a hezbollah attack by a ran on israel would be a disaster for russian policy. -- iran on israel would be a disaster for russian policy. he has been alarmed by the sudden shift in the middle east profile of who is in charge. he is probably relieved that the military is back in the case of egypt. springnot like the arab or any of the implications this had for the middle east or if this would create more extremist groups that turned their attention from the start -- current focus and turned to russia. ever since he ended the war in chechnya, he has been relieved that the extremists went somewhere else and he does not want them coming back. with the winter olympics in the new year of 2013, and the billions he has spent there. there are all kinds of things he doesn't like about this. this is not the old middle east for russia and nobody else. he wants to know what the u.s. will do and what their -- what the implications will be. >> i wanted to ask about the other al qaeda affiliates in syria. there has been concern over the last two and a half years that the course of the war has made this

the people of israel, jordan, turkey, each look next door in see they are one stiff breeze away from the potential of killed as the consequences of absence of action. they anxiously await our assurance that our word means something. they await the assurance that if children live up in shrouds were their own children would the world promise. that is what they're hoping. the authorization that president obama seeks is definitively in the national security interest. dictators, allies, civilians america and the world say never again, we do not mean sometimes. we do not mean the somewhere. never means never. they'reis a vote for not enforced. as justice jackson said at the nuremberg trial, the ultimate step and avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international law was this, is to make states men responsible to the law. it the world's worst desperate sees they can flaunt against the world's best weapons, then those prohibitions are just pieces of paper. that is what we mean by welet me be clear, president obamai say that sitting next to two going to war, and what pr

assad decides he will hit our proxy, israel. israel decides to go nuclear and syria. the russians say you can't do that because we will attack you. all of a sudden we have world war iii, thousands of nuclear weapons on both sides. this thing can go terribly wrong very quickly. for that reason, i do not want to see us get in. the use of the chemical weapons is testable. host: ok, are democrats on. caller: number one, it has not been established. there is no proof that assad used chemical weapons on their people. i have heard dianne feinstein and people talk about it is obvious the chemicals were used. there is not been any definitive proof showed to anyone except for these elites they keep telling us we need to act on it. that is number one. what we're looking at is libya. all the american people have to do is look at what happened to libya couple of years ago. it was the same thing. we used a despaired band of mercenaries mixed in with dissidents from libya. they fought against qaddafi's forces. they created a no-fly zone. nato took him out. if you go online and look

israel will be a greater risk. jordan will be a greater risk. the longer this goes on, the more you will see the humanitarian crisis grow. we are ready the largest contributor because of the generosity of american people. we are already the largest contributor to refugee camps on the borders. many of you have been to them. you want to see them grow? you want to see jordan -- >> of course night -- not. >> i believe the best way to curb that and reduce the threat is by acting. >> i do not disagree with anything you have said, but let's take that and expand on it. are we going to give them credibility if we go in with a limited strike in the day after our week after and the month after he crawls out of the rat hole in says i stood up to the strongest power on the face of the earth and i won? so now it is business as usual. he may say i will not use chemical weapons anymore but will continue to use conventional weapons, and we will go on with business as usual and thousands will be killed and allies will say what is the matter with the united states

pushing israel to make concessions that could harm israel's security. that. doubts about when i put all of that together, i know we will have serious consequences. i'm very reluctant to vote yes on this upcoming resolution. i have many constituents, a great majority, they feel the same way. they have articulated the same concern. is there anything you can say that would relieve my doubts or concerns? congressman, i will respond initially. i suspect my colleagues will want to say something. you covered a number of dimensions of your concerns. legitimate. that is why we are having these hearings. let me start with benghazi. this administration continues to follow through on the commitment the president of the united for what happened a year ago. that is happening. dod is working with the fbi and other agencies in this. talked.dempsey and i we are closely aligned and continuing to do that. that has not escaped the priority list of the president or this administration. in some of the issues you mention, israel. we are working closely with israel on this. as we ar

the other question about israel strikes on syria's nuclear capabilities and on syrian missiles, 2007, and more recently -- the reason syria has not retaliated is israel has a good repetition for deterrence, and they do not mess around and they do not do so motion or pinprick. they do fast and very hard and very clear. so i think the question of deterrence against israel, the reason it was not retaliation because they knew that the retaliation against the retaliation would be a heck of a lot worse than anything that was done beforehand. whereas, the u.s. -- it is at least conceivable that syria could do things, be more aggressive in lebanon, if iran was stimulated to get involved to use its global network of terrorist capability and of capabilities in the persian gulf, etc., if it had sufficient interest at stake, then it might also think about retaliating because i think it has a sense the u.s. does not mean what it says after the last several years of u.s. policy and relative perception that we are withdrawing from the region. >> elizabeth? >> the issue of funding is a very important

you can ask our friends in israel. in israel, they cannot get enough gas masks. there is a reason that the prime minister has said that this matters. this decision matters. it is called iran. iran looms out there with their nuclear program. that moment is coming closer, in terms of decision. they're watching what we do here. they're watching what you do. that means something. if we choose not to act, we will be sending a message to iran of ambivalence and weakness. it will raise the question, i have heard it, i meet with people and they ask about our long-term interest and future. do you mean what you said? are you going to do something? not the whether or u.s. is committed. ask if the president will cut a deal and the congress will back it up. this is all integrated. i have no doubt -- i talked to prime minister netanyahu -- israel does not want to be in the middle of this, but we know that their security is at risk in the region is at risk. i also want to remind you that you have spoken to this. your word is on the line. you past the syria accountability act/ -

israel will for certain be less secure. i would also argue -- >> but it is more likely that hezbollah will attack because of this attack? >> israel feels confident in its ability to deal with hasbro but -- with hezbollah if they were to do so. israel has on several occasions seen fit to deal with threats to its security. not once has assad responded to that to date. i think there are a bunch of things we should talk about in a classified session. let me just make it clear to you that you asked these questions. will this or that be more likely to happen? if the united states of america doesn't do this, is it more or less likely that assad does it again? do you want to answer that question? >> i think it is unknown. >> senator, it is not unknown. if the united states doesn't hold him accountable on this, it is a guarantee assad will do it again. it's a guarantee. i urge you to go to the classified briefing and learn that. secondly, let me point out to you that with respect to this question of americans wanting to go to war, y

it has a section regarding security coordination with allies and regional partners including israel, jordan and turkey. it has a section on planning for securing the existing chemical, biological and other weapons supplies in syria. last, it adds a section that the policy address efforts regarding the ongoing humanitarian challenges presented by 2 million syrian refugees in neighboring countries and 4.5 million internally displaced persons in syria. report that we anticipate from the administration as part of this authorization. i would hope for a voice vote. >> chair is supportive of the senator's amendment. it is a valuable addition to the resolution. any other members wish to speak to it? >> i thank him for a contribution. i plan to support it wholeheartedly. >> senator asked for a voice vote. all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed will say nay. the ayes have it. senator durbin. >> and amendment i have been working on that addresses a practical situation. under the proposal before us, the president if this is enacted into law, after submitting certification to congress

friends of israel, including the united states must recognize that israel's security as a jewish and democratic state depend on the realization of a palestinian state. and we should say so clearly. arab states and those who supported the palestinians must recognize the stability will only be served through a two- state solution and a secure israel. all of us must recognize that peace will be a powerful tool to defeat extremists throughout the region and embolden those who are prepared to build a better future. and moreover, ties of trade and commerce between israelis and arabs could be and engine of growth and opportunity while too many people in the region are without work. so let's emerge from the familiar corners of blame and prejudice, let's support israeli and palestinian leaders who are prepared to walk the difficult road to peace. real breakthroughs on these two issues, iran's nuclear program, and the israeli-palestinian peace, would have profound impact in the whole region. just as lasting peace cannot be measured only by agreement between nations, it must also be measured by

israel, jordan, turkey. my own view israel and turkey are capable of taking care of themselves, the jordanians are much less capable of doing so. that's why i think the one thing the president has done over the last two years which everyone would agree with is that he's tried to strengthen jordan so they can handle the spillover but it's now becoming almost a flood, very hard to deal with. it's the spillover. the grade and detour. nobody thinks it's a good idea to bomb chemical weapons because when you do that, you disbursed chemical weapons. so, that is not a good solution. boots on the ground to get them, secretary carry briefly hinted at that yesterday and if he hadn't walked back in an instant we would have the power. he would vote no right then and right now to throw them out so we aren't going to get them if we want to go in and get them is a very, very complex and dangerous task. the best place to deliver them. that is a more doable task. as a military analyst mike can probably see more about that but

we partner with israel very closely on the defense of israel. >> would you say a counter attack is more likely than not? >> i do not think i could say that. without signaling the syrian regime in some way, i would not say that. i would not come to that conclusion. >> secretary kerry, have members of the syrian opposition called for such an ttack and if so, whom question mark -- whom? >> not specifically that i know of. they support it, apparently they have not advocated to me. i've had conversations and there was no urging to do his. >> haven't members of the syrian opposition said they do not want an attack? >> no, i have not heard that. >> you have not seen public reports to that effect? >> no. >> secretary kerry, there are 189 signers of the chemical weapons convention. serious not happen to be one of them. how many of those signatories have pledged to participate in the military intervention in syria and what exactly is each ne pledging to do? >> there are at least 10 countries that have pledged to participate. we have actually not sought more for participation. we have sought peopl

and israel. to suspend activities and the betting is of that facility previously made a call for shutting down that they moved off of. in exchange the p5+1 would provide relief from u.s. and e.u. sanctions on petrochemicals, provide licensing for u.s. repairs for iranian civilian aircraft and pledge to have no e.u. proliferation related sanctions for the period of the confidence building measure. if iran agrees the six month period will be used to negotiate the next step toward a final agreement. that is the general framework on the table. i call at small for small. some call the fall for small requiring small concessions from iranians and provides little in exchange for those concessions. my belief is the small for small and work because even though it is a fair deal from the u.s. perspective it looks like a raw deal from the iranian perspective. there two sources of negotiating leverage, 20% and richmond, this yield asks them to give up two most important sources of leverage, what they've u.s.

our ally israel can defend itself with force, along with the support of the u.s. many of you have asked a broader question. why should we get involved at all in a place that is so complicated? and where those who come after assad may be enemies of human rights. that is true. some of assad's opponents are extremists. but al qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being -- being gassed to death. the majority want to live in peace with dignity and freedom. the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. finally, many of you have asked why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions as several people wrote to me, we should not be the world's policeman. i agree.and i have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warnings and negotiations, but chemical weapons were sti

he retaliates against us or let's iran retaliate against israel because we have come into this civil war. so, they shoot back. what do we do once americans are engaged and escalated in a specific strike not by our choosing, but by their choosing? do we escalate or do we not fight back? and i know, general dempsey, you have a tough situation on your hands. what do we do if they literally shoot back at america? our friends the israelis? >> just to clarify, this is not about eliminating chemical weapons. that is not possible, given the number and distribution of them. it is about convincing the assad regime it is unacceptable to use them and that is this military operation. we are postured for the possibility of retaliation and i can assure you our regional partners are as well. >> let me just ask that question with a little more clarification from you. i know you are in the military and you are to the point. that is great. you are in charge. can you see that escalating, though, with u.s. military involvement in the region -- have you made a contingency plan for us being in and escalate

we have israel who is, there's a threat of retaliation against israel. our traditional allies are not with us. so it makes the decision for me very difficult. as to, you know what the purpose is and what the goal is. with that being said, i'm going to keep an open mind and listen to the information that's brought to me before i decide how i will vote. >> knowing that some of the leadership in the house and senate have already joined the president, does that make your decision even more difficult? >> no, not at all. not at all. leadership in washington didn't send me there it was people back home in my district. that is how i got there and that's whose voice i am bringing back to washington with me, but again, some of the classified information that i won't be able to share with my constituents back home will make the decision more difficult because you have to take that, that into, into account. some of the unknown that the public may not see. >> michael, you and i have talked over a period of 10 years. >> yep. >> you have a national radio program of you

person data to israel. we have seen a hue and cry publicly about privacy issues and an ongoing public debate in this country. this is only going to fuel -- can you each talk about what you think if you have read the article and to the issue of leaks and privacy. how do we get the american people comfortable and supportive of what the intelligence community really needs to be able to accomplish? >> great question. oh, look at the time. [laughter] where do we go first? the first thing. there is no question that this debate on proxy has to be out there. these things we are doing with cyber laws and those issues. it is very difficult. in the intelligence community we really learn how to let the public know what is going on because it is classified. we are going to move forward, not only with the public but with other members of congress. we have to somehow change some laws to be more flexible on the issue of what we are going to do and how we are going to deal with classified information. dedicated people who g

swaps that lead to a sovereign and viable palestinian state living in peace alongside a safe and secure israel. a universally recognized palestine along a universally recognized as rell. i commend the dedicated efforts of secretary kerry and benjamin netanyahu that have enabled peace talks to resume. i sincerely hope both parties will make every effort to keep the talks going including a halt in new settlement building. the international community must support the parties as they make the difficult decisions necessary to achieve a lasting peace. britain stands ready to play its part. mr. president, as we wind up our military operations in afghanistan, the u.k. continues to work with the afghan government to ensure successful transition. the national security forces are leaving on security and continue to grow in confidence and keeping the body. this is a significant achievement. in the u.k. we recognize the serious challenges still ahead for afghanistan. but we strongly believe that there is room for optimism about the country's long-term future. this is a crucial time for afghan men, women an

steve israel has done a wonderful job recruiting. excellent candidates around the country. and i think that we certainly have a very good chance of taking back the house. >> questions for congressman hoyer from the audience. we have one in the back there. if you just wait for the microphone. >> hi. dave, l.r.p. publications. i just have two questions. the first, i just want to make sure, are you basically indicating that the c.r. that came out of the republicans -- in the appropriations committee, that would be something that you don't believe that democrats or particularly president obama would support? and then i guess the second one is inside washington beltway thing. there's been an issue with regard to pay raise for federal employees and obviously that's been cut. do you -- is there any chance of that coming in a final version of whatever is passed or is that probably going to have to be sufficed again? >> well, it won't -- sacrificed again? >> well, it won't shock you that i'm for giving our federal employees a cost-of-living adjustment. not a pay raise. they are not

army israel. we believe that it has more than just iran providing advice and counsel on how that might look. they are not going to be bashful about doing it. i don't think our policies are exactly right yet. our defensive capability is a problem here. most governments run the internet. in america, is it -- it is a private sector as it should be. here is the problem. if we go over with an offense of strike, they will not necessarily come back with government strikes. they will most likely go for the private sector. there is still huge vulnerability in our private sector system. , weout some opportunity think we have found that way by sharing in real time threat source code information -- and it has to be in real-time -- that we can at least give our private sector the ability to protect themselves from what might be coming. that is our disadvantage and that is why this is no important we get right. it is so frustrating that with the largest single threat we know exist and is happening today, we are

. -- and there is a , whate -- he was asked unionr plan if the soviet attacked israel? me, where politics could , -- iin, i grew barney agree with barney, the banks are better regulated. my focus is on other issues. not that banks are the big problem, but, i am more focused on any in frederick -- fanny and freddie. we will know how these things work when we have a crisis and people use the authorities. the place where politics could come in, ok, is my making. the things we did were so unpopular. really unpopular. there were poles when i left office that showed torture scrolling -- scoring higher. >> and you are up for reelection. it aree who voted for more concerned about the polls that i was. is, i think regulators have the twill's they need. -- tools they need. everything that i think they .eed there may be a bridge pressure -- pressure to liquidate these is, whatthe question .f too many of them fail other ones arehe in stronger positions. >> if you could have added one more title, what would it have been? > i would have merged the sec with the fotc. coast farmers in

they are watching the standoff between israel and syria. they are helping keep law and order sustainably in place. they do very different things in very different places. >> talk about a bit more about how big this peacekeeping force is. 100,000 personnel, mainly troops but also police officers and a core of civilians. the troops mainly come from africa and asia. a the middle east to have significant number serving on the command. many from india, pakistan, china. an operation that the u.s. funds vary significantly. the u.s. pays nearly a third of the un peacekeeping budget which is now over $7 billion. u.s. troops are not really present. that americak leads to its allies, especially allies from africa and asia. >> the united states picks up about a third of that. the overall budget 7.25 billion. there has been about 68 of the current operations. there are about 16. let's talk about the history of this. how did this peaks -- peacekeeping force start and why? guest: it began in the 1940s and 1950s in the middle east. the first peacekeeping o

he was once asked what it plans of the soviet union invades israel? >> said that something you cannot plan. >> paulsen asked me to do this. you are not going to get a word in edgewise with barney on the panel and he said don't worry i'm really aggressive. >> to me where politics could enter and so i agree with barney we have a lot of tools that we need and on top of that the banks are better capitalized than better regulated and so on and as you know my focus is on other issues. now that the big banks aren't a problem and not that we don't have more to deal with a big banks but i'm much more focused on fannie and freddie and the shadow banking markets and so on. i do want to say we will know how these things work when we have a crisis and when the people are sitting in their seats of authority. again, the place where politics could come in is partly -- because the things we did were so unpopular. really unpopular. there were polls when i left office that showed they showed more favorable than the tarp. it was funny now but at the time i got to tell yo

they're already on alert against israel and fighting in syria themselves so they may decide it's not prudent to attack. we need to be worrying about defensive capabilities and for the first time we face the risk we will have a cyber attack in getting us to quit in engaging in military action. iran is widely blamed for a series of attacks on our financial institutions that have been visibly punch-pulling exercises in which the attackers announce how the attack will last and what day it will happen. and obviously, they could do more and cause more damage. and again, iran having blamed us for stocks net is going to be less constrained about using that kind of weapon against the united states on behalf of an ally like syria. so we will have to up our game both physically and virtually. >> thank you. admiral allen. >> let me start with the caveat. it has been several years since i sat up in the tank so i'm going to speak in general. i don't want to speak in comments that wouldn't be appropriate. in regard to cyberthreats that could be generated by this, one of the problems, we are trying

in this respect, syria condemns the continued blocking by the united states and israel of holding the international conference on the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east which was scheduled to take place in 2012. mr. president, my country calls on the united states and the european union countries and others to refrain from adopting immoral unilateral economic measures that contradict what the rules of international law and the principles of free trade. accordingaccordingly, we call fe lifting of the blockade imposed by the united states against cuba for decades. we also renew our call to lift and stop all unilateral, coercive measures imposed on syria and the peoples of other countries such as venezuela, belarus, iran and the democratic people's republic of korea. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: mr. president, we hope that the united nations will lead the peoples of the world towards a better future in order to achieve the aspirations of those people in prosperity, development and fuel sufficiency away from all forms of tension, c

they're already on alert against israel and fighting in syria themselves so they may decide it's not prudent to attack. we need to be worrying about defensive capabilities and for the first time we face the risk we will have a cyber attack in getting us to quit in engaging in military action. iran is widely blamed for a series of attacks on our inancial institutions that have been visibly punch-pulling exercises in which the attackers announce how the attack will last and what day it will happen. and obviously, they could do more and cause more damage. and again, iran having blamed us for stocks net is going to be less constrained about using that kind of weapon against the united states on behalf of an ally like syria. so we will have to up our game both physically and virtually. > thank you. admiral allen. >> let me start with the caveat. it has been several years since i sat up in the tank so i'm going to speak in general. i don't want to speak in comments that wouldn't be appropriate. in regard to cyberthreats that could be generated by this, one of the problems, we are trying to

steve israel has done a wonderful job recruiting. excellent candidates around the country. and i think that we certainly have a very good chance of taking back the house. >> questions for congressman hoyer from the audience. we have one in the back there. if you just wait for the microphone. >> hi. dave, l.r.p. publications. i just have two questions. the first, i just want to make sure, are you basically indicating that the c.r. that came out of the republicans -- in the appropriations committee, that would be something that you don't believe that democrats or particularly president obama would support? and then i guess the second one is inside washington beltway thing. there's been an issue with regard to pay raise for federal employees and obviously that's been cut. do you -- is there any chance of that coming in a final version of whatever is passed or is that probably going to have to be sacrificed again? >> well, it won't shock you that i'm for giving our federal employees a cost-of-living adjustment. not a pay raise. they are not going to get a pay raise. but cost-of

tell the children of israel to go forward. why are they wining? go forward and king said if he's got -- i can't do it all myself. so that is the other drama of black awakening within the meetings. i'll say less about that in the questions. we can come back to that. we have after much indecision the movement is not going well in those days of april 3rd through april 8, 9, 10, 11. on good friday in the early morning king decides to inviolate the junction and go jail. he would suffer with the saver your on the cross. how many times did he preach they could put you in jail and transform you to glory? but once in jail, the jail became a dungeon of dispond sincerity. king spiraled down to depression, panic, and lost his spirit as a freedom warrior. then everything changed. he read the statement of eight white alabama clergymen criticizing him for being an extremist. it's untimely, the new mayor is going usher in a new day. why didn't you wait? suddenly king is propelling himself up that out of the valley up the mountain on a tide of indignation. so i wa

bashar al-assad made reference to the point that he still has the ability to deter israel and i don't know what exactly he was referring to their. but this is a little bit off -- imagine the enormity of him telling his bureaucracy and all the people who are largely vested in his chemical weapons deterrent which he has had for decades been said guys, let's get rid of it. that's a pretty big step i think. i wouldn't trivialize that. it may not make you more secure domestically. >> it's the speakers could please identify themselves. >> i worked with dyncorp international but at one point i worked on these issues. when you were in unscom and how incredibly successful unscom was in finding and destroying wmd when they were there but to go back and dig a little further into this removal issue. in iraqi talked about that and couldn't figure out a way to get see debbie moved out of the country into the destruction facility. do you think it's practical to move the cw, the munitions out of the country? what would be the path to get about? do you think they will destroy them there which i think

they are already on alert against israel and fighting in see themselves, so they may decide this is not prudent to attack, what hope is not a strategy for us. we need to be worried about defensive capabilities. and for the first time, we face the risks that will have a cyber attack aimed at giving us to quit engaging in military action. iran is widely blamed for a series of attacks on our financial institution -- institutions that have been busily punch bowl exercise in which the attackers announce how long the attack will last and what day it will happen. and, obviously, they could do more and cause more damage. and again, iran, having blamed us for stuxnet come is going to be less constrained about using that kind of weapon against the united states on behalf of an ally like syria. so we will have to up our game, both physically and virtually. >> thank you. admiral allen. >> let me start with the caveat. it's been several years since i sat in the tank but i'm not up to speed on operational briefing so i will talk in generalities, would want to speak for anybody or make any comments th