transfer terrorist groups or other state or nonstate actors of chemical and biological weapons. this is something we are genuinely concerned about. not just that assad might transfer those chemical weapons to some other actors, but at that moment, that the transfer would be taking place. taking out the generalized response paragraph number the specific language that says, the president is authorized to use military force to revenge the transfer to terrorist groups within syria of any weapons of mass destruction. >> it seems very similar to what i was trying to accomplish with my own amendment. i would like to asked senator durbin, i think this accomplishes about the same thing. i am not 100% sure. reasons --primary the event and syria pose a national security threat is those chemical weapons stockpiles. i would like to work with you and be assured that what you are doing is the exact same thing is what i was trying to do with my amendment. >> i think we are on the same tr

you cannot deter them because you would not know where to strike.his is a dilemma for the u.s., and how hard to hit to deter the use of these weapons without changing a battlefield in syria? >> by the way, i want to say the white house deputy national security advisor has just said that in the white house going to be taking a hard look at russia's offer to pressure syria to secure chemical weapons stockpiles that the u.s. would welcome the move by syria to give up chemical weapons. if did look like a blunder to you, josh was? , they are going to respond and they have to. it is an offer to end this without a military strike to solve the problem. -- >> they are going to respond and they have to. first obama has to get this vote to proceed according to plan and congress. he needs the boat behind him and he can tinker with how to respond -- he needs the vote behind him and he can tinker with how to respond. >> to think obama launched that media blitz to reverse the public opinion squarely against intervention. obama also trying to bolster people abroad

deter the use of weapons of ass destruction. it is linked to the use of weapons of mass destruction. respond, i think is so generic and so general that it can include any military action which would be a response, but it is not a response limited to the future use of this weapons. >> what if that first paragraph were to read, only to deter and degrade the use of weapons of mass destruction by the government of syria? >> that would be repetitive but it wouldn't be nconsistent. >> if you could accept that. >> i can accept that if we can add the fourth paragraph that senator corker has talked about and senator johnson and i discussed, the prevention of transport of these weapons to errorist groups. >> do you need the entire phrase stated, or is it good enough to prevent the transfer to terrorist groups -- >> i think that is sufficient. the language i have goes on to explain that but you use weapons of mass destruction. yours is sufficient. >> i appreciate the concern that you have, senator durbin. this is the core of the authorizat

. >> degrade, deter, and also to further arm the opposition seems to be the two prongs of this approach to this policy. >> arm, operate, and enhance. >> yes, operate and enhance. we'll get back to that hearing in just a moment. you're watching al jazeera. >> welcome back to al jazeera. we're following the house of four affairs meeting as they discuss whether to use military force against syria. secretary john kerry, general dempsey and secretary chuck hagel is there as well. the senate of foreign affairs committee are expected to vote in two hours time. but now let's live to the testimony. >> the germane and the effective. germane would be directly related to chemical weapons. but the fact is we want assad to control, store, and keep control of his chemical weapons. and so you'll be seeking out targets some how related to the creations storage control or delivery of chemical weapons, and i think that instead you should focus on punishing and deterring assad by hitting valuable assets that will demonstrate to him that it was a military mistake to hit with chemical weapons, even with the

we talk about deter rents. but the critical one is american decisiveness and commitment to the region. and unless and until that's there, we're not impressing our allies or really threatening assad. >> he has to go back to the red line comment the president made. everyone heard that and knows what it means. >> everybody knows what that means. but even if he hadn't made that comment, event in the face of these pictures, and more than a few syrians gassed, including children, i wonder if he'd act anyway. >> you would think he would. as america, as a leader, you think he would. >> take a quick break. coming up much more. plus christiane amanpour with more. can the president round up support. >>> pierre thomas with the increased risk to the homeland, and the roundtable with the president's surprise challenge to congress. help the gulf when we made recover and learn the gulf, bp from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added

presidents often dry red lines in order to deter action. usually they deter that action to our benefit and at no cost. when the president drew that red line, i'm not aware of anyone in this room who criticized it or disassociated themselves from that red line. now, assad has crossed that red line. it is america's red line. if we do not act assad will use chemical weapons many times in the future. they may will successful for him and dictators for decades to come with learn from assad's lesson that chemical weapons on civilians used on a mass scale can be effective and the protocol against their use is a dead letter. in picking targets, you're going to be torn between the germane and the effective. germane would be directly related to chemical weapons, but the fact is we want assad to control store and keep control of his chemical weapons. you'll be seeking out targets related to the creation storage control or delivery of chemical weapons. i think instead you should focus on punishing and deterring assad by hitting valuable assets that will

so i think it was that that deterred the use of chemicals.ow that the syrians declared the chemicals, that's a major step. once you declare it, you almost have to get rid of them. that was a very successful move. but why are we concerned about syria? that's a great question. you look at the region syria's in. you've got other allies there that we're concerned about. turkey, iraq, to the east. jordan is really being destabilized because of the influx of refugees. the largest, the fourth largest city isn't jordan is a syrian refugee camp and lebanon, arwa just reported, this is a real, turning this into a real tinderbox over there. of course, you always cannot talk about this area unless you realize the threat to israel, and nobody wants to say that, but we are very concerned about israeli security as well. >> so that's -- again, it's israeli security, the tinderbox over there. ultimately our shores right here in the united states of america. again, in middle america right now you want to know why would this be on my doorstep again? >> that's t

has not deterred assad? each of you has made a distinction between this limited strike in providing aid to opposition forces by weakening assad with this below, are we in directing -- indirectly assisting the opposition forces? and with the use of chemical weapons, you stated that the target you're talking about will be linked to means of control of these chemical weapons without actually releasing the weapons themselves. i wonder what your strategy and objectives are regarding securing these weapons across syria, especially if the regime falls. how we secure them given the nonsupport from russia and china? people who have stated explicitly their desire to harm our people and american interest. >> very good questions. thank you for your service. very very much. general, if you want to take the last one. >> i can do that. this is what we get for training you had to ask questions. and thanks for your service. i will take on the question of security of the weapons in the event of the fall of the regime. we have

they do have to degrade and deter. the question is whether they will. the record in using standoff weapons in the past is tried in sudan against al qaeda. hit the wrong target and we had no damage. we tried it twice in iraq in the 90s without doing any significant damage to the capabilities. or his outlook. we tried it in afghanistan prior to 9/11 with similar lack of results. i hope it will be better this time. but that remains to be seen. most of us have seen general dempsey's letter written two days before the chemical attacks in which he laid out his military judgment that for military action to be effective, it would have to be very large scale. very costly. both in blood and in treasure. we will just have to see the worst out come i think for us is to launch strikes and discover that they did not significantly degrade his chemical or conventional capabilities and he simply thumbs his nose at us and carries on with the war. then what? >> in fact only today assad got an interview with the ambassador that said the mideast is a powder keg and the name

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

we've been told that the purpose of these strikes is to deter and degrade assad's regime's ability to use chemical weapons. so let's take a closer look at these aims. first, no one disputes that the atrocities committed in syria in recent weeks are unspeakable. no one disputes that those responsible for these crimes against the innocent should be held to account. we were absolutely right, of course, to condemn these crimes. but let's be very clear about something, these attacks, monstrous as they are, were not a direct attack against the united states or one of its treaty allies. and just so there's no confusion, let me assure everyone that if a weapon of mass destruction were used against the u.s. or our allies congress would react immediately with an authorization of use for support and i would introduce the resolution myself. so no leader in north korea or iran or any other enemy of the united states should take any solace if the u.s. were not to respond to these attacks with an action against syria. we will never, never tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the united state

being alone did not deter officer simmons of his duty to protect the public. he did so with his own risk of personal safety and his actions displayed courage. ladies and gentlemen, officer simmons is awarded the silver medal of valor. [applause] >> officer michael simmons. [applause] captain mcfadden, please. and may i have sergeant dominco defida. >> on october 25, 2012, at approximately 1:30 in the morning. sergeant domenico was working as an investigator with the major crimes investigation unit. while conducting a robbery investigation, sergeant noticed a gray buick pass by him. he again noticed the vehicle as he surveilled areas around for possible robberies. as he drove the area, sergeant noticed that the same buick was traveling behind him and following closely. sergeant made several attempts to elude the vehicle behind him. though it continued to follow closely as he made multiple turns. and sergeant decided to make a u-turn to see if the vehicle would follow him and it followed closely behind. at silver avenue, the vehicle pulled up to sergeant's vehic

what this was about was making sure that we could deter and degrade assad's ability to do this again. >> but it was about deterring and punishing assad in some fashion for the chemical attack. >> yes -- >> one of the other complaints is there is no punishment for those who have murdered more than 1400 people, including 400 children, innocent civilians. but let me ask you about the congressional side of this because if the -- the president made a case last night, a strong moral argument, and then the speech took that turn away from it. it seemed a little, you know, sort of schizophrenic, frankly. on the one hand, we have -- we're the leaders and the only country that can do this. on the other hand, let's wait, let's delay and see if diplomacy can work. which is fine. but do you really think this diplomacy can work? >> i think the president was clear and concise last night. because from the beginning -- remember, he's always said that we prefer and a top priority would be for a political and diplomatic solution. make no mistake, the one thing we can have confidence about is that syria a

one, the considering deterring the use of chemical weapons in the future, is a u.s. strike against syria and the assad regime have to include specific targeting of assad himself in order to be effective, or to be sufficiently severe that it clearly leads to his near-term downfall? i wonder if he is able to survive this, that level has not been reached, it will not be an effective act that deters future use of chemical weapons. the second question would be, what happens if you do get assad in a strike, either intentionally or unintentionally? what is going to be the immediate impact on the ground in terms of the relationship to the moderates in the opposition and the more extremists that we have less of a preference for? >> thanks. one more. >> michelle, from the atlantic council. it seems that the president's motivations regarding actions in syria spring from issues other than syria, right, from the iran issue and the credibility of u.s. red lines, and another thing i think he had in mind at an early stage was the stability of jordan, a major regional ally that has n

they have to be deterred.hink some of his most interesting language was degrade the regime's overall military capabilities. that may be half a step beyond what we've heard so far. most of the language is really centered around trying to deter assad from using his chemical warfare capabilities. overall military capabilities gets into a lot more. we'll see. one critical thing we don't know is did the white house solicit petraeus to issue this statement. we're trying to find that out. we haven't been able to yet. it's always possible, we don't flow, that he have asked to lend his support to help change some of those minds in congress. >> glad you say that. i want to get to this quickly. john mccain already tweeted out the petraeus statement calling him the most respected military leader of our time. how much influence does petraeus carry with members of congress? >> he does. we've seen for years through all of his tours in iraq, afghanistan, while he was cia director and perhaps most relevant to this case, while

i'd far rather be where the president of the united states is ready to show him that he can deter and degrade his capacity to do this with the obvious threat that more could be done if necessary as opposed to sending him a message that the chemical weapons con quenks that has been in place since 1925 as a result of world war i no longer means anything, that the world will look the other way and iran and north korea and z hezbollah and others will look at the united states and say nothing means anything. that's what's at stake. and the president has made his decision. this is squarely now in the hands of congress. and i have confidence that my former colleagues in the united states senate and my friends in the house, they will do what is wright because they understand the stakes. >> and mr. secretary, is the president's legacy also on the line here? >> you know, this is not a time for legacy and all of that discussion. this is a time to recognize that here in this country we have a very important decision to make about its united states, the interests of our friends. i ask any american

any military action will be a meaningful, time limited response to deter the regime from using chemicaleapons again and to degrade its ability to do so. from the start of the conflict the president has consistently demonstrated that he will not put american boots on the ground to fight another war in the middle east. the draft resolution before congress makes this clear. president obama is seeking your support to employ limited military means to achieve very specific ends to degrade assad's capacity to use these weapons again and deter others in the world who might follow suit. and the united states has the police republican as a country to maintain these limits. limited military action will not be designed to solve the entire syria problem, not even the most ardent proponents believe that peace can be achieved through military means. but this action should have the effect of reinforcing our larger strategy for addressing the crisis in syria. by degrading assad's capacity to deliver chemical weapons we will limit his ability to strike by conventional means. in addition, this operation c

let me tell you, if the united states is now in a position where we are deterred by them, we're in a very sorry place. >> that's completely the wrong way to look at this. anyone recognizes right now, in fact, the general who's in charge of this attack said himself that our attack siing sa is an act of war. if you throw a punch, you better be ready for someone else to throw a punch at you or maybe fire a gun at you. >> let me issue a follow-up. as recently as today, secretary kerry indicated very clearly that he thought the threat of force was essential to getting the russians and the syrians to be real. now, to what extent are you saying that you think the russians who have also had pretty good intelligence in this country can simply look and realize the president is not going to be able to get the kind of support he needs to have a serious threat of force, unless he operates by not going to the congress? >> well, in fact, i do believe that putin has access to "the washington post" website. so that much is true. i imagine syria also has access to "the washington post" website, so muc

that is what has set us into this path that has an effect of deterring assad from these weapons. even if you had some sanction, if it isn't meaningful in a way that is going to deter the action and no one has yet contrived of some piece of paper or terminology with respect to what he is fighting for. the judgment has been made that the only way to have an impact and hold him accountable is to make it clear to him that this will, in fact, detract from his andlity to abuse his people. to use force to stay in power. >> i think what the secretary said is exactly right. i would add two things. there are a number of tracks we are on right now to accomplish what you're are talking about. secretary kerry's diplomatic track which has been ongoing and intense. reaching out to our allies all over the world. i was in asia last week with 15 defense ministers from all over asia discussing this. meeting with leaders. our nato allies. all three of us have been talking to our counterparts from countries all over the world. what did the white house is doing. what the president is doing. we are sti

deterring the use of chemical weapons. deterring assad's capability. worth have asked if it is doing if we do not take out assad. some members of congress said there is no point in doing a pin prick strike in syria. the united states military does not do pin pricks. even a limited strike will send a message that no other nation can deliver. i don't think we should remove another dictator with force. we learned that doing so makes us responsible for all to come six. a targeted strike can take assad think twice before using chemical weapons. other questions about the dangers of retaliation. threats,dismiss any but the assad regime does not have the ability to threaten our military. any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats we face every day. neither assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation at woodley to his demise -- that would lead to his despised -- demise. many of you have asked a broader question. why should we get involved at all in a place that is so cap located -- so complicated? those who come after assad may be en

news at 11:00 starts now (this would be a targeted strike to deter the use of chemical weapons. >>> at 11:00, the president facing the nation. i'm pam moore. the president delivered an address to the nation. >> reporter: there was definitely a lot at stake for president obama as many remain skeptic about a strike against syria. the president tried to answer concerns. >> tonight i want to talk to you about syria. >> reporter: the president argued that the us must be prepare today act. >> the purpose of the strike is to deter assad from using chemical weapons and to make clear to the to world we will not tolerate their use. >> reporter: he assured americans no boots on the ground. >> i will not pursue an open ended action. >> reporter: the president laid out the evidence of the august attack and said the regime of bashar al assad -- >> men, women, children, lying in rows killed by poison gas. >> reporter: as the president makes his case for military action, an alternative emerged tuesday. syria agreed to turn over chemical weapons to russia but hurdles remained. >> this has the potential

the way to deter the future use of chemical weapons in syria is to get rid of assad. one guy to use them. but senator kerry gave an opening to the hawks when he said the military option is limited, it's just to deter and punish the use of chemical weapons, but our political aim remains to get rid of assad and we will weaken assad appreciably. and i do think in fact there will be a way to recognize the views of the hawks like senator mccain and graham, maybe give the doves in congress something say nothing ground troops, at least for now, perhaps we should try to end this quickly. people forget this is a dynamic process. this authorization will go to the senate foreign relations committee for mark-up next week. >> inwrin in a broadway allowing for lots of marking up. the members of congress say we made it better. but don't you have to have an agreed-upon goal? senator paul, for instance, can say i'm against this because this is about regime change. i don't care what you say. how do you then make the case -- and i guess that's what the sarin gas revelation was about tod

presidents often draw red lines in order to deter action. usually, they deter that action to our benefit and at no cost. when the president drew that red line for i'm not aware of anyone in this room who criticized it or disassociate themselves from that red line. now assad has crossed that red line. it is america's red line. if we do not act, he will use chemical weapons many times in the future. they may be decisively successful for him. and dictators for decades to come will learn from assad's lesson. chemical weapons use on civilians in and mass scale the is effective. in picking targets, gentlemen, you will be torn between the germane and the effective. germane would be directly related to chemical weapons. but we want assad to keep control of his chemical weapons. you'll be seeking out targets related to the storage or delivery or control of chemical weapons. instead, i think you should focus on punishing and deterring assad by having a valuable asset that will demonstrate to him that it was a military mistake to use chemical weapons.

you will deter it and change the calculus. they had a price to pay for the mass gassing of civilians. there is some evidence where they were cautioning against doing this. what we need to do is set the balance. here is deciding whether or not you will use mass poisoning and you decide it's not there. >> if this is going to go to this resolution. will we ever see a resolution get defeated? we will take this one step at a time. we will see what happens in the senate. at this point in time, if there is resolution that has any chance of passage, it will be narrow are likely drawn at this point in time. is it better to have it poled? >> i would not want to see defeat in this issue. all the other things to do for the president and the country. >>>. >> i think that again, one step at a time. i think thatty woo will see what happens in the senate. what is the west bay. >> my guess. thanks very much. much more to come here on "the daily rundown." we have notes from across the country. actual election hearings going on in the next 24 ho

. >> the limited purpose of deterring and degrading, whether we should use military force, i believe there are other ways we can contribute to that through the development of modern opposition but i remain cautious about taking the opposition's role in this. >> thank you, mr. chairman, the use of chemical weapons are clear, compelling and irrefutable. but history is as well. the situation in syria is that of a national civil war. it's a conflict that america cannot solve and should not try to. this is not a fight for freedom and democracy. there is democracy movement in syria. there is no unifying vision, a constitution, or even a pre pree of what syria wants to become. this is nothing more than a fight between syrian factions, the syrian regime in the midst of those with no air power. it is a conflict between a murderous and brutal dictator and opposition whose best fighters are represented by al-qaida affiliates and islamic extremists bent on creating islamist state in syria. there are no good options, military options between the united states and syria. add iraq and afghanistan w