more, i cannot hear or see another setting with the world is stepping up and agreeing to act with us militarily, not just condemning the acts, but acting on that condemnation of the acts with us in a military fashion. and you say during the hearing yesterday, mr. secretary, you indicate russia has obstructed ethics to react to assad's regime's use of chemical weapons, there may be other ways in which russia may help. can you relate how russia is being engaged given the obama administration's correct assertion that there is no military solution to the crisis in syria, and quickly, general dempsey, i have serious concerns as i stated about any accident not supported internationally. unintended consequences including the prospect of long military action. and there are actions that the u.s. could take short of tipping the balance of syrian conflict that could impose and cost a an her rant behavior and further commit to the united states conflict. it would not be militarily decisive but to the conflict. can you elaborate what you meant when you said we could be decisively committed to the conflict,

syria, because i think streaking syria, at this point in time, will create a real problem for us militarily with russia, with potentially others in the region. we are taking, and i think joe will agree with me on this one. the whole syria conflict at this point, has taken our eye off the ball. and the ball is iran. syria is a puppet state of iran. >> that's right. iran's watching. >> it's the biggest body blow we could land to iran. he's their only ally in the arab world. and even this proposal, which if it works for russia will be a good thing. the price of it will be that assad will stay there and iran will still have its number one ally in the arab world. >> all right. let's continue this over in the next segment. there are a lot of creative solutions that don't involve bombing and killing people apparently. >> yes, there are and we'll talk about it when we get back. thank you very much. just by talking to a helmet. it grabbed the patient's record before we even picked him up. it found out the doctor we needed was at st. anne's. wiggle your toes. [ driver ] and it got his okay on treatme

we have some countries that will participate with us militarily, and again, dozens of countries thatre ready to be supportive in a variety of ways. but i think what's important here is making sure, one, particularly given senator rubio, my colleague from florida's comments, that we put politics aside. straddling the precarious fence of trying to criticize president obama while at the same time also acknowledge that we have national security interests in the region is not the appropriate approach to be taking. what we need to do here is ask ourselves some questions, as members of congress. we have an opportunity to debate this authorization. are national security interests in question? yes, no question that our ally israel, jordan, turkey, they would be in jeopardy if there is not a certain and severe response from the united states. >> let me get congressman burgess to weigh in. do you agree with, are u.s. national security interests at stake in the region? >> well, if they are, then a limited launch of cruise missiles that you announce well in advance is not going to achieve the des

there's another setting i need to be in-- where the world is stepping up and agreeing to act with us militarily. >> reporter: pennsylvania republican tom marino challenged the secretary of state on the effectiveness of air strikes. >> this will not stop the butchering and the killing that takes place over there. so what is the purpose? what is the end game here? where is the imminent danger to the united states? >> congressman, you're absolutely correct that it will not stop the butchery. i wish it would. but what it will do is what it is intended to do. it is intended to assert the principle which has been in place since 1925 that no one should use chemical weapons. >> reporter: south carolina republican jeff duncan accused secretary kerry of being more hawkish now than when he was in the senate. >> is the power of the executive branch so intoxicating that you would abandon passed caution in favor of pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly? >> when i was in the united states senate i supported military action in any number of occasions and i am not going to sit here and be told b

those of us who remember covering your campaign, remember you saying militarily when the united states acts, it's not just important what it does but how it goes about doing and when america sets its courses it's important to engage the international community and listen to different ideas as it is pursuing that action. i wonder if you leave here and return to washington see is the skepticism there and it might delay military action? for example, some in congress giving the syrian regime 45 days to sign the chemical weapons convention and get rid of its chemical stockpiles and do something to enhance international sense of accountability for syria but delay military action. are you, mr. president, looking at any of these ideas or are we on a fast track to military action as soon as congress renders its judgment one way or another? >> i'm listening to all of these items and some of them are constructive and i'm listening to ideas in congress and i'm listening to ideas here. look. i want to repeat here. my goal is to maintain the in this norm on banning chemical weapons. i want that enfo

reagan banned the sale of anything to iran that could be used militarily.as a state sponsor of terrorism, he did also ship missiles to iran, but we're not supposed to think of that when we think of reagan. president clinton also banned americans from investing money in iran. the point, every time these sanctions got stricter was to further isolate return, to hurt its economy and create a different climate over there within that country, to create intolerable internal pressure from the iranian people to make life so difficult for the average citizen they would turn against their own government whose policies were leading to these sanctions. to create domestic internal pressure in iran for iran to change its ways and every president since carter imposed more and more sanctions on iran, but the tactic never seemed to be doing anything, until now, all of a sudden, something has caused what has happened today. it was not until this president in this administration that the united states began imposing the harshest and most stringent sanctions they have ever seen

but i do not see and hear where the world is stepping up and agreeing to act with us militarily, not just condemning the actions. but acting on that condemnation of the actions with us in the military fashion. russia has obstructed efforts to investigate the use of chemical events. would you elaborate on what, if any, role russia has in bringing about a political solution in syria? and how has that been engaged, given the administration's attitude that there is no military solution? one of my concerns of the possibility of unintended consequences, including the prospect of prolonged military engagement. in august, you sent a letter saying there were actions that could be taken short of a military presence that could alter their behavior. you also said that it could escalate and commit as decisively to the conflict. could you elaborate on what you meant when you said that we could decisively be committed to the conflict? how do you minimize the possibility of prolonged commitment? and if international support is as limited as it appears to be now, how would you keep this from being mor

but i do not see and hear where the world is stepping up and agreeing to act with us militarily, not just condemning the actions. but acting on that condemnation of the actions with as in the military fashion. -- with us in the military fashion. russia has obstructed efforts to investigate the use of chemical events. would you elaborate on what, if any, role russia has in bringing about a political solution in syria? and how has that been engaged, given the administration's attitude that there is no military solution? one of my concerns of the possibility of unintended consequences, including the prospect of prolonged military engagement. in august, you sent a letter saying there were actions that could be taken short of a military presence that could alter their behavior. you also said that it could escalate and commit as decisively to the conflict. could you elaborate on what you meant when you said that we could decisively be date -- committed to the conflict? how do you minimize the possibility of prolonged commitment? and if international support is as limited as it appears to be

if that were the case, if it were no strike, what happens to us militarily?bly assad does something dramatic? >> well, one of the reasons why we've got this ambivalence in congress, immediately after he made those remarks, well, 1:00, 1 1:30 in the afternoon, he played a round of golf with joe biden instead of calling the congress. and he's now going to the g-20 and use some of that time to deal with it and putin has his own idea what a reset button is. nothing happens until the 9th of september, when congress come back to pull his fat out of the fire. my guess, by then the congress will approve some kind of action because at this point, stuart, we have to do something meaningful because our allies don't trust us anymore and certainly, our adversaries, don't respect us and won't unless we do something meaningful. stuart: so what do we actually do? your best guess, what do you we do? >> two or three days of cruise missile strikes, that's not really a strategy, but if it's followed up with real support to a real secular, if you will, freedom fighter movement wi

but i do not see and hear where the world is stepping up and agreeing to act with us militarily, not just condemning the actions. but acting on that condemnation of the actions with as in the military fashion. in the military fashion. russia has obstructed efforts to investigate the use of chemical events. what, if elaborate on any, role russia has in bringing about a political solution in syria? and how has that been engaged, given the administration's attitude that there is no military solution? one of my concerns of the possibility of unintended consequences, including the prospect of prolonged military engagement. in august, you sent a letter saying there were actions that could be taken short of a presence that could alter their behavior. also said that it could asalate and commit decisively to the conflict. could you elaborate on what you meant when you said that we could decisively be date -- committed to the conflict? how do you minimize the possibility of prolonged commitment? and if international support is as limited as it appears to be now, how would you keep this from bei

seen any evidence to prove that but even if he was behind the attack was why does the us have moral authority to militarily intervene in countries when we retain we use chemical weapons during modern warfare right now i mean as i stated when i first came here i'm not here to defend previous u.s. policy on stuff again i haven't stated certain parts what i thought was false it was about the invasion of iraq based on false evidence. rhetoric you are talking to . the thing is we cannot just simply say that anything the united states does is just going to be bad i think we need to live now in a world where we need to rely not only on ideology which is very important but on principles right and your national law is not using chemical weapons i mean that that's very important and i don't know when was the last time that mr baker was in syria but if you go to aleppo province it live province province the northern latakia province province and i can list a few others like a province for that matter you won't find very many people but out of his popular support for the assad regime this regime is not winning the war

deficit of the arab street as it were erupting because of a military action that brings no help to us militarilyresident has said i'm responsible for the national interests. the thenarrative of obamacare a this supposedly hellish thing, we now have a health care system for the future in america to build on if these people in washington allow themselves to build on it the way republicans help build on social security in the 1930s. >> we're seeing now with david e ignatius' piece the second stage i think of media analysis of what's happened in syria. david ignatius in his piece he checks off beautifully all the accomplishments that the obama carried policy has produced in syria, more than you possibly could have expected at the outset. and this comes after a week of everybody complaining about the zigzag. and david axelrod, when the presidency is dealing with something as seriously as syria policy, and that outcome, and all you're getting in the media is theater review of what the president said instead of what the president accomplished today, how does the white house react to that in trying to t

a mercenary force or block water if you will for its arab partners mr kerry told us representatives that being militarily bankrolled by arab countries is not in the cards that it's not an option the obama administration is currently considering but some ask why would the secretary of state speak publicly about the proposal if it wasn't being considered a valuable offer and also on wednesday the secretary of state also warned us representatives that a lack of military action against the government of bashar al assad could fuel extremist fighters secretary kerry said that if the u.s. doesn't strike syria then countries that countries funding the opposition such as saudi arabia and qatar which are america's allies will begin giving more money to extremist fighters so going by this rationale this means that the u.s. must strike syria to prevent its own allies from strengthening radical rebels clearly what we see is that many countries have their own agenda that are playing a. role in this ongoing syrian crisis hold a little little bag of the u.s. envoy to the united nations launched a tirade against russia f

evidence that syrian forces used chemical weapons labeling the claim is nonsense he also cautioned the obama administration about the fallout of getting involved in syria militarilyor to use john thomas has more on moscow's reaction. president vladimir putin spoke to reporters and bloody vostok here in russia and had some strong clear words about the situation in syria first of all he said all of this talk of strikes and military intervention from the west is he is certain because the syrian regime is making advances against the rebels and it's a tactic or a technique to try and turn the tide of the civil war in syria to the rebels side he also said that the idea of the government the assad regime using chemical weapons is absurd cityscape. syrian government forces are advancing in some areas they have surrounded the rebels to think that in such a time they would give a true code for those calling for intervention. now the president went on to say that of course russia is against the idea of weapons of mass destruction specifically chemical weapons and in this case and particularly that the global community needs to wait until the u.n. investigation team results

said a few months ago. >> you have got to remember this, he never said if you use chemical weapons, we will strike militarilyw. >> it turns out that was acceptable, yes. that's the story. that's the weirdness of the story. >> if he uses the chemicals again, what happens? >> the position now is -- >> that's an agreement. there is no agreement. >> you have got to pay attention to what they are saying. if he uses chemical weapons again, john kerry has been very clear, the president reserves the right to use a military strike. we're going to watch how this goes if it will. >> you cannot take it separate from other things. this year we saw in russia a number of laws that were totally violating russian constitution. it started with the law -- it's a ban on adomgs. it is limiting russian people to protest and and you may, of course the verdict was a very clear demonstration that any criticism. >> you got arrested over that one. >> it was me and many others. >> we are out of time right here. >>> good evening i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. it's been a day of violence here in washing

strike or stand and just say that they're against what was done, who will stand with us and be able to put militarilywho will be with us? and if we're not by ourselves, that was not answered. and so those are the two issues that i have right now. so who is with us? because i think if not knowing who that is, and if the international community is not with us, i think that the international credibility is at stake. not the united states. because it means that the north koreans of the world will say that somebody could utilize a weapon of mass destruction or chemical weapon and the international community will stay on the sideline. it needs to be a multi-lateral effort against this international violation. >> congressman connelly, can you make the case here to congressman meeks for why you would like his support on the version of the resolution that you are working on? >> yes, i think the overhang of iraq is profound. we were given shoddy and misused intelligence in some cases, a fabricated intelligence to justify the move into another country. and i think everybody feels burned by that experience. that

use it. that notion, asking for an authorization, militarily that i might not use is a perfectly legitimate strategict stratt is taken off the table by congress. >> they distrust any intelligence that comes out. distrust humanitarian motive off to try to intervene. i have got to say in 2003. i was aghast i had so many liberal friends that were embracing in vaegs vasion of ir. today i am troubled i have so many liberal friend unwilling to contemplate the use of force at a time when 100,000 syrians have died. and when that, the scale of the tragedy is going to rise into the hundreds of thousand if nothing more is done. >> let's listen to what president obama said to his liberal friends. >> to my friend on the left. i ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people. with the images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. for some times resolutions, and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. you say in your piece we have to address the fundamental questions can we really promote peace with military force. is it possible to help of a c

used. oh, we'll strike militarily, oh, no, we're not, we're going to go to congress and it was karl rove whove to measure things like this by outcomes, and if you think about judo using the power of the other side against them, by drawing putin in and russia in on this, it's -- i mean, now they are committed to something that it may not work, it may take months or even years, but the result is the stabilization almost by exit. >> i think that's a tough spot for president obama. we've seen the sausage making in the last two week and almost been like having a president who isn't a commander in chief but commander in confusion. at times it seems like dr. jeky jekyll and mr. heidi ganahyde. assad must go, there is a red line then the next moment he's vacillating and trying to do anything but what he has said. what we've also seen for the first time is a congress abandon him including some of his staunchest supporters in the democratic party. you've seen people like the congressional black caucus members like the hispanic caucus members say we're not going with you and you've seen a lot of critic

right now they are testifying making the same arguments, the united states must respond militarily to syria's usechemical weapons against its own people. the arguments we heard yesterday. they're going into a little bit more elaboration today. dana bash is standing by. even as they're arguing on the house side, there seems to be a setback of sorts for the president's call for a resolution of approval on the senate side from john mccain. what's going on? >> reporter: sounds like they're in the prosacess of working it out. there was aee

but we have to make is clear that we'll respond militarily if they're used again. >> you sound optimisticout the possibility of the resolution. >> i'm optimistic because we were in a real fix a couple of days ago. i disagree with president obama to take this to the congress. he was going to lose and what a predicament we were going to be under those conditions. this gives us the opportunity to put to the test assad and his russian friends. if they prove themselves to be duplicitous, and then it brings more support from the american people. we've already seen a shift of the views of the american people after the president's speech. we're back in the game. that's very important. we'll have to play very smart, and we'll have to be very flexible, but i believe we can stop the syrians from using chemical weapons, and i think we might be able to get a diplomatic resolution. >> ambassador jeffrey with us tonight. thank you for taking the time to talk with us. >>> 12 years after the 9/11 attacks on the united states there are still service millions serving in afghanistan. but the mission of those

mean what better to that accountability because frank if he doesn't come militarily nothing in international law allows the use of military force by one country to punish the government of another country for a violation it was not aimed at us this is not self-defense it is not our interests that are at stake here it's the people of syria and if we want to be serious about defending their rights the first thing we can do is not send missiles against them ok cynthia would you like to reply to that. well we have had we have done this one for us in the case of kosovo and have done it effectively so there is a precedent for this is that with and and a lot of people were a lot of civilians were killed on telling me to get it and prevent it again so there's not a whole lot of point in arguing about it you know they're going to prison for a home you know as long as the international law it's. ok things in the u.n. will never ok anything it becomes you know a hopeless case but i do think in this case president obama has and it has that relates of how to say that the nie says ok what if what happened to international l

as it relates to the administration's request for us to grant authorization for this country to strike militarily against syria for what appears to be the use of chemical weapons in violation of international law against the syrian people. that debate will play itself out over the next few days and perhaps even the next few weeks. but while we undertake that solemn obligation to make the best decision for this country and for our constituents as it relates to such a critical issue of war and peace and possible military engagement, we also have a similar responsibility to deal with the domestic issues that continue to impact our constituents as well as the american people. and we know that we're still in the midst of a very sluggish economic recovery. and the american worker has fallen behind relative to the position that that worker was in coming out of world war ii and through the 1960's and the 1970's, into the 1980's and the 1990's. this is a matter of urgent concern to the members of the congressional black caucus and it should be a matter of urgent concern to everyone who's a member of this