the nature of administration the united states the iranians agreed to talks with the united states in iraq again the united states simply increased sanctions against the country and now as soon as president rouhani comes to power the united states implements even further sanctions are on the eve of his inauguration which is extraordinary it shows that the united states simply does not have goodwill how is the iranian government. going to convince it be convinced that the united states can sit down and talk with the united states when the united states behaves in such an irrational and hostile way and on the other hand the united states at this stage has isolated itself. are improving relations thanks to obama with the. washington's with the chinese with the indians with brics countries and other non-western countries and even in europe we see countries buried dissatisfied with american behavior for example in the case of. both both in britain for example parliament rejected war which i think came as a surprise to all of us who you know with the former prime minister in england support

about that also yes ok all right yes it does united states the united states does so does russia so do other states as well but instability is not in the interest of the united states instability is very definitely not in the interest of israel a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors that have made war on it half a dozen times in the last sixty five years so no it's ridiculous to say that this is somehow serving the interests of the united states or the interest of israel stability is internet is in the interests of both of these countries as in the interests of the west in general it's frankly in the interest of russia as it is countering other regional threats the threat of terrorism and very definitely the threat of a. iran getting nuclear weapons capability ok george. well i find this extraordinary the say that if america wanted stability there was always a very simple way to go about stability there would have been to avoid getting involved in libya for all get off his regime was extremely stable and a good ally of the united states during the war on terror the american

is a continuation of the old imperialist had joined and what i mean by that is for example the united states is still very active in scheming certain military adventures for example in syria it's still unquestionably supports israel it's still involved in some sort of shady deals with the gulf states so. it is difficult to understand why would you what do you think personally that we are seeing beyond of the american imperialism because all of those very expensive policies are still in place despite all the suffering that you know ordinary folks subjected to yes well i mean the reason primarily is because the united states cannot just unilaterally one. they decide to disengage from the rest of the world but it is slowly disengaging and if we take a look at syria for instance which you've mentioned there have been pressures for the united states actually to engage much more intensively but it has not and one of the reasons of course is that the country is broke and plus they're tired the american people are tired of this military adventurism so while they are intervening they're not interveni

the iranians agreed to talks with the united states in iraq again the united states simply increased sanctions against the country and now as soon as president rouhani comes to power the united states implements even further sanctions are on the eve of his inauguration which is extraordinary it shows that the united states simply does not have goodwill how is the iranian government. going to convince it be convinced that the united states can sit down and talk with the united states when the united states behaves in such an irrational and hostile way and on the other hand the united states at this stage has isolated itself. are improving relations thanks to obama with the. russians with the chinese with the indians with brics countries and other non-western countries and even in europe we see countries buried dissatisfied with american behavior for example in the case of. both both in britain for example parliament rejected war which i think came as a surprise to all of us who you know with the former prime minister in england supporting the war and being an american political and it

is the interest of the united states and united states has always been concerned that some kind of arab nationalist movement will become dominant in the middle east. and america has always wanted a kind of a much weaker divided arab world and i think it also serves the interests of israel which an israeli nightmare has always been that there should be a united arab world in the united arab voice speaking on behalf of the palestinians so as long as the arabs are involved in this it was essentially was on the i think. the americans of these rate is a perfectly happy not to mention the americans vast military industrial complex that thrives on selling arms to the various international actors ok jason to be fair go right ahead fair time that's complete nonsense of course we're also we're you know appearing on a network that is hosted by a country that has made quite a quite a handsome profit from selling weapons across the region or here's a lot of countries in the world did make running out of ammo and such really and it's not you you're saying something like that of what you know and you

of the united states they fought they were viewing the united states the role of reagan but they were not they were viewing the united states of franklin delano roosevelt it's the america today that is the america of ronald reagan and other words this policies are now really being felt i find that many american and western economists in general so indoctrinated their sort of embrace. capitalist system so just as blindly as they used to decry the communist system when they look at the successful models both among developed and developing countries usually. models represent some mixture of capitalism with. very generous those of socialist parlous is no where would be one example china is a very different example but they are also mixing the team doesn't mean that pure capitalism doesn't exist on may be simply not realistic in the same way that pure communism wasn't really but i think you're getting at a very important point i mean there is no such thing as just capitalism there are many varieties of capitalism and so the variety that we have now i guess is the most pure form that we've

is the interest of the united states and united states has always been concerned that some kind of arab nationalist movement will become dominant in the middle east. and america's has always wanted a kind of a much weaker divided arab world and i think it also serves the interests of israel which an israeli nightmare has always been that there should be a united arab world in the united arab voice speaking on behalf of the palestinians so as long as the arabs are involved in this it was essentially was under i think. the americans of this raid is a perfectly happy not to mention the americans vast military industrial complex that thrives on selling arms to the various in international actors ok jason to be fair go right ahead fair time that it's complete nonsense of course we're also we're you know appearing on a network that is hosted by a country that has made quite a quite a handsome profit from selling weapons across the region one hears from a lot of countries in the world did make money off of amman such release not you legally you're saying something like that of you know you kno

is the savior of the world that attitude madeline albright more recently united states if we have to use force it's because we are america where the indispensable nation we stand taller and see farther than other countries hillary clinton the same thing obama this notion of where the indispensable nation what makes us the indispensable nation but we are the most powerful nation on basis the most powerful nation we have the atomic bombs we had a monopoly on atomic bombs what right do we have to worry about talk about other countries using weapons of mass destruction we began the process of the most serious iteration with the attack on hiroshima and nagasaki and have we apologize for that have we criticize that question that right now in outside of washington d.c. in the air and space museum next we're displaying the enola gay the plane that dropped atomic bombs on hiroshima to start the modern era of weapons of mass destruction and the head of the air and space museum said we're going to display the you know the gay and all of its glory as a magnificent technological achievement i

powers by that i mean the united states and russia. are in favor of that certainly we know the united states and russia are not in favor of that i think that the saudis are somewhat less clear cut in their view on this obviously and the problem is clearly on the part of the major factors in this situation. the major outside powers they do not want that to happen and i think that is why there is a degree of agreement here between the united states and russia that this whatever happens must be short of assisting the jihad as in gaining a foothold or expanding their foothold and being able to be the primary arbiter of power in syria i agree with you because that's when russia's major issue during all this when he for you know a cynic would say and i look at the a ray of forces the united states supporting military intervention and it's all about iran it's not about syria it's not about the syrian people it's not about democracy it's just a great way to get to iran and and this is you have to destroy syria to do it and this is you can make

the cheap to full diplomat of the united states is our secretary of state john kerry and on his right was the secretary of defense chuck hagel and then general dempsey who both of which said almost nothing and our our chief diplomat was the one who was trying to push war the idea of the diplomat is supposed to stop war it's time that the that our diplomats take the front take the front of all these problems that we have and put the war people back in their barracks as they say and let's and let's get some conversations going on but also your guest had had some amazing things to say i think one thing that would change the dynamic in this situation is if we saw the suffering of the people in iran if we saw the words of the normal person the worker in tehran the farmer out in the near mashad if we if we saw the faces of the people and we heard their words they would the american public would identify with them immensely because we have a lot in common with the people of iran and it's unfortunate that our government is what standing in the way and it's not the iranian government and when

states, ande united i really am, in part, repeating said, why would the united states on economic grounds, and maybe for political and security issues, and those may overwhelm everything, but on even economists, that is very hard-nosed about these issues, negotiating a deal with the united states, and the access,tates has full to turkey's ttip market, what interest does the united states have to give turkey access? a question about the quality of the agreement, not necessarily whether any type of an agreement can be negotiated. , am sure there are issues border issues, etc., etc., which and there arefic, some that are not the province of trade or the european union, but also the country level, which can be included. and there was a second part to the question. i cannot remember what it was. one on trade. >> the extent to which turkey might be ready for deeper integration. my cents, my reading is that turkey has done a lot in terms of taking on the competition , and there are statistics turkish commercial law basically conforming to the eu model, and we would want to define that. they woul

because the united states of america is stronger when the congress of the united states representing the people and the president of the united states are acting together. and the president wants that strength represented in this initiative. >> you're making the case, mr. secretary, which i understand, as you made it on friday. i think i'm still trying to understand the abrupt shift. i know that you and others on the national security team, based on my own reporting, were opposed to the president seeking congressional authority, thinking he didn't need it. the reaction from the syrian state media is that this is the beginning, they say, of an historic american retreat. do you feel undermined? do you think the united states has undermined its leverage in the world, its credibility, having ramped up the specter of military action as being imminent and then saying, well, no, we're going to go to congress first? >> david, i completely disagree with the fundamental premise that you set out. no, i did not oppose going, nor did anybody else that i know of originally. the issue originally wa

let's go to glendale, arizona. >> we are the united states of america and we need to be united in this idea. coming together and stopping the war and the use of the chemicals. if we do not stop it, it will come to our backyard. law, you havehe to be subjected to the punishment. it is international law. what is so hard to understand? why are we afraid to step up? we need to step up. that is all i have to say. we need to respect that we have a president that is not hotheaded. .e is a president of peace this is a president that is for the people. >> one more call. >> i watch the hearing. i am very confused. i got three different messages from kerry and from martin dempsey and how can we trust these people? i think they will lie about whatever they want to lie about. we would not know until after the fact. as far as chemical agents, in vietnam, we use this stuff called agent orange. that was certainly a chemical agent. no one was indicted. nobody came after us. problems.lot of -- caused a lot of problems. . am opposed to this act i was favor in iraq, i could understand that one. i was not

the president of the united states. but we really don't have the exactly here to know what kind of attack should be launched. i understand snample new mexico's caution but if we start down this road, we're going to be running the campaign from here. and as smart as we are i don't hink we're that smart. >> i'm sympathetic to the view expressd in this amendment by senator udall that our military actions should be specified and limited. i also believe based upon our hearing the amendment reflects the administration's thinking about what is required to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction by the assad regime. however, i believe it would be it would be a mistake for the senate to tie the president's hands by having us dictate the specific military tactics he can and cannot use to complete the mission. the language already limits the geographic scope of the mission to syria, focuses the mission on addressing the use of chemical weapons. limits the time frame and rules out the use of ground forces for combat opera

because unlike the united states syria is not threatening the united states it would be the victim and so the assumption of the attack by the obama administration is that syria is too weak or small or vulnerable to actually use its legal right to carry out an attack against u.s. targets and he's telling the american people they won't strike there won't be representations but in fact obama or hegel or john kerry or mccain they don't know what the rep recover sions are going to be this is dangerous games when you carry out another war of aggression with the latest most developed high tech weapons against a country that's at peace with the united states so they don't really know where it ends they know how to start a war they don't know as we learn from iraq how to end a war michael they know how to start it but they don't know how to end it but you know there. well that's true because i think and that's what we have here what what they're operating under as as far as i can see is in force meant for once of the of the chemical weapons convention there is no there is a compliance provi

since their early ninety nine his american diplomats have essentially been used to an idea of the united states being the one and only country calling the shots and a bad period is obviously coming to an end not only because a fresh of a because of many other countries coming to the fore so i wonder if they american diplomats have really made that mantle transition to negotiation rather than. you know blackmailing or coersion or deciding for others you know real negotiation and power sharing international power sharing well i was a diplomat in russia from one nine hundred ninety three until the end of one nine hundred ninety six and then frequently dealt with russia when i was the undersecretary of state for political affairs into two thousand and my sense was that while there was a tendency particularly among political leaders it's a see whether in fact they could translate american military and economic strength into diplomatic dicked if you could put it that way from time to time it was often necessary. negotiated negotiations were part of the diplomatic environment and i did find among my d

likewise, the united states remains committed to the belief that the palestinian people have a right to live with security and dignity in their own sovereign state. on the same trip, i had the opportunity to meet with young palestinians in ramallah whose ambition and incredible potential are matched by the pain they feel in having no firm place in the community of nations. they are understandably cynical that real progress will ever be made and they're frustrated by their families enduring the daily indin dig tee of occupati. but they too recognize that two states at only real path to peace. just as the palestinian people must not be displaced, the state of israel is here to stay. so the time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace. already israeli and palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks. president abbas has put aside efforts to shortcut the pursuit of peace and come to the negotiating table. prime minister netanyahu has released palestinian prisoners and reaffirmed his commitment to a pa

himself, is on the precipice of inserting itself into a civil war the middle east with united states weapons. acon the precipice of doing so with no mandate from the united nations no support of the arab league and no support of the arab street. with no support or assistance from great britain of any other nation and with the majority of the american people expressly against it. the goal here, according to our leaders, make it more difficult for assad to use his chemical weapons and the promise that this would mak it less likely for him to do so or attempt to do so. but no evidence to that effect. the task today is for you to decide. i'm shepard smith. see you tonight. >> thank you very much. that has been the challenge for secretary of state john kerry, to show the evidence is irrefutable and that the intelligence is solid. welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. how solid? the secretary of state saying the information has been scrubbed and prescribed, that the -- and rescrubbed the use of chemical weapons is beyond all date some syria uses this recklessly and humanly and it's up to th

socialist parties here in the united states and the communist party of the united states were powerful. they had a lot of people, and they worked together with the c.i.o. and together, they went to the government at that time, and they said 2 things: "we represent the mass of working people, and we don't want to suffer the way we're suffering in this breakdown of capitalism. you gotta do something." and they addressed themselves to a kind of middle-of-the-road democratic politician who had just gotten elected president on a program of a balanced budget-- franklin roosevelt. and they said to him, "you've gotta do something for the people." and the socialists and communists said, "you gotta do something for the people," but they added a little barb, "because we think that there's a better system, an alternative system, to capitalism. and if you keep performing as badly as you're doing in the depths of the depression, we're gonna try to establish that alternative." and they pointed across the ocean to the soviet union, said, "see? like them." that scared folks. and mr. roosevelt was a goo

one of the more interesting aspects of this of course is the fact that the united states has very little legal leg to stand on when it comes to intervening. after all the security council of the united nations is not going odo that because russia and china will not grant the united states the right to do that. therefore, the united states is going in without united nations backing. >> thank you very much, professor galvan thank you very much for joining us this morning. >>> former egyptian president mohammed morsi will stand trial. morsi is accused of inciting violence, are 14 other members of the muslim brotherhood are to be tried beside him. morsi has been kept out of the public eye since being pushed out by the military on july 3rd. >>> firefighters are fighting the fire outside of yosemite and say they are making progress. a fleet of aircraft is dropping water and retardant chemicals to stop the fire from spreading. so far it's burned out of 350 square miles in the two weeks it's been burning. are. >>> we are looking at some dessert rating conditions on the tropical northeast. let me

the united states actually does matter. i don't agree with 100% of the things the previous speaker said and they will not agree 100% of the things that i have set but the great thing about america is that we have the first amendment that allows us to have a disagreement and an active discussion so our nation can move forward. we don't always move forward and sometimes we'll move back which as we discussed but each time we do that we find a way to move forward. this can happen in a country we are going to talk about now come to china because despite anything else they might be doing they are not allowing freedom of speech. so i have got to display on the side. who knows what 61398 is? you have probably seen the news story about the chinese government hacking american corporations, go write? anybody? 61398 is a signal corps unit in the people's liberation army in china. this is a division of the chinese military financed by the chinese government. a brilliant report was put out that showed basically 70% of this significant ha

because unlike the united states syria is not threatening the united states it would be the victim and so the assumption of the attack by the obama administration is that syria is too weak or small or vulnerable to actually use its legal right to carry out an attack against u.s. targets and he's telling the american people they won't strike there won't be represented but in fact obama or hegel or john kerry or mccain they don't know what the rep recover sions are going to be this is dangerous games when you carry out another war of aggression with the latest most developed high tech weapons against a country that's at peace with the united states so they don't really know where it ends they know how to start a war they don't know as we learn from iraq how to end a war michael they know how to start it but they don't know how to end it but you know there. well that's true because i think and that's what we have here what what they're operating under as far as i can see is in force meant for once of the of the chemical weapons convention there is no there is a compliance provision of

sue dam hussein wasn't part of the 9/11, nor was he an immediate threat to the united states, and he s being contained. so secretary of state knew this, he just couldn't break through the group that wanted to finish gulf war, and get rid of sudden dam hussein. they viewed iraq as the first in a number of states they would knock off in the region, and when they didn't find chemical weapons in iraq, they created the idea that they would democracy as the rallying cry. as a clever, clef ploy. because it bridges the partisan divide. but now the american people has seen through this. we understand that you can't just expect people to go to the polls and cast a ballot, and subtly just like california there's democracy, look at that. these people are having debates on television, and aren't they friendly with each other, and they are so nice. and we just sort of transplanted america over there. >> where does that leave the debate? where does that take us today? >> i think the united states has -- the people have turned away from the middle east. as a cause. obviously we are stimworried about

can't take yes for an answer i mean it's i think it's very interesting is it to the united states said that assad must go not too long ago and now we may sit down at the table and negotiate the chemical weapons deal kind of interesting isn't it. i think you know it's. who you have to deal with i think you know regime change is not an option for anybody in this at this point i don't think anybody can topple assad except the syrian people but i think what happens here is that we have to ask the question why did this offer by president putin which i think is very smart came about it was because america threatened to attack assad if it wasn't for the threat to attack assad he would not have become willing and volunteer to give up with his weapons of mass destruction and i think there's another factor here which goes i think in my opinion is very important there was a report recently in a german newspaper that the recent chemical attack was conducted by syrian forces without assad's consent i think the fact that now he's willing to part with it also shows also perhaps not sure that per

that is why the united states refused to provide arms. they said, yes, they would give arms, but in reality, they have not given them because they do not know where the weapons will land. after the fall of the regime in syria. >> that is a writer from the huffington post. well, for decades, the united states has been an important financial backer of egypt. the u.s. sent billions of dollars in aid to ruler hosni mubarek and continues to support the country through the interim government headed by mohamed morsi. it looks like despite continued change in leadership and the instability in the country, the u.s. will honor its commitment to send 500 million more dollars in aid to egypt. $1.5 billion in aid, over one billion spent on military assistance. the rest is considered economic assistance, but because such a large amount is spent on the military, which acts the overthrow of morsi, american lawmakers have been concerned about the money. even the obama top security aides have recommended suspending the money. however, with the end of the f

the president believes we are stronger when the congress of the united states joins in this. i mean, congress can't have it both ways. you can't sit there and say, you have to consult with us. we have to honor the constitutional process and congress has the right to make its voice heard in these decisions. the president is giving them the opportunity. i think you should welcome it, chris, and the congress and the country should welcome this. >> but -- >> the debate is important. with do not lose anything militarily in the meantime. if assad -- >> they lose the possibility that they could get killed in the meantime. if i may follow up, reagan didn't think he needed congressleal approval to go after gadhafi in libya. clinton didn't need it to go after kosovo or al qaeda. this president -- >> actually, chris, at the instant the planes were in the air in kosovo there was a vote in the house of representatives and the vote didn't carry. the truth is the president would have loved to have support from congress. the fact is our country is much stronger when we act together. i'm amaz

thank you very much for taking time to speak to our viewers here in the united states and around the now you spoke to the secretary of state, john kerry, he called you. what did he say to you? did he reassure you that the u.s. would strike even if congress rejected a resolution? >> wolf, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to our american friends. secretary kerry called me today and told me that it is a process in the united states and we understand that in all democratic countries make it important to go to the conference. and we in the free syrian president -- after the use of chemical weapons against unarmed civilians. more than 500 children and we support president obama decision to go to the congress to get authorization to carry out strikes against the syrian regime and we understand really the decision making in the democratic country and realize that support for the decision will make it stronger and more effective and we hope it will encourage other friendly countries to participate in the international campaign against the regime. >> are you worried, g

the united states can sit down and talk with the united states when the united states behaves in such an irrational and hostile way and on the other hand the united states at this stage has isolated itself. are improving relations thanks to obama with the russians with the chinese with the indians with brics countries and other non-western countries and even in europe we see countries barry dissatisfied with american behavior for example in the case of. both both in britain for example parliament rejected war which i think came as a surprise to all of us who you know with the former prime minister in england supporting the war and being an american political and italy for example and in germany being opposed to any aggression by the united states so the world is changing and obama really needs to change is his relationship with iran otherwise the only allies he has left is saudi arabia israel an apartheid state and the al qaeda like groups in syria and the war and others in libya as well the united states has destroyed and the europeans have destroyed libya for him that doesn't sound

davis of the united states army. sergeant davis, then private first class davis, distinguished himself while serving at a remote support base in vietnam. november 18, 1967, sergeant davis' support base came under enemy mortar attack. and he was also threatened with a ground assault from across the river. detecting a nearby enemy position, sergeant davis seized a machine gun and provided cover for his gun crew. . but the enemy managed a direct hit. ignoring warnings to seek cover, sergeant davis returned to the howitzer which was burning furiously. though he was painfully injured by enemy mortar, davis continued fire, disregarding his injuries and inability to swim, he crossed the river on an air mattress where he aided in returning three soldiers to the support base, refusing medical attention for his own wounds, he joined another gun crew, firing at the enemy until they fled. i am proud to honor and remember the extraordinary heroism of sergeant sammy l. davis. thank you. yield back. >> thank you, i'd like to recogn

to the united states. secondly, that the intelligence which they have released. don't say it's classified, we -- >> hold on. there's some stuff going on at the hearing. a protester had a florida senator marco rubio starting his line of questioning. let's listen into this. >> i want to make very clear my believes of and most of the members of the committee what happens in syria is a vital national interest in the united states and our naomi scoter -- national security. the key part of iran's amibition to be the regional power, the dominant regional power. the iranians love to brag that syria gives them a border with sal. assad is an antiamerican supporter of terrorism, of hamas and hezbollah and al qaeda and iraq, the same that is responsible for the death and maiming of countless brave young men and women who served our country in uniform. also in because of the instability in syria, instability that is allowing portion office syria to become what afghanistan was before 9/11. the premiere operational spate

united states president -- rueter speaks in international terms -- united states president barack obama, on tuesday,congres authorizing military strikes against syria in order to give russia time to get syria to surrender any chemical weapons it possesses, according to u.s. senators. quoting, what he, obama, wants, is to check out the seriousness of the syrians and russian' willingness to get rid of the chemical weapons. continuing the quote, he wants time to check it out. that's from carl levin, the senate armed services committee chairman, has now reported the president is asking congress to delay the votes on authorization of strikes in syria. senator levin made his remarks after the lunch meeting on capitol hill that the president attended. yesterday the senate ban debating a resolution choo would back strikes on syria. so it was requested on august 31st. his numbers have gotten worth in worse in the public and congress. as of yesterday he was still asking for permission, but today, according to senator levin, less than an hour ago, in fact just minutes ago, the president asked for