tv Americas Newsroom FOX News September 4, 2013 6:00am-8:01am PDT
and what i can say with confidence is that when it comes to our domestic operations, the concerns that people have back home in the united states of america. that we do not surveil the american people or persons within the united states. that there are a lot of checks and balances in place designed to avoid a surveillance state. there have been times where the procedures -- because these are human endeavors -- have not worked the way they should and we had to tighten them up. i think there are legitimate questions that have been raised that as technology advances and capabilities grow, it may be the laws that are currently in place are not sufficient to guard
against the dangers of us being able to track so much. when it comes to intelligence gathering internationally, our focus is on counter-terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, cyber-security, the national security interests of the united states. but what is true is, the united states has enormous capabilities when it comes to intelligence. one way to think about it is the same way our military capabilities are significantly greater than many other countries, the same is true for our intelligence capabilities. even though we may have the say goals our means are significantly greater. and i can give assurances to the
public in europe and around the world that we are not going around snooping at people's e-mails or listening to their phone calls. what we try to do is target very specifically areas of concern. having said that, what i have said domestically and what i say to international audiences, we have changes in technology, with the growth of our capabilities, if our attitude is because we can do it we should go ahead and do it, then we may not be addressing some of the legitimate concerns and dangers that exist any type we are talking about intel jns gathering and surveillance. what i asked my national security team to do as well as
independent persons who are well-known lawyers or civil libertarians or privacy experts to do, is to review everything we are doing with the instructions to them that we have to balance the ends with the means. and just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. and there may be situations in which we are gathering information because we can that doesn't help us with our national security. but does raise questions in terms of whether we are tipping over into being too intrusive with respect to the interactions of other governments. and that is something we are currently reviewing carefully.
we are consulting with the eu in this process. we are consulting with other countries in this process. and finding out from them whether there are areas of specific concern and trying to align what we do in a way that i think alleviates some of the public concerns that people may have. but this is always going to be some -- there is going to be some balancing that takes place on these issue. some of the folks who have been most greatly offended publicly, we know privately engage in the say activities directed at us or use information we obtained to protect their people. and we recognize that. but i think all of us have to take a very thoughtful approach to this problem. and i'm the first one to
knowledge given advances in technology and the fact that so much of our information flows today through the internet, through wireless, that the risks of abuse are greater than they have been in the past. with respect to sweden, i haven't had a chance to wander around stockholm as much as i would like. it's a gorgeous country. what i know about sweden, i think, offers us some good lessons, number one the work you have done on energy i think is something the united states can and will learn in because every country in the world right now has to recognize if we are going to continue to grow and improve our standard of living while maintaining a sustainable planet, we are going to have to change our patterns of energy use.
and sweden i think is far ahead of many other countries. sweden also has been able to have a robust market economy while recognizing there is some investments in education or infrastructure or research that are important. and there is no contradiction between making public investments and being a firm believer in free markets. that's a debate, a discussion that we often have in the united states. i have to say if i were here in europe, i probably would be considered right in the middle, maybe center left, maybe center right, depending on the country. in the united states sometimes the names i'm called are quite different. and i think a third observation
and final observation i make is i know -- i'm sure frederick doesn't feel this as he's engaging in difficult debates here -- i do get a sense that the sweden right now involve both the ruling party and the opposition engaged in a respectful and rational debate that's based on facts and issues. and i think that kind of recognition that people can have political differences, but while trying to achieve the same goals. that's something that sweden should be proud of and should try to maintain. >> first question from the american press goes to steve
holland of reuters. >> thank you, mr. president, thank you, sir. have you
made up your mind whether to take action against syria whether or not you have a congressional resolution approved? is a strike needed in order to your credit bit and will you enlist the support of the prime minister for support in syria. >> i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. the world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the word's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty.
congress set a red line when it indicated in -- in a piece of legislation entitled the "syria accountability act." some of the horrendous thing happening on the ground there need to be answered for. what i said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something i kind of made up. i didn't pluck it out of thin air. there is a reason for it. that's point number one. point number two, my credibility is not on the line.
the international community's credibility is on the line. and america and congress' credit bit is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important. and when those videos first broke and you saw images of over 400 children subjected to gas, everybody expressed outrage. how can this happen in this modern world? well, it happened because a government chose to deploy these deadly weapons on civilian populations. so the question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed?
the question is, how credible is congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of sceptical weapons? and i do think that we have to act. because if we don't, we are effectively saying that even though we maco -- even though we may condemn it, somebody who is not shamed i resolutions can continue to act with impunity. those international norms begin to erode. and other despots and authoritarian ajeeps start look and saying, that's something we can get away with. and that calls into question other international norms and
laws of war and whether those will be enforced. as i told the prime minister, i'm very respectful of the u.n. investigators who went in at great danger to try to gather evidence about what happened. we want more information, not less. but when i said that i have high confidence that chemical weapons were used and that assad government through their chain of command ordered their use, that was based on both public sourcing, intercepts evidence that we feel very confident about, including samples that have been tested showing sarin from individuals who were there.
i'm very mindful of the fact that around the world and here in europe in particular there are still memories of iraq and weapons of mass destruction and people being concerned about how accurate this information is. keep in mind i'm somebody who opposed the war in iraq and not interested in repeating mistakes of us basing decisions on faulty intelligence. having done a thorough evaluation of the information currently available, i can say with high confidence chemical weapons were used. by the way, iran doesn't deny it, even syria doesn't deny they were used, and that is what the u.n. investigators are supposed to be determining. and frankly nobody is disputing that chemical weapons were used.
the on remaining dispute is who used them, which is outside the properers of the u.n. investigation. so the u.n. investigation will not be able to answer that preliminarily. they are not supposed to. but what we know is the opposition doesn't have the capability to deliver weapons on this scale. these weapons are in assad's possession. we have intercepts indicating people in the chain of command both before and after the attacks with knowledge of these attacks. we can show the rockets that deliver these chemical weapons went from areas controlled by al-assad into these areas where the opposition was lodged. and accumulation of evidence gives us high confidence that
assad carried this out. so the question is, after we have gone through all this, are we going to try to find a reason not to act? and if that's the case, i think the world community should admit it. because you can always find a reason not to act. this is a complicated, difficult situation. and an initial response will not solve the underlying tragedy of the civil war in syria. as frederick mentioned, that will be solved through eventually a political transition. you we can send a strong message against the prohibition or in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. we can change assad's calculus about using them again.
we can degrade his ability to use them again. i'm talking about an operation that is limited in scope deterring the use of those weapons again and we'll continue to engage the entire international community. which brings me to the last question. what happens if congress doesn't approve it? i believe that congress will approve it. i believe congress will approve it because i think america recognizes that as difficult as it is to take any military action -- even one as limited as we are talking about. even one without boots on the ground, that's a sober decision. but i think america also
recognizes that if the international community fails to maintain certain norms and standard of laws, governing how countries interact and how people are treated, that over time this world becomes less safe. it becomes more dangerous not on for those people subjected to those horrible crimes, but to all of humanity. we have seen that happen again and again in our history. the people of europe are certainly familiar with what happens when the international community find excuses not to act. and i would not have taken this before congress just as a symbolic gesture. i think it's very important that congress say that we mean what we say. and i think we'll be stronger as a country in our response if the
president and congress does it together. as commander-in-chief i preserve the right and responsibility to act on behalf of america's national security. i do not believe i was required to take this to congress, but i did not take this to congress just because it's an empty exercise. i think it's important to have congress' support on it. >> the next swedish question goes to swedish national television. >> you have given eloquent talks about the moral force of non-violence. i was wondering, could you describe the dilemma to be a nobel peace prize winner and getting ready to attack syria? and also, in what way did the talk that you had today with prime minister phelps move
closer to resolving the climate crisis. >> i would refer you to the speech i gave when i received the nobel prize. and i think i started the speech by saying that compared to previous recipients i was certainly unworthy. but what i also described was the challenge that all of us face when we believe in peace but we confront a world that full of -- world that is full of violence and occasional evil. the question becomes, what are our responsibilities. i made of effort to end the war in iraq, wind down the war in afghanistan, strengthen our commitment to multi lateral
action, to promote diplomacy as the solution to problems. the question, though, that all of us face -- not just me -- our citizens face, not just political leaders -- at what point do we say we need to confront actions that are violating our common humanity. and i would argue that when i see 400 children subjected to gas, over 1,400 innocent civilians dying senselessly in an environment in which you already have tens of thousands dying, and we had the opportunity to take some action
that is meaningful, even if it doesn't solve the entire problem, may at least mitigate this particular problem. then the moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing. but it's different. this is the part of my job that i find most challenging every single day. i would much rather spend my type talking about how to make sure every 3 and 4-year-old gets a good education, than i would spending time thinking about how can i prevent 3 and 4-year-olds from being subjected to chemical weapons and nerve gas. unfortunately, that's sometimes the decisions i'm confronted with as president of the united states. frankly as president of the
united states i can't avoid those questions because as much as we are criticized, when bad stuff happens around the world, the first question is, what is the united states going to do about it. that's true on every issue. it's true in libya, it's true in rwanda, it's true in sierra leone. it's now true in syria. i think we have great opportunities -- i think there is a good chance for fred trick to talk about our shared views here. because we have i think a joint belief that developed countries have to make progress, but we have to have an international framework to address where the increases in emissions are now
affirmed. >> i totally agree to that. i think it's been an interesting development off copenhagen. we were saying the u.s. had the highest emissions in the world and china was catching up. now only a few years later we have a situation where china doubled the emissions of the ones we have in the u.s. this is actually reshaping the situation when it comes to climate protection. we are both responsible for lowering our emissions and we are doing so. you we must also face the fact that we very soon have a situation where 25% of the global emissions are from the united states and europe. so we have to take in the 75% outside of the european union and the united states. we want to deal with this, but
it has to be a global answer. >> the final question goes to margaret fallon of the global news. >> tomorrow you will meet with vladimir putin and relations are seriously strained. are your efforts now excluding russia from the decision to strike syria and do you believe in your reset you overestimated what you could change or do you believe mr. putin changed the rules midway. >> i will indulge you. >> can you take us behind the scenes on that 45-minute walk where you changed your mind and decided to take it to congress. >> margaret, you are really pressing things. this is question number four
now. >> you have expressed some doubts about military action in syria and i'm wondering if you can be for specific about your concerns over the consequences and what they may be and whether mr. putin shares any of the burden for the responsibilities of mr. assad's actions. >> i'm going to try to remember all this. first of all, the reset in the russian relationship was not done on a whim. there were specific u.s. interests that i believed we could pursue with russia where interests overhappened that would help us both on our long-term national security and our economy. and we succeed.
we succeed in passing a new treaty that reduced nuclear stockpiles for the united states and russia. russia joined the wto which bound them to a set of international rules governing trade which i think ultimately will be good for the russian economy, but is also good for its trading partners and potential companies investing in russia, and that includes u.s. companies. so we work together on counter-terrorism issues. they provided us significant assistance in supplying our troops in afghanistan. there were a whole host of outcomes from that reset that were valuable to the united states. there is no doubt as i indicated a while back, we kind of hit a wall in terms of additional
progress. but i have not written off the idea that the united states and russia are going to continue to have common interests even as we have some profound differences on some other issues. where our interests overlap, we should pursue common action. where we have differences we should be candid about them, try to manage those differences but not sugar coat them. one area where we have a difference is on the issue of syria. russia has a longstanding relationship with the assad regime, and as a consequence, it has been very difficult to get russia working through the security council to acknowledge some of the terrible behavior of
the assad regime and to try to push for its political transition that's needed in order to stabilize syria. and i have said to mr. putin directly and i continue to believe that even if you have great concerns about elements in the opposition, and we have got some concerns about certain element of the opposition, even if you are concerned about the territorial integrity of syria and we are concerned about the territorial integrity of syria. if you want to end the violence and slaughter in syria you are going to have to have a political transition. it's not possible for mr. assad to regain legitimacy in a country where he killed tens of thousands of his own people.
that will not happen. so far at least mr. putin rejected that logic. as far as security council action we have gone repeatedly to the security council for even the most modest of resolutions condemning the actions taking place there and it has been resisted by russia. and do i hold out hope that mr. putin may change his position on some of these issues? i'm always hopeful. and i will continue to engage them. because i think that international action would be much more effective and ultimately we can end death much more rapidly if russia takes a different approach to these problems. in terms of my decision to take the issue to congress, this has
been brew montgomery my mind for a while. some people noted and i think this is true, had i been in the senate in the midst of this period, i probably would have suggested to a democratic or republican president that congress should have the ability to weigh in on an issue like this that is not immediate, imminent time sensitive. when the chairman of the joint chiefs, mr. dempsey, indicated to me that whether we struck today, tomorrow or a month from now, we could still do so effectively, then i think that raised the question of why not
ask congress to debate this in a serious way. because i do think it raises issues that will occur for us and for the international community for many years to come. the truth of the matter is under international law, a security council resolution for self-defense or telephones an ally provides a clear basis for action. but increasingly we'll be confronted with situations like syria and kosovo and rwanda in which we may not always have a security council that can act, it may be paralyzed for a whole host of reasons. yet we have all these international norms that we are interested in upholding. we may not be directly imminently threatened i what's
taking place in kosovo or syria or rwanda in the short term. but our long-term national security will be impacted in a profound way and our humanity is impacted in a profound way. i think it's important for us to get out of the habit in those circumstances -- i'm not talking about circumstances where our national security is directly impacted and we have been attacked and the president has to act quickly -- but in circumstances like i described, it's important for to us get out of the habit of saying we'll let the president stretch the boundaries of his authority as far as he can. congress will sit on the sidelines, snipe, and if it works the sniping will be a little less. fit doesn't a little more. but either way the american people and their representatives are not fully invested in what
are tough choices. we as a country and the world are going to have to make tough choices. i do get frustrated though i understand how complex this is. any time you are involved in military actions people will ask, this may do more harm than good. i understand those arguments. i wrestle with them every day. you i do have to ask people, if you are outraged by the slaughter of innocent people, what are you doing about it? if the answer is, well, what he should engage dip platt i -- ie answer is we should engage diplomatically, we engaged diplomatically. if the answer is we should shame these governments. these governments sometimes show no shame. well, when should act internationally. sometimes because of the various alignments it's hard to act through a security council resolution. so either we resign ourselves to
saying there is nothing we can do about it and we'll just shake our heads and go about our business, or we make decisions even when they are difficult. and i think this is an example of where we need to make decisions even though they are difficult -- i think it's important for congress to be involved in that decision. >> i think i should answer the question. i think you are right in saying this very difficult decision to take. but as always it's a balancing act. we have been discussing this during our talks. just to remind you. here in sweden, a small country with a deep belief in the united nations. yesterday or the day before we took the decision that all the people coming from the war in syria are allowed to stay permanently in sweden.
so the people following the press conference are just now coming from syria and wonder was the view of their country. they have a lot of countrymen in this country. we have roots and links to syria. i think the main problem has been for 2 1/2 years now is we have a war without a clear political solution. that at the end of the day we must get a cease-fire and get the peace process and get people to talk to each other. i total hi understand the complex situation also on the opposition because we have part of the opposition here in sweden which is now conducted of different groups. they want to get something out of the picture. but what do they want instead? that's a question we need to attend to. the weapons inspectors present in damascus is headed by sweden. in this country we are asking for the time to be able to see
what were their findings especially since president obama has sent the decision also to congress. we think that gives us some more time and we are welcoming that. having said that, i will also say i understand the absolute problem of not having a reaction to use of chemical weapons and what kind of signal that send to the world in a time where we are developing our view on the international law. not saying you are allowed to do whatever you like to your own people as long as it's inside your own borders. now, we have these -- we need to protect people, we need to look at the interests of each and every one. so this is a development we are seeing. that's the same discussion we are having in sweden. i understands specially you as president needs to react otherwise [inaudible] but this country will always say let's
put our hope into the united nations, let us push on some more to get to the situation. of course, president putin has responsibility in that, of course. everyone understands, russia and also china has been outside of decision making that we would have needed a long time ago to put more clear pressure on political solutions. so that is what we have been discussing today. if you balance all these it shows how difficult this is. >> thank you very much. that concludes this press conference. thank you all for attending. bill: from sweden we have been listening the past 50 minute or so a press conference with the swedish prime minister and the u.s. president barack obama. the following line will be talked. quote i did not set a red line. the world set a red line. the word from the president moments afoe which is a new statement that sort of redefines what he said a year ago this
past august. our coverage continues on america's newsroom. there was a lot that was said off the last 40-50 minutes or so. i'm bill hemmer and welcome to america's newsroom. martha: i'm martha maccallum. indeed a lot was said. you can sense the president reframing his argument for congress. he's speaking to that audience at home as the house prepares to listen to his argument for a strike in syria. let's listen to what he said this morning. it's slightly different when it comes to the red line. >> i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. the world set a red line when governments representing 98% of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.
congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. bill: and he continued to explain that answer. this is what he said 13 months ago at the white house. >> we have been very clear to the assad regime and also to other players on the ground that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of of chemical weapons being moved around or being utilizing. that would chang my calculus. bill: general michael haig, good morning to you. we have a quick opportunity here to get an answer from you to describe how he is explaining that statement now. the computer will cut us off. we'll come pack and talk about that more. what did you think about what you just heard? >> i think it was a surprising statement. i saw the press conference last
august. i think he did set a red line. he might have been able to say he's not the on one who has set a red line. but there is no question he set a red line. he made it personal and he actually committed the united states almost exclusively to action should that red line be crossed. bill: i'm going ask you what that means in a moment. back in two minutes after this.
bill: back with general michael hayden. if you believe he did set that red line 13 months ago, whether it was 13 months ago or 13 years ago. does it change anything in the calculus whether congress gives him the authority to go after damascus, yes or no. >> i don't think so. i think at the end of the debate
congress will authorize action. and in my view that's the correct decision. the question is what do you do about the other 98,000 people who have been killed. what do you do about instability in the arab world. but having set a red line the word of the president of the united states has to mean something. we have to show the syrians and iranians that actions have consequences. bill: i want to stay on the comments the president made about the evidence. it's about as much as he has said so far publicly. intercepts, chain of command he believes they have. talk about public sourcing. the testing of sarin gas. he said rockets went from areas where assad controlled. in area where rebels controlled. is that enough to condense those on the fence in congress?
>> it's enough for me. i red jim clapper's 4-page white paper. it's a remarkable document. it leans forward in essentially exposing some intelligence sources and method. when you put the word in there that we intercepted communications people with my background begin to hyperventilate. this is a very powerful case. if people come out of these closed hearings today saying the intelligence is inconclusive, they are just trying to avoid the decision. this is a a jack nicholson moment. the truth, you can't stand the truth. the truth is he used these weapons and we have evidence he used these weapons. bill: vladimir putin is speaking at the same time and he's suggesting any accusations assad did this are ludicrous. he said congress does not have the right to have a role in an
act of aggression. how much of what congress says matters in what we do. >> i think we have the facts. i'm sure in the closed sessions the members of congress will see the weight of evidence that we have, that this happened and the syrian government did it. it's a policy question. it's not an intelligence question. >> this is a question that goes to chemical weapons. it was asked moat ago and runs about a minute. listen carefully. >> the opposition doesn't have the capability to deliver weapons on this scale. these weapons are in assad's possession. we have intercepts indicating people in the chain of command both before and after the attacks with knowledge of these attacks. we can show that the rockets that delivered these chemical weapons went from areas controlled the by assad into these areas where the opposition
was launched. -- was lodged. and the accumulation of evidence gives us high confidence that assad carried this how the. bill: that phrase high confidence is what he used yesterday before he departed for sweden. is this what congress is being told in these classified briefings or are they being given more evidence. >> they are being given more information. who exactly was that syrian official and what did he say before, during and after the attacks. it will reinforce what's been put out there in the public domain at the unclassified level. bill: general, it's great to have you on. martha: we are seeing reports reuters is reporting this, we are working to see if we can confirm it. we have calls into senator mccain's office. but the report is he cannot support the syria draft resolution.
so we know john mccain was onboard with the president's plan to strike syria. but the suggestion is that the plan has lost teeth. that it is not strong enougher to john mccain. we'll see if we can speak with him coming up. all of that when we take a quick break. we'll be right back in america's newsroom with more. waffle bars. ryan, your hotels' robes are fabulous. i have twelve of them. twelve? shhhh, i'm worth it& what i'm trying to say is, it's so hard to pick just one of you, so i'm choosing all of you with hotels.com. a loyalty program that requires no loyalty. plus members can win a free night every day only at hotels.com
martha: we are back with a quickly moving story on syria. the big question right now is will president obama get the back he's seeking from congress? he needs that back he feels to gain it momentum to pull off a successful snriek syri -- a successful strike in syria to get international support which has been a struggle in this goal. john mccain had been supportive
of the president's mission in syria, and now there is some indication, and this is a reuters report that we are working to confirm. we called to the senator's office to see if he's on board. but they are reporting he's not onboard with a strike resolution. i'm joined by a research analyst at the institute for the study of war. she has spent a lot of time meeting with the opposition forces. she just returned from a trip there. that was her fifth in the past year. she is with us now from washington. good to have you here today. what are your thoughts on that? i know that you have had a lot of communication with senator john mccain. would you be surprised if he was not supportive this senate draft resolution? >> i think all along senator mccain advocated for a
comprehensive strategy. he was concerned about half steps that wouldn't have strategic objectives. but i would be very surprise fed wasn't supportive of some sort of strike in syria given the dynamics and concerns there needs to be a response to chemical weapons. martha: it would appear senator mccain is central to president obama gaining the support he need in congress. let's take a hissen from this quote at speaks to what we are talking about here. the syrian rebels on u.s. military action. this is coming from colonel kadi. he says a light strike would be worse than doing nothing. fit' not a death blow this helps the regime even more. what do you think about that?
>> i think there are a lot of fears of escalation and that it could reload to greater retaliation. i also think there is a big fear that any action that we do really needs to target the air power in order to limit that ability to retaliate. that being said, the opposition is have much in favor of a more robust strike to help them an empower them. but any reaction at this point is better than nothing. martha: there is also reports that the syrian defense minister under assad has defected to turkey. can you confirm those reports and how significant is that? would that be a sign his support is starting to principler and would that be a hopeful sign? >> it is a hopeful sign. he did defect with a number of senior commanders and important generals from the syrian army.
to that degree you are beginning to see some sort of internal cleavages between the regime especially in response to the chemical weapons and this could be a hopeful start for the future. martha: one last question before i let you go in terms of support in other areas of the middle east. how much support do you believe we have in this mission? >> i think it go back to what our strategy is and what our objectives are. a number of our allies in the region including saad yesterday arabia and qatar would support a more complex strategy. if it's merely a punitive strike it could empower the opposite elements that we are looking to help. martha: it could be what we are discussion is very central to where senator mccain is right now on this issue and whether what has been described by the senate is strong enough to make it worth it and make eight
martha: fox news alert this morning. the president's national security team is gearing up for a second day of questioning on capitol hill. today a house panel will hear from secretary of state john kerry, defense secretary chuck hagel, and joint chiefs chair general martin dempsey. once again gathering to make the case for an american assault in syria. welcome, everybody. brand new hour now of "america's newsroom." glad you're with us this morning. busy day. a lot going on. glad to have with yous. bill: good morning martha. the president continues his push for support overseas. he is in stokes home, sweden heading to the g20 summit. last hour he had a lot to say what is happening in syria
today. martha: wendell goler traveling with the president, joins us live from stockholm. wendell, how did the president defend his decision to request military action in syria? >> reporter: the president defended the accuracy with the intelligence with russian president putin comparing situation in syria with iraq in 2003. president obama says no one denies chemical weapons were used and the dispute who used them. they were fired from areas controlled by the syrian government into the areas of opposition strength. he warnerred it is easier to find reasons not to act. >> i do think that we have to act. because if we don't, we are effectively saying that even though we may condemn it and issue resolutions and so forth and so on, somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity. >> reporter: the president said
failing to act calls into question other international norms and makes the world less safe and he got something like support if you will from swedish prime minister frederick rinfelt says use of chemical weapons violated by international law. he prefer the matter be handled by the u.n. but understands the consequences of letting a violation like that going unanswered. the president did not say if he will act even without con growingal authorization but he said congressional support is important. >> i think we will be stronger as a country in our response if the president and congress does it together. as commander-in-chief i always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of america's national security. i do not believe i was required to take this to congress but i did not take this to congress just because it is an empty exercise. i think it is important to have.
>> reporter: though it was the president who warned syria's leader was crossing a red line by using chemical weapons, today he said the international community set the red line and the congress reinforced it by ratifying the post-world war ii treaty that outlawed chemical weapons and congress's international community credibility on the line, not his own. martha? martha: the big question will he get that support from congress? bill: from stockholm here at home. meanwhile the president's national security team is working overtime to try to convince congress. classified briefings underway yet again on the hill. chief white house correspondent ed henry joins me from the north lawn. good morning to you. this red line comement, it women be the lead on every newscast later tonight. i did not set a red line. the world set a red line. what can you report as to how that comement came about? >> reporter: well, first of all there is this widespread view, you're right, one year ago this
month the at a news conference president boxed himself in, the red line for him, that would change his calculus whether to intervene in the civil war in syria would be that quote, unquote, red line of chemical weapons being spread around syria or being used as they now have been several times of course, not just this one incident on august 21st. that would in his words, lead to enormous consequences. so the world has been waiting. where are the enormous consequences? what i saw the president do here in this news conference in stockholm is play a little defense and insist, my credibility is not on the line it is international community's credibility is on line. he insisted he did not drought line. they did. take a listen. >> i didn't set a red line. the world set a red line. what i said when a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons which the
overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't saying i just kind of made up. i didn't pluck it out of thin air. there's a reason for it. >> reporter: so he is trying to say accurately that there are these international norms about the use of chemical weapons, and how that, if it doesn't violate international laws at least, you know, violates treaties and violates as he keeps saying the international norm but what he is really trying to do, politically spread the responsibility around. it is not just on my back. it is on congress's back and international community's back. everyone knows what he said one year ago. bill: we'll find out whether or not the strategy works in the end. they're back on the hill again trying to convince lawmakers. john mccain came out and said the draft from the senate doesn't go far enough for his taste when it comes to harming assad and his regime. >> reporter: right. bill: did the white house expect
john mccain go that route? >> reporter: they knew he was concerned in one direction here that the president is being squeezed as you say. on one hand he has antiwar democrats from the left saying, why are we intervening at all? then you have folks like john mccain, saying intervene but don't make this a symbolic strike a shot across the bow as the president said last week. decimate assad's military. the president's team fanning out on hill. you saw secretary of state kerry and defense secretary hagel. they're back on the hill on closed hearing. yesterday was open hearings. what they're trying to do behind closed doors basically with general dempsey, we should point out, the joint chiefs chairman, make the case with intelligence behind closed doors, what they can't say in front of the cameras. i have to tell you i spoke to one top official here told me they simply do not know if they have votes in the house and senate as of today to get this
through the congress. that gives you idea of predictment president is in. number two at the news conference the president left the door open if congress votes no. he might act unlate israeli. that will open a wolin line of more questions. bill: one more question on the red line here, do you know, any knowledge where that comement came from? was that from the president? was that from maybe the strategy session yesterday or even ben rhodes traveling with him overseas? >> reporter: well, it is coming from the president because he has hinted at this in the pbs interview a few days ago and others but yes there was a strategy session at the white house we reported on late yesterday. david axelrod, stephanie cutter, some former campaign advisors meeting what with white house aides here trying to figure out how to sharpen the message. that gets into the bloodstream of the talking points or not. the president beyond the political strategy has been trying to push some blame away from himself. that is natural for any president, to say, look i made this comment a year ago. it is not just about me but
everybody coming together because of what assad did. but you're right, he is in a predictment, bill. bill: ed henry. we'll be in touch throughout the day from the north lawn. a fascinating press conference taken the story in another direction yet again today. martha: he needs support of congress. he said he doesn't feel he needs it legally. that he has the power to do it. but if he doesn't have the support of congress and it looks like there are real problems on the house side, the house foreign affairs committee will hear today from general martin dempsey, from chuck hagel and john kerry. they will have their round of questioning to go at these three folks who are supportive of this mission and whether or not they have that vote is a huge question mark right now. then you look outside of that, we don't have u.n. support on this. and the president of russia saying again today, vladmir putin, that he thinks that there's no authority for this kind of action from the united states. so a lot of big questions whether or not the president might be standing somewhat alone on this. bill: with regard to the timeline as you're watching this and following this at home and at work right now, the house is
not fully in session i think until perhaps midweek of next week. so, even if the senate does approve a resolution, despite what senator mccain's position right now, it would go to the house midweek next week. they take it up and debate and vote by perhaps end of next week before the 39 would be given green light in congress if that is the way it goes. president obama expects approval and authority to woman from congress in that vote. martha: yep. this story today, because it is, another chapter to this monster who held three women captive for 10 years in the basement of his cleveland home and he took his own life last night. corrections officers found convicted kidnapper and rapist ariel castro hanging in his prison cell last night. he had been in custody since the day that his victims broke free last may with the help of some neighbors who helped them escape. they called 911. remember this phone call that
day? >> 911. >> help me, i'm amanda -- >> you need police, fire, ambulance. >> i need police. >> what is going on there? >> i've been kidnapped and i've been missing for 10 years and i'm here, i'm free now. >> okay. and what's your address? >> 2207 seymour avenue. >> 2207 seymour. looks like you're calling from 2210. >> i can't hear you. >> looks like you're calling me from 2210 seymour. >> i'm across the street. i'm using this phone. >> stay there with those neighbors until they get there. >> okay. martha: that piece of sound and that phone call, when amanda berry finally broke free. we can only imagine what went through the mind of these three women this morning when they woke up to the news that this man who held them for a decade took his own life in his prison cell. mike tobin is on this story for us. so, mike, he was under surveillance. how did this happen?
>> reporter: well, it was 9:20:00 p.m. last night, martha, when ariel castro was found hanging in thinks jail cell. sources are telling local news that he use ad bedsheet to hang himself. staff immediately performed cpr. he was transferred to the medical center facility at ohio state university where the final pronouncement of death was made. county coroner performed autopsy and cause of death was a hanging. state corrections officer is writing there will be finalized information available pending the outcome of an investigation, martha. martha: was he on suicide watch? >> reporter: he was no longer on a suicide watch. he was taken off the suicide watch back in june when he was still at the county jail. officials with the county jail determined he was not a suicide risk. he was however in protective custody. which means he was checked on every 30 minutes as opposed to constant surveillance which is what he would have gotten if he was still on a suicide watch. it should be noted he was initially taken to the lorraine
correctional facility which sun with of the most crowded in the state. he was moved to that corrections reception center in ohio for his own safety. he did not interact with general prison population there. his attorneys requested an in-depth psychological evaluation of castro and never got it. they thought he should be researched. they thought he fit the exact profile of sociopact thick disorder and by studying him they could stop other predators in the future, martha. martha: we'll see if we get any reaction from the three young women he held. mike, thank you. bill: checked on every 30 minutes. this man clearly had the intent to leave this world. martha: yep. bill: some top republicans coming out in support of president's push for action in syria here. >> this is something the united states as a country needs to do. i'm going to support the president's call for action. i believe my colleagues should
support this call for action. bill: but will the rest of john boehner's party in the house? we'll talk to one of those leading republicans who was in that private meeting yesterday at the white house. >> coming up. plus details of an al qaeda plan to hijack and use american drones detailed in a classified document that was stolen by edward snowden. more on that coming up.
martha: top republicans in congress now supporting president obama's calls for military action in syria despite growing divisions among lawmakers. here is house speaker john boehner after yesterday's meeting with president obama. >> i'm going to support the president's call for action. i believe that my colleagues should support this call for action. we have enemies around the world that need to understand that we're not going to tolerate this type of behavior. we also have allies around the world and allies in the region
who also need to know that america will be there and stand up when it is necessary. martha: that was john boehner. when he came out of the meeting yesterday. california pub buck mckeon, chairman of the house armed services committee. he was in the meeting with the president yesterday and leadership. good to have you with us today. >> thank you, martha. thanks for having me. martha: where do you stand on this, sir? >> i stand with the troops. you know, one of the things that i'm most concerned about is the president in the last couple of years has surged the troops to afghanistan while he cut the military budget. he flew flights over libya while he cut the military budget. he changed the strategy to emphasis in the pacific while he cut the military budget. the military accounts for 17% of our spending but they're facing cuts of over a trillion dollars. and it is wreaking havoc on our readiness.
and now we're asking him to do another mission. you know, we keep asking them to do more with less, and i think that has to stop. we talk about the morality of standing up to men such as assad. what he did was immoral but he used chemical weapons almost a year ago and we didn't do anything about it. and that causes big problems. i think it's also immoral to be sending our troops out while we're cutting their ability to carry out their missions and return home safely. martha: i understand what you're saying. when you look at the situation in congress, do you believe that a vote would pass for this strike in syria? because there's a lot of question about what kind of coalition needs to be built and a suggestion this morning that it is really nancy pelosi who would have to pull this over the finish line. is that the case? >> well, yesterday the speaker and nancy said they would support the president's action.
so this will be not decided politically. every member of congress, and i know, lots of good people there. they will be doing what they think is right. it will be one of their toughest votes in congress because they're going to be pulled in all different directions. i have no idea how the vote will come out. i have no idea how the debate will go. but there will be pressures from all different sides to do this or do that and at the end of the day, some of those people aren't going to make up their minds until they're on the floor voting. i don't know when i will make my mind up. martha: that is what i was going to ask you. based on what you know now would you vote to support the strike? >> no, i told the president yesterday that we needed to stop this sequestration. we need to stop cutting back our military. and he came up to me after the meeting and said, you know, he really wanted to end
sequestration too. well he's the one who can do it. he is the one person that is elected by everybody in the country. he is the one that can provide the leadership to get us out of this mess of sequestration that's causing so much damage to our defense and to our troops. the readiness is, they're not getting the training now that they were a year ago and next year if this doesn't stop they will be getting even less. now we're talking lives. and that's immoral. martha: congressman, are you saying that you believe that if we were to see a vote go through for this strike, that the u.s. military would not be, would not be up for the task? >> no. no. they, the people we have on the ships in the gulf right now and the people that will be called upon to carry out this mission are trained. they're up to, they're up to speed. they're able to do it but what i'm saying is we're on a course to take our navy down to the smallest it has been since world
war i. we're taking our army back down to the size it was before world war ii. and our air force smalling than it has ever been. we have a third of our air force grounded for a couple months ye. we've got some real problems with our readiness. we need to address that we need to get rid of sequestration. we need to give the troops the money they need for training and for readiness so when they get called upon to do missions like this, they are able to do it and carry it out without putting them, their own lives in jeopardy. martha: congressman, i hope you will come back when you get closer to making a decision how you will vote on this and come see us again. we'll be watching. thank you, sir. >> thank you, martha. bill: so you got that battle on. there is another battle with the president pulling out the big guns in a pr blitz over obamacare that begins october 1st, former president, the super bowl champs are selling this idea. how much the white house is now spending to push the health care
to get your best night's sleep every night. [announcer] why not talk to someone who's sleeping on the most highly recommended d in america? ask me about my tempur-pedic. ask me how fast i fall asleep. ask me about staying asleep. [announcer] tempur-pedic owners are more satisfied than owners of any traditional mattress brand. tempur-pedic. the most highly recommended bed in america. buy a tempur-pedic mattress set and get a free twin tempur-simplicity mattress. find a store near you at tempurpedic.com.
this is a story you will see a lot more attention given to. you watch the news reports in the last week or two. about how much attention is given to the refugees. you wonder how that place into some members of congress and how they make a decision on their votes and -- martha: put pressure ungord dan turkey. you heard the prime minister of sweden saying they are also taking in refugees from syria as well. just immense effort to flee the country. it is a horrific situation. bill: that it is. you heard the prime minister talk about, how do you negotiate a peace settlement? how do you get the rebels together with assad's government? so far no rebel leader has come ford to talk about peace. these people will be stranded now and for a long time. brings us to bya. writes the following by way of gmail. why should congress and the
american people feel confident that any military action the u.s. may undertake will achieve its defined objectives? lt. general tom mack american any, former assistant vice chief of staff, fox news contributor. general, good morning to you. >> good morning, bill. bill: what would you say to renee? how do you answer that. >> i think rene has got an excellent question. i don't know that we can. the fact is trying to achieve an objective of trying to achieve a shot across the bow is so nebraska a boolous and what follows behind creates a lot of problems. one day, two-day, 100, 200, tlam strike will not solve the problem. let's ask us, bill, what are our vital national strategic interests? there are none with syria right now. so what are we going to achieve? we have ruthless supporters of assad in putin and mullahs in tehran as well as hezbollah. they're not going to give up.
so that means we've got to try harder. it will get more complex for us. and really buck mckeon, chairman mack keen's comments before are as worrisome to me as anything else. bill: how come? >> because we have got sequestration. we have never seen the readiness of the u.s. military at a point as it is today after sequestration and the continuous budget cuts. we are not the same military we were five years ago, bill. bill: she also writes, how would it benefit us internationally or domestically? and you've got this debate over a red line and chemical weapons. how would you answer that? >> i don't think it benefits us. that red line was an arbitrary comement made by the president during a presidential campaign. that is not the credibility of the united states. we can't get any allies to include the u.n. security council, nato, even our closest ally, great britain, to support us. so we ought to be asking
ourselves, why are we doing this? bill: general, thank you. i think a lot of people are asking that question and hopefully we will sort it out in the coming, i guess 10 days or so. we'll have an answer on that. general mack american any, thank you. viewers at home, email@example.com and follow me on email, @billhemmer. bya. thank you, general. martha: we're awaiting next briefing for secretary of state and defense who will try to give lawmakers the green light for strikes in syria but will they go for isn't we spoke with congressman buck mckeon. he is has not decided. support may be cracking and john mccain may not be sure he is on board. we'll talk about that coming up. bill: why was the all political team brought back to white house just yesterday? all the familiar names talking for a very long time about the strategy and message coming from
the president. we'll debate that next. before mike could see his banking and investing accounts on one page... before he could easily transfer funds between the two in real time... before he could even think about planning for his daughters' future... mike opened a merrill edge investment account and linked it to his bank of america bank account to help free up plenty of time for the here and now. that's the wonder of streamlined connections. that's merrill edge and bank of america.
martha: big questions emerging this morning about whether or not the president will get the support that he seeks for a strike in syria from congress. this morning the house foreign affairs committee, are the folks that will be by secretary of state john kerry, defense secretary chuck hagel, and joint chiefs chair, general martin dempsey, will be filing into the room to testify on the u.s.
response on syria and this news this morning as well. speaking to reporters a little while ago, senator john mccain says that on the senate side he, who has been supportive of this strike in syria, can not support the resolution as it exists on the senate side. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel joins me now live on capitol hill. so, mike, what are you hearing about senator mccain's new opposition to this? >> reporter: martha, my sense this is a negotiating tactic by a veteran united states senator, john mccain, who we all know wants more force in this use of force resolution. he and senator lindsey graham, republican of south carolina, signaled over the weekend if it was too limited of a resolution that they were not going to be able to support it. so that was over the holiday weekend. may not have gotten a whole lot of attention. here we are on the day that the senate foreign relations committee is going to work on the language of this resolution. so it seems to me this is the
time to voice your displeasure to try as a negotiating tactic as they're working on the language to try to see if it can be beefed up to your satisfaction, we know senator graham, senator mccain, want something that will allow the shift of power if you will, in the ongoing civil war there in syria. they want to weaken bashar assad's forces and try to help the vetted opposition do a little bit better in this civil war and so he is trying to put a little more muscle into the resolution. that is my sense of things at this point, martha. martha: it is really fascinating to look at these two former presidential opponents. president obama and senator john mccain, who find themselves trying to be on the same side of this issue. the president is bending over backwards to make it clear he wants an extremely limited engagement here and senator john mccain's whose support he needs seems to want something with a lot more teeth in it and it will be interesting to see how this ends up.
we also have, mike, the classified briefings that happened this morning and we heard senator or secretary john kerry to pay attention during the classified briefing. at this point, we don't know yet what they have learned in there. >> well, it is interesting because some members came out of that open briefing, or open hearing, rather, saying they didn't really learn a whole lot. they're hoping going into the classified setting where they can get into a lot more details for these lawmakers in a private classified setting that perhaps that they will be able to win over some skeptical lawmakers. there's a big challenge for the administration in those favoring the use of force. the latest polling suggests that the american public is overwhelmingly against the use of force. so while the national security types are back here working on this resolution, the rest of the rank-and-file are home and perhaps getting an earful from their con sit cents saying no -- constituents, saying no to syria. there is still a lot of heavy lifting to go. bottom line we caught up with the senate foreign relations
chairman on his way into the briefing. here is what he had to say. >> the resolution with senator corker and i with input from members on both sides of the aisle have achieved, strikes the balance. it gives the president the wherewithal to have the limited military action that he's asked for in order to punish assad for the use of chemical weapons and the killing of innocent civilians. at the same time it is tightly tailored by having a time frame in it and by certainly prohibiting american boots, troops on the ground. >> reporter: while that resolution language is being introduced on the senate side, a lot of work there to try by mccain to try and strengthen it and then a lot of work to get rank-and-file members to support it. martha? martha: heavy lift at this point it sound like. mike, thank you very much. >> reporter: thank you. bill: fox news learning the white house called in the old team for a strategy session,
reportedly working on the message about syria. remember on friday secretary of state john kerry spoke about the crisis and he was compelling. just before the white house released an intelligence report asserting that nerve gas was used to kill more than 1400. an hour later, the president walking back kerry's strong statement. the next day president obama spoke out from the rose garden and said for the first time that he would seek congressional approval for military action. he move to sundays. lawmakers gather for a briefing on the hill. on monday, secretary of state kerry and defense secretary hagel asking the senate foreign relations committee to back the president's request. five days of hoops to jump through. alan colmes, host of the alon combs radio show and katy pavlick. calling the old team to give you advice. maybe you needed them. what do we think of this? >> are we very surprised? president obama is good at
campaigning than getting actual results. he has a campaign team got him in oval office for second time when odds were against him. he needs the team to craft a message. the american people do not want american military intervention in syria. he is bringing out attack dogs. stephanie cutter, campaign manager. he is calling the team back in not to get votes for congest essentially to shame them into voting for this. we saw this with president obama's message this morning. shifting blame for the red line to the rest of the world and saying that the ball is essentially in congress's court. that is exactly what the old campaign team is going to do. bill: indeed done. stephanie cutter, david axelrod, david plouffe. back here yesterday. alan what do you think. >> what year is it? bill: is it necessary strategy? did you ever have to find yourself in this position in the first place? >> he is in a terrible spot. he never should have said red line. he is now asking congress to do something he originally was not
going to do. there are some mixed messages on this when he went into libya invoked war powers resolution and did it and informed congress in 48 hours as the war powers resolution calls for the now in a situation where he is trying to get some republicans and some democrats and odd bedfellows here. republicans on one hand in favor of doing this spending all this money on the other hand talking about defunding the government. how can we have sequester still at the same time talk about funding an unnecessary war as general mcinerney just said against a country not a threat to the united states? bill: interesting points, all of them. katy, but the nextwave in the story will be selling it to the american people. >> right. bill: john boehner talked for several days now that the american people have not been talked to about this. >> well, they haven't. bill: you have to think that strategy session dealt with that that will be rolled out sometime in the next several days. >> since i'm sure it was full of people who are great at communicating some of that was brought up but the fact is the first time we heard a very serious address about what we
were going to do in syria it doesn't come from president obama. it came from john kerry. i thought i was watching president john kerry telling the american people what exactly was going to happen. this is a situation where president obama is essentially standing alone not only in the united states but on the world stage. this exact situation warrants an oval office address which he hasn't given to us. we had the rose garden address but he really has to sit down, make his own case to the american people on his own, in the oval office in a presidential state before anyone can move forward with a serious message on this. we don't want to hear from his campaign advisors. want to hear it from the president. bill: alan, when would you expect that? >> i would think he would do it before there's some kind after strike, if it even gets that far if congress will actually agree. a lot of pundits are saying congress will probably agree. my concern i was against this i was against going into iraq. where are the conservatives who supported iraq but don't support this? why the double-standard? why are we doing foreign wars
with countries with no threat against the united states? the public doesn't want it. allies don't want it. it costs a lot of money. as general mcinerney two-day strike. mccain wants maybe we should do more. they want regime change? how well did that work out in the past with other countrys? bill: we'll see whether or not we get it. thanks to both of you. we'll pick it up next time. >> thank you. bill: martha. martha: this coming up as well, selling obamacare. marco rubio now slamming the white house saying they're using millions of taxpayer dollars to see the president's health care law go into effect. we'll have details on that and interesting people who they are bringing out to support it. bill: finding more gold in florida by the way. one lucky family hit it rich, finding buried treasure worth hundreds of thousand of dollars. >> they work harder than any of my other subcontractors. most days we find lead beer cans and fishing sinkers. if you're looking for help relieving heartburn,
and may be available for just $18 a month. there is risk of bone fracture and low magnesium levels. side effects may include headache, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. if you have persistent diarrhea, contact your doctor right away. other serious stomach conditions may exist. don't take nexium if you take clopidogrel. relief is at hand for just $18 a month. talk to your doctor about nexium.
president bill clinton to promote obamacare before health insurance marketplaces open october 1, right around the corner now. mr. clinton will be giving a speech in little rock moments from now. the move comes as republican senator marco rubio is now calling on the obama administration to cancel the purchase, he says, of nearly $9 million worth of ads like public service announcements to support the new law. leslie marshall is a syndicated radio talk show host and fox news contributor. row kahn, is the host of row and roper on windy city live. welcome to both of you. these numbers are coming from rubio's office. $8.7 million to be spent on public service announcements explaining to people how to use obamacare. we've seen, millions of dollars at least that we know are being spent. what do you make of it? >> i think there's a lot of money already spent as you pointed out, martha, but the key for rubio and republicans at large, they need to grab this by the horns.
they need to take care of fixing this problem. they can't kill this bill. if they think they can they will not have the votes and won't actually have the business sector supporting them. that is really important thing. what they need to do is call together all the stakeholders here, whether insurance companies, major hospitals and ask them one day, one seminar i think would do this. all they have to do is ask them, come up with a dozen different little fixes they will be get into workable bill best first of the year that can actually get this thing back on the right track. martha: you're not alone in that sentiment. a lot of people think republicans need to come out with a more comprehensive fix. is it right, leslie to spend millions of dollars on public service announcements, bring in baltimore ravens and should we do it in more streamlined, less expensive way? >> well, first of all as you know we don't have confirmation of those numbers except they come from marco rubio's office, and forgive me as a democrat i
don't buy it 100%. martha: let's say it's a million dollars. we have seen, there have been ad buys. say for the sake of argument it's a million dollars. >> these costs are already part of the legislation as we've seen historically with social programs like social security and medicare it is customary regardless of administration to have public service announcements and awareness for people coming into the senior age with medicare and social security. we have an entirely new program. this is a reformation system and starting on october 1st i think it is part of this program and the government's responsibility to educate the people on what they need to do, what they can do, when it starts, and what is happening and why. i don't feel that -- >> the argument is a lot of people feel a lost public service announcements have an agenda and it is not correct to use taxpayer dollars to push an agenda by using that money for those purposes that a lot of people see as having an agenda. i don't have a lot of time, i want to get your thoughts. play the sound bite. bill clinton to the rescue on
health care. he will give a big speech in little rock. here is what he said may have been a turning moment from the election over the summer. >> president obama started with a much weaker economy than i did. listen to me now. no president, no president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years. [cheers and applause] martha: that was a big moment at the convention. real quick from both of you about 15 seconds. can bill clinton change the tide on this, roe? >> i don't think he can. he will have to answer three important questions. why did they make three major changes with the health care rules before january 1st. medicare cuts not coming. employer mandates and most importantly out-of-pocket costs will not be capped starting
october 1. how will he explain that? martha: now over to leslie? >> absolutely he can make a change. it has not been implemented. can't say it will fail until we start it off. president clinton, hopefully future first man clinton will make a difference. the way he speaks to the people, it is clear, it is concise and so relatable, they understand him. when he speaks people listen. martha: we'll see you guys. thanks, roe. thanks, leslie. bill: there are two major classified hearings on the hill today about syria. what one u.s. senator told us that he needs answered during that meeting. we'll tell you next.
i spoke to him right before he went into that meeting. this is what he said he needs to know. watch. >> primarily is this, if we conduct these strikes, this military exercise, what effect will it have, and, once we conduct the exercise, what's the blow back, what are the repercussions and have we planned for it at all? president obama very early on basically set a policy for this nation that assad must go. what has he done to have that occur and, what have we done to plan the replacement? and from my standpoint, bill, the biggest national security problem, the biggest national security interests of america in syria is those chemical weapons stockpiles falling into the hand of elements of al qaeda or possibly the muslim brotherhood. what are we going to do to prevent that? i haven't heard any, any response in terms of those to those questions. bill: he had a whole lot to say in the interview. you can imagine he is not alone in the briefing right now asking
questions like that, that is still underway that hearing. martha: a lot of questions. we'll talk about them throughout the day as the administration makes its case for a military strike on syria. some supporters say it would also send a strong message to another country, a country the u.s. is always watching very closely. we'll be right back.
before he could even think about planning for his daughters' future... mike opened a merrill edge investment account and linked it to his bank of america bank account to help free up plenty of time for the here and now. that's the wonder of streamlined connections. that's merrill edge and bank of america.
♪ bill: summer's over, right? martha: yep. bill: we didn't have a summer in the northeast by the way. rough commute. this guy in hawaii is says lucky to be alive after the surfboard went through the windshield. it well from after overpass from overhead highway and hit his car. he had scrapes. he is okay. martha: not something you're prepared for as a driver. we have programing reminder tonight, fox news, timeline of terror, part one. tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern
time. special details day-to-day events for the months following september 11th, 2000 one. it features interviews with survivors and rescuers from the world trade center and the pentagon and relatives who talked to those who died fighting hijackers on flight 93. incredible stories as we get closer to the anniversary once again of september 11th. bill: 12 years later. see you on the radio. the bummer after summer because the weather was table. you would not disagree. martha: no i don't disagree. bill: to your memory do you remember weather was this way? i don't think we strung together three days of sun. i'm blaming janice dean. she was working on a kids book the whole time. it was her duty and responsibility. martha: we'll see you on radio. see you on "america live", 1:00 to 3:00. we're just on all the time. bill: hope it is sunny where you are. catch you tomorrow.
martha: bye, everybody. see you tomorrow. jenna: right now brand new stories and breaking news. jon: the senate could vote today to authorize a strike on syria, as senator john mccain, one of the president's allies up to now says he is not in favor of the proposed resolution and the president today saying he did not draw a red line when it comes to syria. the world did. ambassador john bolton weighs in. the big guns making a big push for the obamacare rollout with the deadline less than one month away. can bill clinton win hearts and minds when it comes to the president's signature legislation? karl rove with his take. and a monster takes his own life. kidnapper and rape it ariel castro found hanged in his prison cell. the latest from cleveland just ahead, all "happening now." jon: and good morning to you on this wednesday, lots of action