it's pretty clear to me that the united nations is unable to take action, nato not likely to take action. the united states for our entire history has stood up for democracy and freedom for people around the world. the use of these weapons has to be responded to and only the united states has the capability and capacity to stop assad and to warn. others around the world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated. i appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the congress over the last couple of weeks. i also appreciation the president asking the congress to support him in this action. this is something that the united states, as a country, needs to do. i am 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 are 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's necessary. thank you all. >> reporter: s

he was very clear that he had not decided on military action. i think he recognized that in the long run he and the country and the world would be stronger if congress was supportive of his activities. this is not just a short-term effort. this is a longer-term effort. also, too, his response was in recognition of many republicans and democrats who were calling for congressional participation. he has to work hard for consensus. he has to work internationally to build a strong international coalition. so that will help not only carry out the operation but also give him additional support within congress to build the coalition. he made the right choice. >> senator inhofe, before the president made the decision to go to congress you were public and critical of what you saw as the president'slimited plan to strike syria. best dweguess, will congress approve the authorization of the use of oh force? >> i don't think they will. chris, for some reason nobody wants to talk about the real serious problem here. that is the condition of our military today.

i think this action should have been over by now. secondly, i did support the limited action. if the objective is to reduce significant military capability and i was suggesting that assad would never use chemical weapons and have to give up his air power. that is within the means of the instruments that we're doing. shut down his air support and structure. that is still obtainable to a certain degree. we're going to have to work very hard, i believe, to make this strike very effective. i think it should be tied to something strategic in terms of moving the advantage to the opposition forces and not just a punitive measure. it should be coupled with military aid to the rebel forces. the moderate forces leading the attack and the jihad forces. >> senator lieberman, your colleagues might oppose this not because it does too much, but because it doesn't do enough. it is too limited if you don't do what general keane states the ability to terrorize and slaughter his own people. how would you vote at this point? >> notwithstanding a few moments ago, but shocked by the president's dec

there are parallel actions that would work along with whatever action the president would take. opposition strength, which secretary ker ril has noted. second, defections within the syrian government and military as secretary kerry has noted. other intelligence, other consequences. and this is about getting to an end game. that end game is a diplomatic settlement. it is driving this toward what we believe the president believes is the only way out of this if for no other reason than what secretary kerry has noted. we do not want to see the country of syria disintegrate, result in ungoverned space which i think the consequences would be devastating for our partners, for our allies, the entire middle east. then we would all have to respond in some way. so i just add that on to answering your last question. >> chairman, i'll make it brief but in response to your question about the -- let's say the past year. over the past year, we've provided a full range of options, and my advice on those options was based on my assessment of their linkage to our national security interests and wh

it is for his exceptionally valiant actions that i am proud to honor and remember the actions of captain thomas hudner jr. mr. davis: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the bravery and courage of sergeant gary 1970, kirch, april 1, in vietnam. wh an enemy launched an attack, the allied deend fathers suffered a multitude of fatalities. ergeant be kimbings -- beikirch treated the wounded servicemen. sergeant he charged through enemy fire and carried the soldier to safety. instead of allowing his own wounds to be treated he wan continuously from the field of battle to the aid station to help his fellow soldiers. it is for these reasons that i'm proud to honor the actions of sergeant gary beikirch. on november 5, 1966 in the republic of vietnam, while moving to aid a ejieged unit, lieutenant jeb's foaly's company was attacked, he was able to attend to wounding soldiers while dvancing them. he continued to advance after being evacuated. after being struck by a grenade, he refused medical aid and led an assault to destroy three enemy positions. it is for his outstanding leadership and selfless

security council action. even the most basic condemning of the human rights, you know, violations of the regime. very basic stuff. there's an anecdote in baker's story in which the firm time that the president's national security adviser goes to meet with putin, the first thing putin says to him is when are you going to start bombing syria? this was 18 months ago. you can imagine watching this unfold that from putin's perspective, this is playing out precisely what he thought the u.s. was about. >> that was actually right after gadhafi was killed. that was right after the nato bombing campaign in libya. this was already on his mind. there were protests happening in moscow. mike mcfaul who had been one of obama's closest advisers arrived in moscow as the ambassador to russia and his specialty in academia had been color revolutions. it's like color to a vampire in moscow. >> color revolution as being the nonviolent uprisings we've seen across the world. the orange revolution in ukraine and places like that. thi

that necessitated military action. he also decided america would be stronger if we invest the american people in the action we take by going to congress, having this debate. the fact of the matter is our decisionwill be in a -- will be in position to take the strike one week from now or three weeks from now and it will impact the assad regime and its capabilities were with regards to chemical weapons, so we can take our time to invest the american people and that will put us in a stronger position internationally because of that leaders will see this is not just the president acting on his own accord, this is the working people acting through the president and their representatives in congress. >> what happens if you don't get the vote in congress? >> the president as commander- in-chief has the authority to take action, but we took this to congress for a reason. we believe congress should authorize this. we are confident they will. there is a debate going on, but we are seeing growing bipartisan support. we expect a v

he supports action in this case. when i spoke to president obama last weekend, i said we shared his view about the despicable nature about the use of chemical weapons and we must not stand aside. i also explained to him that because of the damage done to public confidence by iraq, we would have to follow a series of incremental steps to build have you looked at the consequences of what will happen with intervention and the affected will have on countries like yemen? >> i have taken a look at all of the impacts on the region. this is the next question that needs to be answered. the region has already been affected by the war in syria. jordan is coping with a massive influx of refugees. turkey has suffered terrorist attacks and shelling from across the border. that is why the arab league has been so clear in condemning the action and attributing it precisely to present a sigh and calling for international action. this is a major difference with past crises we have had in the middle east. there are clear international l

military action taken by the u.s. and a small group of allies, would divert attention war crimes, and give our adversaries the opportunity to attacking that action, we assembling the coalition of the willing, strong condemnation about the global red line that we all want to.onse >> are you concerned that if congress votes no on the request, you are undermining president barack obama's authority not just here in the united states, but around globe. >> that's the risk. the problem is that president barack obama has been silent the disaster in syria in the last 2 1/2 years. now that chemical weapons have used. he drew the red line, that undermines his credibility, that is a huge concern, it is up to president barack obama to make the case to gal viennese against the syrian president bashar garnerd regime, and action that he might be considering taking here, and the garnered that not support. that is a problem. if you want to submit military action, you need to backing of the american people so you can committed. i'm not

is there any other precedent set in terms of action, postponing action, and then going in, and having a military strike? some have talked about kosovo? >>guest: i don't think i can remember anything in the presidents i have rocked for, nixon, or reagan or ford. watching secretary of state john kerry it looked he was ready to cry. he feels we should take military action and it looks like the president pulled out the rug. talking flip flops, three years ago the president said bashar al-assad is a great reformer in the middle east and two years ago, changed his mind and said, no, he has to go and a year ago, crawing a red line on assad and even just two weeks ago saying we are going to punish bashar al-assad and secretary of state john kerry making the case we have to do everything. you would think they were loading the missiles in the silos and scrambling the jets and president obama yesterday saying, no, no, no, we are going to wait two weeks and see if congress goes along with it. it will go the way of closing gitmo. never going do help. >> heather: put it in the hands of congress, th

backs its words with action. iran in particular is watching very carefully to see if the united states is willing to stand up for its vital interests in the region and the interest of our allies. they are a central player in the syrian civil war, providing weapons, money, advice and manpower to the assad regime and supporting the intervention of their terrorist proxy hell bow la. according to the iaea they're moving full-speed ahead with efforts to develop nuclear weapon capability. i believe that congress must authorize the commander in chief to use limited military force against the assad regime, and i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting such an authorization. we should not give the president a blank check. the authorization measure we take up must clarify that any strike should be of a limited nature, and that there absolutely be no american boots on the ground in syria. while it is critically important for the u.s. to hold the assad regime accountable for the use of chemical weapons, we must also fo

the president said he will take action, but it will be much stronger if he gets united action, and this morning he's getting it. >> this is something that 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. >> that was house speaker john boehner, one of the president's most ardent critics coming on board to make a very strong statement of support, and pledging to bring into line republican members who avoid opposition for any reason to military action in syria. one of those republicans who in the past has also been a very strong critic of the president is minority leader eric cantor. he released a statement in part america has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as syria. and to present further instability in a region of vital interest to the united states, and he went on to say that he also will support the president's call for strikes against syria's leader assad for use of

what the president is advocating is a symbolic action. he's called it a shot across the bow by his own admission. now they're saying the stated purpose is to prevent assad from using weapons in the future. assad is using these weapons because he's trying to survive. i don't think three days of missile strikes is going to dissuade him. so i think that's a problem that we face. i hate to keep going back to the same point, but we may have reached a point now where there ask no good outcome possible. and sit the direct result of the mismanagement of this administration. >> but you have not made up your mind? >> we have a haerg tomorrow where they'll hear more information with us. on this national security stuff, it's not partisan, national security, we're not debating here what to name a post office. this is a serious issue with significant ramifications. i argue that the syrian conflict does touch upon our security in vital ways. i am also frustrated we are now hamstrung in terms of options available to us because this president chose to lea

it may cause serious allergic reactio or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor t away if you have these, new or worsening depron, or unusual chaes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, changes in eyesight including blurry vision, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or skin sores from diabetes. common side effes are dizziness, sleess, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taki lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. having less pain -- it's a wonderful feeling. [ female announcer ] ask your doctor about lyrica today. it's specific treatment for diabetic nerve pain. to hear more of phyllis's story, visit lyrica.com. it's specific treatment for diabetic nerve pain. remember when this carpet looked nice? soft would be great, but we really just need "kid-proof." softsprings got both, let me show you. right over here. here, feel this. wow, that's nice. wow.

action. let there be no mistake, i fully deserves horrific acts and international response. what should the response be? that is why we are here today. to ask that question and many others. i hope this hearing will do more than just rubberstamp a decision that has already been made by the administration. about whate concerns the administration is asking of us, our military and of the american people. here is the situation as i see it. with limited international support, we are being told the united states must retaliate for the use of chemical weapons with a surgical bombing campaign of our own. we are being told we are bombing in order to send a message, but what message are we sending? to the international community, we are saying once again the united states will be the world's policeman. you break a law, the united states will step in. we are on shaky international eagle foundations with this potential strike. -- legal foundations with this potential strike. we need to know if we have exh

to okay military action against syria. iran is syria's largest ally and also irritated world leaders over its nuclear ambitions. joining us now is a global security expert and president of the plow shares fund, which focuses on nuclear weapons policy and conflict resolution. joe, first off, let me get your reaction to saudi arabia joining in this chorus. we have heard from australia, france and turkey all condemning syria. now saudi arabia doing the same. an arab nation, very different. >> thank you. a very important statement and one that maybe will precede an arab league statement on this. the united states very much wants the support of the arab league, particularly in the case of any military action but more importantly in any diplomatic solution to this crisis. whatever your view on the military strikes everyone agrees there is no military solution. a military strike can degrade assad's capability but won't topple him from power, won't end the chemical weapons threat and certainly won't end the slaughter. only a diplo

now she opposes action against the syrian tyrant assad. so lets take your opposition to syria in the context of the support for iraq action. >> you are absolutely right. i joined you on air several times during the first four years of our involvement in iraq. over the last several years i have warned republicans about continuing to go down this path where when it comes to military engagements the american public is not seeing how the military engagement improves their lives and how it impacts our national security and the public gets farther and farther away from the debate. obviously at the beginning of the war in iraq bill and the intelligence on wmd, so many others believed it and so many other countries, we believed we could have a leadership in iraq post saddam that would work with us, that would be plural lis stick and respect religious minorities. we hoped for that and it was important for the region. most of that turned out to be wishful thinking and instead today iraq is in total chaos. we had great men and women over there, but w

military action in syria. we will be live at noon eastern and have it right here on c-span was secretary of state john kerry in a defense secretary chuck hagel, and joint chiefs of staff chairman martin dempsey. the return to chapel hill to answer questions from members of the house. here's what some of the members of congress are tweeting about the issue -- we would like to hear from you. how should your congressional representatives vote on the syria issue? we will take your comments on facebook. we will read some of those comments throughout the day. 's parliament will debate whether that country should join the u.s. and launching strikes against syria. no parliament vote is scheduled. france's constitution does not require such a vote for military intervention unless the last longer than four months. some lawmakers have asked the to call onedent anyway. the british parliament voted last week against military action in syria or method that issue came up today during question time. we will show you as much a

action. they anxiously await our assurance that our word means something. they await the assurance that if the children lined up in unbloodied burial shrouds were their own children, we would keep the world0s promise. that's what they're hoping. so the authorization that president obama seeks is definitively in our national security interests. we need to send to syria and the world to difficult taters and terrorists, allies and civilians alike, the unmistakable message, that when the united states of america and the world say, never again, we don't mean sometimes, we don't mean somewhere. never means never. so this is a vote for accountability. norms and laws that keep the civilized world civil mean nothing if they're not enforced. as justice jackson said in his opening argument at the nuremberg trials, the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to the law. if the world's worst despots see they c

i'm going to support the president's call for action. i believe my colleague 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's necessary. thank you. >> but the president still has to convince quite a few other members of congress. >> our chief political correspondent gloria borger joins us. this is one of biggest policy decisions of his presidency and he's gambling on congress. we've seen the split when it comes to budget, immigration reform, but we've seen two powerful republicans take the president's side. senator john mccain and john boehner. is this somehow going to be different? >> i think it's not going to be a partisan issue. this is more sort of a hawk versus dove issue. this is more of not only do you believe in the chain of custody but it's also about whether you believe that a surgical strike can

over 99% of my calls were opposed to action." are members of congress hearing anyone supporting an act against syria? >> when it comes to constituents, i have not heard anyone say they are hearing positive things. dianne feinstein of california says point blank my people are calling overwhelmingly negative from california but they don't know what i know. there's no question public opinion is very much against this. and concern even from republicans i'm talking to who are undecided and might be inclined to vote with the president, the fact that he's giving this primetime address on tuesday, that is too little too late. it's not going to give him and his constituents time to digest whatever points he has to make and allow them to give a yes vote with good conscience. >> thank you. a bunch of marshmallows. that's what one angry constituent called members of congress while giving john mccain a piece of his mind at a town hall meeting. our athena jones has the story. >> we sent you to stop the war! >> if we shoot a, quote, shot over t

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 th

long road that leads to military action. while the senate committee was voting, president obama's national security teams been a second straight day on capitol hill. this time they were testifying in front of the house foreign affairs committee. republican tray rate will join me from capitol hill a short time ago. a strikeskeptical of against syria. was there anything the white house could say, the administration could say that would change your mind? >> they basically made their case. i just walked out of a meeting and they made their case. it is the same rhetoric we heard from the administration and they have failed to show me what the direct threat to the united states of america is. where my biggest fear lies is, i think that should the president unilaterally go through with this strike that would destabilize the region even more , and then we have a very serious problem, especially with our friends in jordan and our ally, israel. >> what are your constituents telling you? >> thousands of e-mails and calls, people connec

i'm going to support the president's call for action. i believe that my colleagues should support this call for action. >> on capitol hill where politicians are returning to work today, that may mean an important endorsement, although this is being counted as a vote of conscience, not along party lines. the question to all these politicians is -- how are you going to vote? the administration is walking a tight walk here making its argument because someone to hear that obama is for family serious about changing what is happening in syria. some want to hear that obama is profoundly serious about changing what is happening in syria. only those with a willful desire to avoid reality could doubt assad carried out a chemical attack. >> this is not the time to be spectators to the slaughter. neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence. we have spoken up against unspeakable horror many times in the past. now we must stand up and act. >> will you tell us whether you believe that -- >> he was asked why there was nothing i

military action. yesterday, the president, his vice president and chief of staff made calls to members of congress. there are more calls scheduled for today. in addition to meetings to take place. the white house trying to step up the pressure right now. the secretary of state john kerry on sunday comparing bashar all assad, the syrian leader, to both adolf hitler and saddam hussein. the president's decision to seek congressional authorization really marked a dramatic shift at the end of more than a week of deliberations. the white house had been making it very clear they were leaning toward a military strike. that one could be imminent. but it appear was swayed the president in many ways to change his mind was what took place in britain. the no vote by that nation's parliament. the president, after watching that from the west wing, then had a visit with his chief of staff, dennis mcdonough, walking together on the white house's south lawn before calling in his senior advisers, delivering that message

i'm going to support the president's call for action. i believe my colleagues should support this call for action. >> hundreds of children were killed. this is behavior outside the circle of civilized human behavior, and we must respond. >> however, there is still a lot of convincing to do. in a statement today, republican congressman paul ryan of wisconsin said, quote, the president has some work to do to recover from his grave missteps in syria. he needs to clearly demonstrate that the use of military force would strengthen america's security. i want to hear his case to congress and to the american people. and democratic congressman allen grayson of florida had this to say this morning. >> this whole situation has nothing to do with us, not a single american has been attacked. not anyone of our allies has been attacked. >> and joining me now live from capitol hill, nbc news capitol hill correspondent kelly o'donnell, who's in studio. let me start with some interesting questions already. you cannot split this along partisan lines, as so

the lawmakers are not rushing back from a break to vote on military action in syria. it could take weeks for a final decision. >>> former south african president nelson mandela returns home from the hospital today but the beloved leader who helped end apaeid remains in critical condition. >> ford recalls cars that could lose ability to steer. some are driven by police officers across the country. >>> president obama asked congress to approve military strikes against syria. the request surprised many in washington and was met with a mix of praise and criticism. at this point, no one knows exactly what the house or the senate might do but for now, it appears to have put the brakes on any military action. >> here is my question for every member of congress and every member of the global community. what message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in a in plain site and pay no price? >> the president's decision pushes back any possible strike on syria at least a week. the senate foreign relations committee will begin debate but any vote before

afterall, the libya action was undertaken without congressional action. now, there are some in the administration that are apparently keeping open the possibility that even if congress said no to authorization that the president would still move forward. and that would be a huge mistake. so to the extent that there are people who are still talking about that -- >> they're telling us that. >> well, you know, the president himself said the united states is stronger when it acts together. the executive and the congressional branch. >> so your message to the white house is, if congress votes no, don't go there. >> that's right. i speak as somebody, number one, who believed that the president had the authority as commander in chief to take limited, very limited action, and as somebody who believes that you have to take very limited action to deter assad from resuming use of chemical weapons. once the congress has spoken, you know, the president has come to the congress to ask for authority. i think that's the decisive factor here. >> congressman, thank you ver

i am not itching for a military action. recall, major, that i have been criticized for the last couple of years by some of the folks who are now saying they would oppose these strikes for not striking. and i think that i have a well zebed reputation, for taking very seriously and soberly, the idea of military endangerment. so we will look at these ideas. so far, at least, i have not seen ideas presented that as a practical matter i think would do the job. but this is a situation where part of the reason i want to poster debate is to make sure that everybody thought about both the ramifications of action and. >> so currently the only way to enforce this norm is mill darrellly and even giving us the asaad regime extra time would not achieve your goals? >> what i'm saying major, is that so part what we have seen, is a escalation by the asaad regime of chemical weapons use. you will recall several months ago with some confidence, at a same level, asaad has used chemical weapons. we not only sent warnings to assayed but we demar

that action still taking place. there was a discussion going on between senators now regarding the specific language of that resolution. let me introduce our guests and positiver doncorrespondents as e following the debates on military action. let's start with this heated exchange between secretary kerry and jeff duncan of south carolina. what was that moment all about? >> that's right, tony, very heated. you could sense secretary kerry's frustration and emotion mounting as he was brought back to addressing scandals such as bengahzi and really ending with some strong remarks, shame on us if we don't--pardon me, if the u.s. does not respond. this comes after earlier comments from another republican of south carolina, joe wilson, notorious for his remarks during the state of the union a couple years back when he shouted out "you lied." he brought up obamacare, th scandals and if the president was deflecting from those issues by focusing on syria, and getting political and heated. >> paul, as we go back to the discussi

♪ >>> this is options action, tonight, shutdown showdown. >> go ahead. may mike day. >> washington is driving wall street to the brink. so what sectors could feel the brunt of d.c. dysfunction? we'll have a special report. >>> plus, tapped out. >> no money to buy myself the g.i. joe with the kung fu grip. >> retail stocks have been a wreck, our casual diners next will break it down. >>> talk about bond bliss. >> nothing more practical than that. >> no. not that bond. these bonds. because treasuries have been on a tear. so can the bond breakout continue? the action begins right now. ♪ >> live from the nasdaq markets, new york city's times square i'm melissa lee. these are the traders on the desk and in austin texas, we know about the dow and s & p 500 losing ground. but it's small caps that has this desk worried tonight. savvy options traders suggests trouble could be in store for this. this has been one of the best performing of the four major indices, what does this mean for the market? let's find out. let's start with the desk. dan, when you look at

we know that any action has risk, any action can have unintended consequences. we do a lot of work to make sure we anticipate what those might be and to take steps to mitigate them. but we also believe fundamentally that not acting would have far greater and far griever consequences. if we don't act to enforce a norm of the use of chemical weapons that has been around for nearly 100 years that congress has gotten strongly behind over the last decade, if we don't do that, assad will conclude he can use these weapons again with impunity. other countries who have such weapons or aspire to get them will also conclude they can acquire them andue them with impunity. that will do terrible damage to our security and the security of other countries around the world. there are always dangers in acting, we do what we can to mitigate them. >> woodruff: the top security advisers are recommending the president cut off aid to the egyptian military. hundreds of millions of dollars in retaliation for the removal of the morsi presidency. is that the case? is that what you and oth

no delaying action. it has to be thorough inspection to make sure that you have turned over all of your chemical weapons. and once you've done that, you have to realize, if you violate, there will be swift and effective reprisal immediately by not just the united states, but by the entire international community. look, the president got lucky, in my judgment, politically. i think it was going to be a very difficult task to persuade enough republicans and democrats in the house to vote to approve military action. i've heard over the weekend a lot of republicans even say, well, why didn't we bring this to the u.n.? why isn't the u.n. taking action? why doesn't the world community get involved? well, now he's got the perfect out, the president. we're going to do this, but we're going to do this, as mark said, from strength in the u.n., a united world saying, okay, turn over all your chemical weapons, make sure it's fast, verifiable. and if you violate, we're going to come down on you the entire internationa

do you consider the consequences of an action > the consequences of action? >> i do. >> general dempsey, what do we envision in broad terms this potential military campaign to be in terms of the effect? what do we expect at the end of any authorized action to see the results look like? what is the expectation? >> thank you, chairman. the task i have been given is to develop military options to deter the regime's calculus about the use of chemical weapons and degrade the ability to do so. that is to say the activities directly related to chemical weapons themselves and the means used to employing them. would there not be collateral -- collateral consequence to the regime of further degrading overall capabilities? weeper -- we received a proposed resolution for the authorization of force. would you tell us whether you believe that a prohibition for having american boots on the ground, is that something the american -- the administration would accept as part of a resolution? >> it would be preferable not to, not because there is any plan or desire whatsoever to

action" comes right back. >> announcer: "options action" is sponsored by t.d. ameritrade. action" comes right back. >> announcer: "options action" is sponsored by t.d. ameritrade. m from td ameritrade. ♪ [ cows moo ] [ sizzling ] more rain... [ thunder rumbles ] ♪ [ male announcer ] when the world moves... futures move first. learn futures from experienced pros with dedicated chats and daily live webinars. and trade with papermoney to test-drive the market. ♪ all on thinkorswim. from td ameritrade. >>> we think right now the u.s. can come in around 16 million units. maybe up to 17, but the neatest thing is the pent-up demand. we have room on the second and third shifts around the united states to be able to meet that demand. >> that was alan wielali on "squawk box" saying that the car business is looking good. there is a warning in the charts. let's go back to the charts with carter werth and find out what the warning is. >> sure. a lot of consumer discretionary stocks are starting to faulter, apparel stocks, shoe stalks, home builders have started to roll and we thi

i'm going to support the president's call for action. i believe that my colleagues should support this call for action. >> reporter: now while john boehner believes his colleagues should support the president's call for action, later his press secretary released a statement saying mr. boehner intended to support the president himself, but that he would leave it to other members of the house, republican members especially to take a vote of conscience. that suggests that boehner will not push support for the president. nonetheless it is very significant that speaker of the house that john boehner supports the president as well as another leading republican eric cantor. he released a statement, did he not appear on cam a but he released a statement after the meeting with the president this morning in the west wing of the house saying america has a compelling national security interest to prevent and respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction, especially by a terrorist state such as syria. and to prevent further instability in a regio

instead our action will be designed to be limited in duration and scope. but i am confident we can hold the assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, detour this kind of behavior and degrade their capacity to carry it out. our military has positioned assets in the region. the chairman of the joint chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike wehenever we choose. more over, the chairman has indicated to me that our decision to execute this is not time sensitive. it will be effective tomorrow, next week or one month from now. and i am prepared to give that order. but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what i am convinced is our national security interests, i am also mindful that i'm the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. i have long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. and that's why i have made a second decision, i will seek authorization for the use of force from the american

including disciplinary action. and then in the next sentence, for pupils in grades 4-12 appropriate action may include suspension or expulsion. that's it. provided that in opposing such action. there is one more. it provided that imposed such action the entire circumstances of the incident shall be taken into account. >> i got it. so, does the board know what it's voting on if i call for a vote? >> miss casco does not know but i will fill her in later. okay. we are now voting on the amendment. roll call, please. miss casco. >> miss wei, mr. logan, fewer, haney, maufas, mendoza mcdonnell, dr. murase, wynns, norton. 6 ayes. >> so now back to considering the main motion, are there any other comments or suggestions from the board? are you sure? going once. all right, commissioner maufas. >> i'm sorry, president. i think we have a discussion here that is >> yeah. i can explain that one thing that concerns me in the past that in sfusd handbook that is distributed to the schools or has been in the past, anyway, i noticed

we urged united states government to take action -- we urged action then. the house did not act, and the reagan administration was opposed. i believe national failure of the united states and the international community to take some action actually emboldened saddam hussein to take reckless actions later. the great irony of course is we went to a war in iraq in 2003 when there were no longer any hemical weapons in iraq. i think it is important that the united states support this as well. while i will not sue mortgage a blank check to go to war in iraq, even a partial blank check, i will support a very narrowly tailored, narrowly crafted resolution, that made it clear that u.s. troops would not be on the ground. made it very clear that the purpose of our action is to deter the future use of weapons in syria and elsewhere around the world, and i believe that the draft resolution supported presented by the administration does not currently meet that est. that it is too open ended. this is not a question of whether or not you trust the president. i do trust the

and action to deter and action to degrade the ability of the southern who -- soirm to use, the goal is to take the stockpile of chemical weapons out of the equation. the civil war will continue. but chemical weapons should not be part of that war and it should not be part of any war. the authorization was limited, no ground troops, it was limited in scope and duration, but make no mistake, the authorization was a clear statement of american resolve that there has to be a consequence for use of these weapons in violation of international norms that have been in place since 1925. finally, madam president, i want to talk about diplomacy and about the urgent need that i know we all feel in this body and as americans to pursue diplomatic alternatives, including some current alternatives on the table, that would be preferable, far preferable to military action. it is very important that we be creative, it's very important that we have direct talks with the perpetrators and enablers of these crimes but also intermediaries and independent nations to look for diplomatic alternatives. we've b

the arab league signed on to military action in libya. they have not done the same thing here, it is not because they like the assad government in libya. they say they want him removed from power for two years now, cutter and saudi arabia and other members of the arab league have been arming the rebels and funding the rebels fighting against assad. the arab league put out a statement blaming assad for the chemical weapons attack for damascus, they said they wanted international response to that attack, and they wanted the u.n. to get over its differences so the u.n. could lead to a response. why is that? the united states really is all alone in the world on this. maybe france. but all alone in the world. if the congress says no, it's not going to be the united states all alone in the world, it's going to be the white house all alone in the world on this. why is that? today the white house did a call to try to whip their own democratic vote on this issue, as reported by greg sergeant in the washington post. the white house held a call with

once you turn and say i need you to authorize this action and if they should say no you take action. it seems to me you are clouding the law. the president is facing a tough road ahead to secure support for action in syria. tom is a blogger and writer for the "guardian" and his focus is foreign policy. thanks so much for being with us. you written it was bad idea for the president oh to seek the approval before taking military action in syria. given the most vently developments that the president has supports of key leaders. do you think he was wrong to take this route? >> i do. i think for a number of reasons that i outlineed in my piece. when you think of the extif exee to use military force and i think all parties will suggest if they do take place. the precedence is such that the president has that awe o that a. to weaken it is a dangerous thing because it potentially deterse future presidents from taking action beyond the confines of a partisan scope. more than that, i think what we saw in congress yesterday with various politicians on all sides from senator mccain to various de

. >> in 1938 about 80% of the american public opposed strong action against nazi germany. is history repeating itself now? we'll discuss it with john stossel. >> i'll try it out for a couple of weeks. if i don't like you, i'll fire you. if you don't like me, i'll fire you. >> also tonight liberal actor ed asner says he knows why liberal hollywood is not protesting military action against syria. mr. asner will be here. >> caution, you are about to enter the no spin zone. "the o'reilly factor" begins right now. >> thanks for watching tonight. president obama speaks to the nation about syria. that is the subject of this evening's talks points. the president will discuss how to deal with syria killing thousands of people using poison gas. now the russians have put forth a plan that an international coalition will take control of syria's chemical arsenal. >> we believe that they need to show us an entirely verifiable, completely accountable and ongoing verifiable process by which we know we have all of the weapons, access to any sites in question, unlimited access, investigatio

secondly, if so, what action is thereby warranted. thirdly, what is if efficacy of the action and what are the risks? four, what is the efficacy and risks of doing nothing. finally, if the latter outweigh the former how can congress provide an authorization that's narrowly drawn to ensure no wider involvement but does two things. it enforces international law with respect to the ban on chemical weapons and it deters future use of such weapons. all of this is a matter of judgment. everything i've heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle this week has been sincere and heartfelt and i pray that we proceed on a nonpartisan basis to try to tackle this issue with respecting everybody's ultimate judgment because it is a difficult issue and does not lend itself to basal answers. i've come to the conclusion that the evidence is compelling. i also believe the overhanging of iraq has many of us chained. iraq was based on faulty and shoddy intelligence that was misused to to justify in a commitment to invade another country, that's not

then we speak of military action in syria. limited force is authorized on the regime. >> coming up on "washington journal" we'll take your calls and look at today's headlines, followed by the foreign policy initiative director robert zarate. and code pink protested during congressional hearings on syria this week and talk with the group's goals. then a look at the g-20 in russia with the economics reporter of the "wall street journal." "washington journal" is next. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp.2013] >> the following days will be tv appearances which twoling -- follows the address on tuesday. when it comes to a vote in the house, of the 296 houptive members who voted to give george w. bush the authority to invade iraq in october of 2002, at least 75 of those remain in the house. this is "the washington journal" for september 7,

military action? >> reporter: that's right, wolf. china has a very different view from some other countries that my colleagues are -- they don't want any unilateral action. they made pointed remarks towards the u.s. they're not naming america by name. they said they don't want "any unilateral action." they have grave concern for any military acts. they want the pause button hit permane permanently, i think. they say they want to have the results of the u.n. chemical weapons team to come forward first and then they need discussion. but even if that happens, it's very unlikely china will want military action against the assad regime. they wanted talk, not action. and they are the biggest trading partner of syria. they also are hungry for the oil from the region and unlikely they want anything to stop any kind of stability in that region, any wider stability from the situation getting out of control. could have economic impacts with china. china has frequently voted with russia to veto any sanctions against the assad regime, though they

military action and negotiated settleme settlement. secretary hagel, you said we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria. isn't that exactly what we're doing? why aren't we trying to resolve that? >> i was referring in my statement, to the authorization to use military force. that, specifically, is not why we are come to the congress, why the president asked for the congress' support. as he said, the authorization is for a very focus and specific military action. z >> but our stated goal is to remove assad. why wouldn't we use this opportunity to move toward that goal? >> well, that is one option. if those options would range from an invasion or a lot of military options on the table, what the president has said what this authorization is about is a limited authorization for a limited exercise. the goal of removing assad from office, as the president has stated, is still the policy of this administration. >> general dempsey, how confident are you that you can calibrate, tailor, fine tune military action that doesn't

who were skeptical of military action. wanted to see if this idea could become a reality. but make no mistake. make no mistake about why this idea has any potential legs at all. why it is the russians have reached out to the syrians and why the syrians have initially suggested they might be interested. a lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. well, it's the credible threat of force that has been on the force for these last few weeks that has for the first time brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal. and it is the threat of this force and our determination to hold assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action that might have an impact. so how do you maintain that pressure? we have to continue to show syria, russia and the world that we are not going to stall for falling tactics. if the challenge we lay down is going to have the potential to become a real proposal, it is only because o

action. the united states, for our entire history, has stood up for democracy and freedom for people around the world. the use of these weapons has to be responded to him, and only the united states has the capability and capacity to stop assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated. i appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the congress over the last couple of weeks. i also appreciate the president asking the congress to support him in this action. this is something that the united states as a country needs to do. i am going to support the president's call for action. i believe my colleagues should support this call for action. we have enemies around the world that need to understand that we are 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. >> good morning. the president h