the united kingdom is pulling a resolution to the united states security council, authorizing necessary measures to -- russia has urged the west to wait for a report before introducing blame to chemical weapons usage. the uk proposal came as the foreign secretary said it is time the u.n. shouldered responsibilities. >> we have to confront something that is a war crime and a crime against humanity. so, we continue to look for a strong response from the international community that is legal and will deter the future use of chemical weapons. >> the order that the team of inspectors in damascus investigate three rebel attacks which he claims syrian soldiers held toys in his gases. those inspectors were working this wednesday. they say they need another four days to investigate. we have more. >> u.n. investigators cross into rubble-held territory. it is accompanied by the syrian army. witnesses here claim they were the victims of a poison gas attack last wednesday. over 350 people are thought to have been killed. after initial hesitation, washington accused the civil government is not endors

the machinations of this, the vote of the british parliament, the united states, the international security councilnone of that means anything here. the potential military strike has given them some hope, but they don't think it will be magic wand as soon as the strikes happens, and anger that it has taken this long to get here. >> given there is still a threat of military action, not at a ley the u.s. would that mean a greater influx of refugees of where you are? >> yes, absolutely. i've spoken to several relief agencies about this, and the thing i keep hearing, we don't have the funding. we don't have the money. we don't have the capacity. when i arrived a few days ago it was 13,000 people. it's closer to 17,000 people with the latest influx of refugees. one of the problems here at the moment it's just syrian kurds coming over. they share a common history, a common language with the iraqi kurds. but if that strike happens then we'll see others come over that border and there simply aren't enough camps to accommodate those people. the president of the kurdish regional government has promised they'

>> well, i think it also says that the united states has no faith in the u.n. security councilcause they know that russia and china are going to block any attempt by the united states to get u.n. security council approval. now she should there making a forceful argument on behalf of u.s. national security interests but i think the obama administration needs to figure out another way to do this and i think they're waiting for the clinton administration's strike during the air war as a potential precedent to do this outside of the u.n. security council and do this within the context of a nato strike. if indeed that is the decision that is made. last question. there are as we know islamist terrorist groups now operating in syria. they are growing in strength. so is this not just about human atrocities in syria but this is america's national security, if syria is the new yemen, isn't this a training ground for terrorists who are dedicated to killing americans? >> greg, that's right. the problem is it's been two and a half years of inaction by the obama administration, two and a hal

>> well, i think it also says that the united states has no faith in the u.n. security councilcause they know that russia and china are going to block any attempt by the united states to get u.n. security council approval. now she should there making a forceful argument on behalf of u.s. national security interests but i think the obama administration needs to figure out another way to do this and i think they're waiting for the clinton administration's strike during the air war as a potential precedent to do this outside of the u.n. security council and do this within the context of a nato strike. if indeed that is the decision that is made. last question. there are as we know islamist terrorist groups now operating in syria. they are growing in strength. so is this not just about human atrocities in syria but this is america's national security, if syria is the new yemen, isn't this a training ground for terrorists who are dedicated to killing americans? >> greg, that's right. the problem is it's been two and a half years of inaction by the obama administration, two and a hal

the secretary of state is saying to moscow we're going to bypass the united nations security council. the united states will find potentially other organizations, be it nato, the arab league, or put together an informal grouping of nation, a so-called coalition of the willing that will support this effort both diplomatically and militarily. if russia wants to stick to what the secretary of state properly called essentially an outrageous position, it will find itself diplomatically isolated and on the sidelines. >> it's a model the u.s. used in the kosovo conflict in the late 90s. >> absolutely. >> coming up, it is one of the largest wildfires in california history, a fire the size of chicago and it's getting bigger by the minute. now residents of san francisco, which is two hours away, have reason to worry. plus, a costly mistake. why the federal government had to destroy $30 million. [ male announcer ] these days, a small business can save by sharing. like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we'

united states and the uk. >> united nations security council to pass a resolution which would authorize use of force and requirenent members to agree to such a resolution and it is adopted by russia and china saying the resolution for the time being is out of the question. >> reporter: what do you think the next step is? because we are hearing very sort of loud words as well as developments only today from the united kingdom for example saying they are possibly preparing contingency plans. so what are the u k and u.s. going to do? do you see this to be some style of intervention on the grounds of humanitarian? >> that is a very good point. because i anticipate that the legal and military options are being considered and let's not forget the aftermath because the syrian foreign minister identified the situation in iraq and afghanistan and no doubt appealing to public opinion, pointing to the unsatisfactory state of affairs and those two interventions. so far as the position in syria is concerned, there are military intervention and the one you identified kosovo and it's permitted and based upon established pract

state of war right now. preparing for the worse. take a look. >> it's up to the security council only and exclusively to deal with this issue. it is not up to the united states or anybody else to aggress any member of the united nations on basils allegations that are not yet clarified scientifically and politically speaking by the investigation team. >> but john, as this war of words unfold. there are still the u.n. inspectors on the ground. how safe are they? what happens if there is an attack? >> i think if there were to be an attack, and the inspectors were in their hotel in damascus, then they would be fairly safe and protected from that. but the problem is what you don't want is for them to be surrounded by syrian military officials to hold them hostage or an angry mob or crowd as they make their way to the airport. we'll see these inspectors come out before there is any kind of an attack. the state department will probably tip off the united nations and tell them to leave. there is a precedence of this in baghdad the inspectors were in before the missiles went in. we heard from ban ki-moon, the secretary general of the united nations, he referre

security council was unable to deal with its responsibilities the, what theno they do. we've seen instances in the clinton administration, the bush administration when the united states hasel decided to act without the security council. [ protesters ] >> reporter: the voices were clear. they didn't want the u.k. to get involved in any action on syria. and pressure t, too, from the opposition labour party. >> i think it ought to be difficult for any mp to support military action which is actually illegal. it is not clear that bombing syria would be legal under international law. >> reporter: hours later a change of plan from downing street, the u.k. government decided there would be two votes by m.p.s before any direct military action would be taken. the first would be on thursday night. the second only after u.n. inspectors make their report on allegations of a chemical attack on syria. with that taking at least four days it means any u.k. involvement woul would be delay. >> we are trying to take decisions on these matters in a way in which everybody's opinions are taken fully into account. >> meanwhile in paris french ministers also held an emergency meeting. they seem

united states. >> without the security council taking action work britain suffering a setback, even with the french. and you had 50 plus democrats in the house. one of them saying you have to come to congress. senator tim cain doing the same. his own words from 2007. >> in fact you've had a lot of negative reaction. some have said from congress, yes, this is a good thing. ted cruz among them which doesn't mean he will vote for the eventual authorization that they send up. but you had statements from john mccain and lindsay graham saying we need to be more robust. and they said we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president's state goal of assad's removal of conflict and bring an end to the conflict. anything short of this would be an inadequate response to the crimes against humanity that assad and his forces are committing. >> i think the president is in effect saying, okay, guys, you want in on this action? put up or shut up. cast a vote. you want to have a deba

has to ratify any decision if there is no from the united nations security council in two thousand and three. would act intervention by the united states of america and months on the other. turkey is insisting to also. meet think about the engineer well once again turkey is video could be organizing just however this possibility that there is a military intervention by the forces. that for the turkish government says because of the mess well mr monti let me interrupt you you know there is no proof at this point down the assad government in fact did he use the chemical weapons and we are now seeing the inspection from the u.n. investigating it and in fact we're hearing from the u.n. spokesperson that there are shots fired you know why the convoy so forcing the investigators to spand investigation there doesn't i mean doesn't that all look suspicious to you that no matter wot the findings are the decision has already been taken to go ahead with the military action. i agree with you about the turkish government under turkish foreign minister i believe. there is such a regime that used this convince this is why they make such a strong cert

security council where russia has a veto. frankly, i don't think the united states one wit whether we have a security council resolution or not. this is thinking in a european way, who has authorized me to do this, as opposed to thinking in the traditional american way, who is prohibiting me from doing this. while i think we ought to disregard it, i think the russians know the president's psychology and that's what they're trying to effect. >> chat rooms, they're saying our nation shouldn't be involved, some of them. you also said we shouldn't be involved there the way we are, syria is a secondary issue. what do you mean? >> as i said, the assad regime would not be in power but for iran, and while people say this is a place where we can defeat iran, this is effectively much less important than iran's nuclear weapons program. and i'll tell you something right now. if the president doesn't act with massive force in syria, if it is just a slap on the wrist to the assad regime, which many are predicting, i think the lesson iran draws from that we better get our nuclear

that sense of course most of the important issues unfortunately passed through the security council where the united states has a veto power so even if everybody is in favor of doing something to regulate this kind of spying it might not go very far in the end because of the way the united nations is set up now in the revelations in these in these leaks we have once been getting their hands on the brics nations are among the key targets of the n.s.a. spying why is that can you explain. well of course the united states fears any economic rivals and the brics are certainly the biggest are most important potential rivals to the united states in the world economy and so trying to undermine them by spying on them by actually getting even the trade secrets from them is going to be a way to try to or even get an upper hand this is a another important revelation that they spy on trade negotiations to find out what the opposing partner is. what their strategies are those kinds of things can get to a given economic advantage to the united states and so. focusing on the brics countries would be enough course of the n

united kingdom leads a movement for military intervention he called such action groundless. >> it's up to the security council only and exclusively to deal with this issue. it's not up to the united states or anybody else to aggress any nation member of the united nations on basil baseless alleg. >> now earlier today the u.n. security council met in new york over military intervention in syria. barnaby phillips has our report from london. >> reporter: britain senior ministers and soldiers came to downing street to discuss an attack on syria, how it might be done, and what the consequences could be. >> there is no comparison between this and iraq. this is where a crime against humanity has been committed, and there can be no argument about that. we have to decide whether the world responds to such a crime in such a way as to reduce the chances of it happening again. >> reporter: there will be an enormous international debate about this. here in britain the prime minister needs to convince parliament and a skeptical public that what he's doing is legally and morally justifiable and won't lead to a great greater british involvement to syria civil war. >> reporter: in britain as other count

state delivering an intelligence assessment? why do we not have an int intelligence officer delivering the assessment. dating back to the cuban missile crisis, it showed soviet missiles installed at the united nations security council, going back to colin powell when he was secretary of state and holding that vial as he addressed a word audience displaying what our intelligence officials have picked up. what is interesting about the speech the president giving today is that it may reflect some assessment on the part of the obama administration and that perhaps the secretary, for all his sxags skill of delivering the message the intelligence product itself was less than persuasive to the particular audiences it was meant to appease. >> tux that position of secretary kerry making the speech and what the president said was really striking. >> it was. first of all, again, we are pay ing a lot of attention as we should to optics. the fact this was going to be delivered to today's speech in the rose garden told us that perhaps it was not going to announce imminent military action as that would normally be reserved for oval office, map room, so forth. yesterday's optics were off as well when we heard present secretary ker

call for a world police but the question is who is the world police is the united states is it nato it should be the security council and after an intervention which could take place i don't exclude that it's going to happen what will they do will just have been a punch on the nose and then telling the belligerence in syria that they go back and continue to fight the war the mandate is to establish whether chemical weapons have been used to or not and the way they go about that is that they go to sites and they may take samples of dust and of water and they will have to analyze that ascended to independent lab orators to lab orders they cannot just accept samples given to them from some rebels or from some site that will not take them tell them who committed the attack but at least it will be able to tell them that yes the chemicals were used we see it as in the main as a contest between rebels and the government in syria but of course the intervention is there it is in large measure a arresting match between saudi arabia and iran and on that resting much the u.s. is on the side of saudi arabia because they would li

called for a world police but the question is who is the world police is the united states is it nato it should be the security council and after an intervention which could take place i don't exclude that it's going to happen what will they do will just have been a punch on the nose and then telling the belligerence in syria that they go back and continue to fight the war the mandate is to establish whether chemical weapons have been used to or not and the way they go about that is that they go to sites and they may take samples of dust and of water and they will have to analyze that ascended to independent laboratories to lab orders they cannot just accept samples given to them from some rebels or from some site because that can be manipulated it will not take them tell them who committed the attack but at least it will be able to tell them that yes the chemicals were used. you can keep up with events in syria as they unfold on our website also while you have the euphoria that swept libya when gadhafi was toppled is now just a memory as militias drive away hopes of peace to us after the revolution at the full rundow

united states is jumping the gun and that there needs to be the findings of this u.n. investigating team before any conclusions can be drawn you have a stalemate situation at the united nations security council a draft resolution was put forward but behind the scenes both russia and china have voiced their opposition to it so certainly not a consensus in terms of the international community and that might be part of the reason why the latest word from the american president barack obama is that he hasn't yet made a decision as to whether or not to launch military action inside syria. while we get more views from the u.k. shortly from seamus milne who's a columnist. and associate editor with the guardian newspaper later in the program in the meantime while the british parliament stands divided over whether to strike at syria washington claims there's a moral reason to attack but as our reports the use of chemical weapons was of no concern in the wars that the u.s. waged in the past will be advised you may find some of the images in this report disturbing. wagging its finger of moral authority the u.s. began laying the groundwork for syrian intervention on monday let me be clear the indiscrimi

weapons in syria it needs security council approval but the united states maintains a position that if chemical weapons were used in syria there needs to be consequences and they believe that the syrian government needs to needs to suffer those consequences but many experts and many critics say that when it comes to chemical weapons the u.s. is throwing stones while standing in a glass house. wagging its finger of moral authority the u.s. began laying the groundwork for syrian intervention on monday let me be clear. the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity the obscenity of chemical weapons is something u.s. secretary of state john kerry a vietnam veteran is very familiar with five decades ago america used agent orange during the vietnam war reportedly spraying more than twenty million gallons of the chemical weapon and other herbicides over parts of southern vietnam and along the borders of neighboring laos and cambodia it had the side effects of being terribly toxic and it caused lots o

that there's a tremendous blow to american credibility when our secretary of state went to the united nations security council and alleged that there are weapons of mass destruction that saddam hussein had. i don't think there's any doubt about that. that's history, and obviously that created a credibility gap. not only in the region but amongst the american people. but in this case, it is without a doubt that these chemical weapons have been used. you have seen this horrifying -- >> neil: i meant to say no doubt in the past that saddam hussein used chemical weapons on his own people. >> yes. >> neil: in doubt now that certainly chemical weapons are being used on the syrian people. but i guess i'm noticing the different way it's being treated now versus then. >> one of the major differences is that the president of the united states, barack obama, said that if they use these weapons it would, quote, cross a red line. and we would be compelled to act. now, when the president of the united states makes that statement, then obviously there can't be any avenue except one to take action, and my -- >> neil: what is

from outside pressure and military action has always been its veto in the united nations security council. now as the united statesnd the allies contemplate the responsibility of launching a military strike against syria, they are not talking about going to the u.n. security council to get help there. >> phil black. thank you. >>> cairo, members of the arab league met in emergency session and accused the assad regime of committing a, quote, heinous crime. syria says they did not use foreign weapons. here's the foreign minister speaking from damascus. >> they say the syrian forces are the ones who used this weapon and i categorically denied this matter. i said there's no country in the world use weapons of mass destruction against its people. >> meantime, cnn's nic robertson is in aman, jordan. joint chiefs chairman martin dempsey was there. we heard fred plikman there. he hoped military action could be averted. are you getting the sense that folks realize it is a matter of when and not if? >> reporter: yeah, sure. the sense is that there is the potential for strikes and they could come really soon. the reason and

united states would retaliate militarily. there are factions in the united states that are calling upon president obama to trigger his red line. but the reality is the security council is deeply dividerred and the russians and chinese diluted the final statement of the security council. first you have to find out whether chemical weapons were used, you need verification and that's what the united nations have been calling for the last 24 hours. >> let's look first at this red line which in fact that statement was made about a year ago by president barack obama and now the french foreign minister said if the u.n. security council could not make a final decision, as you said they are divided, action had to be taken in other way. can you see where the united states could sideline and take action? >> no, neither the french or the brits would act on their own. he made it very clear in his announcement today if the americans, the french and the brits and the russians giving their consent but neither the brits or the french have the capability or the direction to work on their own. at the end of the day, what you have to do, the u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon should as

ambassador to the united states meeting with counterparts on the permanent security council. as it normally breaks down, the fifth, the russians oppose an action. in this case action in syria. the u.s. says it is making it -lear that they're going to move on without them. >> we cannot be held up in responding by russia's intransigence, continued intransigence at the united nations. quite frankly the administration is so serious and demands a response. >> reporter: that response, at least on the international level, there appears to be partners in europeans, folks in the arab part of the world. when you look domestically have some concerns, there are those who have wanted a strong reaction from the white house already, and there are the republicans to have concerns and say they won any action to go through congress. a growing number of republicans. a few dozen is sending a letter to the white house requesting that any action be debated by congress and authorized roden congress. the problem being congress is out for a couple of weeks. cheryl: all right. congress would like more

united states. >> and, you know, without the security council taking action, with britain suffering a setback that cameron suffered, even with the french with us. and again, you had 50-plus democrats in the house, and barbara lee one of them, saying you've got to come to congress. senator tim cane saying the same. he was facing a lot more pressure to do that. and of course his own words from 2007. >> and in fact you've had a lot of negative reaction. some have said from congress, yes, this is a good thing. ted cruz among them. which doesn't mean that he's going to vote for the eventual authorization or the resolution that they do send up. but you've had statements from john mccain and lindsey graham, who have been aggressively saying, we need to be more robust. and they said, we cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in syria that are not part of an overall syria that can change the momentum on the battlefield to achieve the stated goal to remove assad from power, and remove the threat to our national security. >> here is part of the point. i think the president is in effect s

security council, to warrant by passing the u.n. security council. >> first and for most it will achieve the united states of america because he has saidebeatedly that use of chemical weapons crossed the red line. we've never seen chemical weapons used on this scale before, the pictures are horrifying, and the loss of human life is great. there will be those who are maimed for the rest of their life from these powerful nerve agents. we're seeing the punch being telegraphed like rarely i've seen before making me think that the u.s. is going to use weapons from offshore, and maybe other stand off weapon offshore weapog aircraft. >> is there any talk from any corner of going back and trying again to get unanimous resolution of the security council? >> look, i don't mean to be glib, but we've been there, and we've done that. we know that russia and to a lesser extent china are going to protect the assad regime no matter what it does. no matter what evidence is produced it's going to say that it is inconclusive, punitive action is not justified, and to the united states, much has occurred during the clinton administration in the balkans and

united states do? we asked permission of the general security council and we know both russia and china [indiscernible] quandary that we are in. so not just an exit strategy, but making official declarations about red lines that syria cannot cross. you better be careful what you say because you have to back it up here and -- back it up. host: lots to consider. guest: first of all, i would note that, in the case of mali and the friends, it was different in that certainly the governor -- and the french, it was different in that certainly the government of mali welcomed the intervention by the french. they certainly paved the way for them to be there. host: other than it being a former colony, a former territory -- more thethink it was al qaeda affiliated group was threatening the government. they were in the north but were proceeding south and it was a threat to the government. of anon't know how much economic interest is there. that i thinksay that with the caller said about not backing up your words, i think that is a concern in the white house. -- if it getstes to the point -- i mean, read line or no,

. >> the united states and other u.n. security councildiscuss the new chemical weapon allegations. both of you have covered syria and egypt closely. ivan i want to start with syria. how surprised are you about these claims of chemical weapons? >> i think the death toll, that's what truly is astounding with claims of up to perhaps 1300 killed. the claims of chemical weapons being used, i think, both sides in this war as well as the patrons that are behind both sides are in agreement. i'm talking the syrian government, the syrian rebels, the u.s., russia, the most vocal defenderf the syrian government. they are all in agreement that some chemical weapons have been used in the past on the syrian battlefield. what they don't agree upon is who has been using them. in this case the syrian government denying that they fired any kind of chemical weapon, in one case what was yearly a rebel held community. and the rebels, of course, accusing the syrian government of carrying out these attacks. it's taken months for these u.n. chemical weapons inspe

and the president of the united states has a great staff at the national security council.ltations have begun with regard to the members of congress. i think intelligence is a critical part of credibility and making sure that we do have the right intelligence before we implement implement any particular option. alisyn: yes, we've learned that lesson. we will hear from secretary kerry hopefully this hour. so captain bob wells, thanks so much for your expertise. >> thank you very much. alisyn: and, of course, keep up on all the latest developments with the power of fox news. sign up for our fox news first daily politics newsletter at foxnews.com/foxnewsfirst. ♪ ♪ jon: "happening now," as the government gears up for the rollout of president obama's health care law, critics are raising serious new concerns about hidden costs tied to all the promised benefits and giveaways. chief national correspondent jim angle's live in washington with more on that. jim? >> reporter: hello, jon. well, while the health care law promises all sorts of new free benefits, analysts argue nothing is

russia and why in syria we need the big powers, the european union, russia, united states, those that make up the u.n. security council, to work together on a mix of sanctions and mix of incentives. we can't just do it alone anymore. >> eight years ago about this time, you were contemplating whether to run for president. you knew you would be staring at a formidable front-runner in the name of hillary clinton. what kind of advice would you give to an ambitious democrat who's not named hillary clinton, but you've seen how much of a formidable front-runner she is, about how to go about this? >> all right, well, i think that the two strongest candidates, if she doesn't run, would be somebody like andrew cuomo or joe biden. you have to watch and see whether she's going to run. if she runs, an altered the landscape dramatically because she's so strong. >> would you tell martin o'malley if they asked you your advice, is it worth doing it, is it worth trying the uphill battle that it's going to be. you found yourself in that situation, tougher to raise money, tough to get people, because they all jumped on one of the two fro

united nations security council. it's also calling on the league of arab states in cairo to address the situation, so it is going to really be interesting to see what happens from washington as to whether or not they back these international efforts to condemn, perhaps even punish egypt. lot of diplomats, ambassadors are being called in their capitals to discuss the ongoing situation so there is some rebuke happening to the egyptian government as we are seeing in the past 24 hours. thomas? >> nbc's ayman mohyeldin reporting from cairo. >>> we should know by tomorrow whether the republican party will boycott debates during the 2016 presidential debates. reince priebus says it amounts to a little more than campaign advertising. republicans are holding a three-day meeting in massachusetts to plot the future of the gop. according to newt gingrich the party needs to do more of what it supports rather than what it rejects. >> i think part of the era in obama's disaster we have to get beyond being anti-obama and convince people you can have hope in america, that we can have a better future. >> priebus urged members to abandon ti

choice but to take actions because he told the entire world the united states wouldn't stand for this i agree that the u.n. security council with russia sitting on it is not going to give the go ahead or at least you know they're in premature for military action but i think one of the concerns that this administration has as do many conservatives is what is the end game we know that rebel forces are largely affiliated with al qaeda al nusra a lot of enemies of the united states in the west do we want to topple assad and put those people in power or we're trying to get these two sides to the negotiating table perhaps a military strike might accomplish that. then do you see the troops on the ground and if so do you see the american public supporting that i don't think so i think we really this is going to be a needle for the president to do it he's got to on the one hand you've got to make sure there are consequences i don't think the red line moved very much he said if you use chemical weapons we're going to do something about it there was some lack of clarity on the first round what were the weapons used by whom it's that

united states. >> what do you make of the arguments that suggest that the u.n. security council be bypassed? >> well, the only way that i can see it, first of all, can you not actually act under article 51 because none of the countries that would launch the missiles would have their national security threatened or came under attack and then comes article 52, and the only way out legally using article 52 is a regional grouping and here i think of the arab league. under 1964 defense packet, which was signed in jordan, then the arab league can take a collective decision under 52 and then can ask for international help either from nato or from others, you do not have to go to the security council for that, we have a precedent in kosovo and libya as well but in libya the security council was consulted and we have the arab league meeting in cairo in 1990 when kuwait was invaded by iraq. so outside of this avenue i do not think that there is a legal way or cover for an attack. if you think of the 1998 cruise missile attack against iraq for blocking the inspectors at the u.n., then ther