so i'm not depending on assad. but i am depending on the international community with a binding resolution at the security counsel, it will be beyond assad's word but have the force of the international community saying you committed to this, you need to do it and if not, there are consequences to it. >> to remove the amount of chemical weapons assad is believed to have, if you play by the book according to the u.n. inspect tomorrow's guide, could take up to ten years. >> well, access to those weapons and securing them to destroy it may be different but access to those weapons and i believe being able to harness those weapons in a location or locations in which the international community can secure them, as they seek to destroy them is a critical movement forward. and so, i don't think that that should be a deterrent to our effort to get a binding u.n. security counsel resolution. the real question is whether russia, which i read some reports today is beginning back off a security counsel resolution that would hav

al-assad: yeah, now you've been... it's been two years and a half, okay? two years and a half and syria is still withstanding against the united states, the west, saudi arabia, the richest country in the... in this area, including turkey. and taking into consideration what your question implies, that even the big part, or the bigger part of the syrian population against me, how can i withstand until today? i'm either superhuman or superman, which is not the case. >> rose: or you have a powerful army. >> al-assad: the army made of the people. it cannot be made of robots. it's made of people, the... >> rose: surely you're not suggesting that this army is not at your will and the will of your family. >> al-assad: how can you... how what... what do you mean by the will of the family? >> rose: the will of your family. >> al-assad: if... if... >> rose: your brother is in the military. the military has been at... i mean, every observer of syria believe that this is a country controlled by your family and controlled by the ala

assad is a thug. and we ought to let him know that using these weapons on his own people is really unacceptable. >> congressman, as you know in your party there are many lawmakers who have trouble with this vote. and as we just mentioned they're coming from districts where it is 80/20 against this. right now, it is on hold, do you believe there will be enough votes and will congress have enough votes to get this through? >> well, it is essentially on hold, we'll have to wait to see, the pause from russia, i wouldn't go to bank on what putin or assad have to say. but i think it will be on hold, the vote, until we see whether this is just an attempt at buying more time or stalling for time. but i think it is worth it to see if it is there. >> do you think the president should have acted before going to congress? >> well, i had always said that i felt the president would be in his right to strike without an authorization from congress. to me, the war powers act would give the president 60 days before the

because he is trying to do -- assad stays in power, we'll take the weapons but you leave assad alone. i don't see how the president can do that. >> our president can do that? >> yeah. the first -- this is where it gets at odds. the first thing he said two years ago was assad has to go. now, the deal would have to be, i would think, assad stays. we'll get him to give us -- give the weapons over internationally. put them under international control. you leave him be. now -- and so part of the other thing i think that is going on here, there is so many audiences a modern president has to speak to today. he has to make assad believe i'm really coming. so you think about giving those weapons to the international inspectors. at the same time, have congress think it is not going to be that big a deal. that is why you see these two sort of -- the straddle in his speeches and what the administration is saying. i think he has got to try to do both. that is what he has been doing for two years. >> well, he predicted assad is about to fall, assad is about to fall. that has been going on for two y

they are under the protection of the t assad regime. christians in syria really do support assad in the current regime. in the past few days syrian rebels which the united states supports turkey and jordan supports, they have taken over. the rebels in this ancient christian town, they are affiliated and connected with al qaeda. so you have this weird dynamic where the rebel s support is linked to al qaeda while christians in this town really are are connected to the assad regime. it puts into context how difficult the situation on the ground in syria is. >> connor, thank you very much. well, there are always lousy options when it comes to war. many members of congress are struggling with what to do now. meanwhile some have emerged leaders and are forceful. abc news political director rick klein is here. nice to see you. >> hey, greta. >> what does it look like for a vote on capitol hill? >> the senate vote was postponed in part because of president obama saying he welcomes what the russian leadership said. this is about saving face. tha

assad's got to go? the russians and the iranians are all in. finally see an effort by this administration to counter. at the end of the day this is a syrian fight but the outcome does not limit itself to syria. with we don't get syria right, good luck convincing iran to change their behavior. so we let it be known to the president we don't want endless war. john knows better than anybody, war is a terrible thing. we want sustainable security, and syria is a cancer that is growing in the region, and for two years the president has allowed this to become, quite frankly, debacle and when it comes to selling the american people what we should do in syria, given the indifference and, quite frankly, contradiction, it's going to be a tough sell, but is it not too late. so mr. president, clear the air. be decisive and firm why it matters to us as a nation to get syria right. i'm going to go back home to south carolina, and listen to the people, but give them what happens if we do nothing, what happens if we hav

first question, do we have clear proof that assad himself ordered it. second, in an interview with chris wal wallace, you said thee was a vote in the house of representatives and the vote did not carry. the house of representatives voted against force slobodan milosevic. and it was a full month later of nato's bombing of march 24th, and the house voted against it on the 28th. during that time there were significant assurance that's operation would be of short duration and very limited, and many people thought and at nato headquarters, that it would lo t a few days. it lasted 78 days. specifically the mill lows miloc attacked, and it put albanians at flight, and you and i visited them as refugees. how do you define limited and short duration, and what might assad do in retaliation, and what contingency plans do we have when he attacks the other areas. and when we reconvene, to authorize the president to a court to hold accountable all those in odometer side, includin--allthose accountable g assad, who have slaughtered and raped in syria. we have learned

problem is if you actually buy into the administration's so-called common sense reasoning so rounding assad's alleged use of chemical weapons what is the administration's real aim and has it painted itself into a red line corner. to cross-talk the continuing crisis in syria i'm joined by flynt leverett in washington he's a professor of international affairs at penn state university and co-author of going to tour around why the united states must come to terms with the islamic republic of iran also in washington we have ivan eland he is a senior fellow and director of the center on peace and liberty at the independent institute and in tel aviv we cross to mayor javedanfar he is a middle east expert right gentlemen cross talk rules and effective means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it flynt if i can go to you first that syrians have agreed in some way or another that they would allow international supervision of their chemical weapons ok a form of disarmament but in fact isn't it that mr obama himself has been disarmed . i think so the administration was clearly gett

means that they said tax was perpetrated by the assad regime and even more skeptical of the proposed course of action it will have to say that the let's if we can get to the proposed course of action in a moment we should focus on the facts first but you know nobody believes this idea that the that somehow the syrian government would let the rebels shoot off you know eleven different projectiles from government controlled areas in chew only rebel controlled or contested areas you know this is some kind of hidden conspiracy that just doesn't look like they're going to use the if if you live in and there is an advantage of her to be happy to sell to you can be you can anybody can you dream up a while concoctions but you gotta look at the fox only party to the conflict known to have sarin or chemical weapons in this quantity is the syrian government the only government that control the territory from which the attacks were launched was the syrian government the attacks were launched only against the areas where the rebels either held the territory or they were contested areas of the gov

capabilities others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out assad as some members of congress have said there's no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in syria let me make something clear the united states military doesn't do pinpricks. even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver i don't think we should remove another dictator with force and we learned from iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next but a targeted strike can make assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons other questions involve the dangers of retaliation we don't dismiss any threats but the assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military and the other any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day neither assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise and our ally israel can defend itself with overwhelming force as well as the unshakeable support of the united states of america many of you have asked a broade

iran is assad's main ally. as a matter of fact, what is playing out today, transferring the chemical arsenal from syria to russia, is exactly what is on the agenda for iran on the nuclear issue. i would not be surprised if this idea came out of tehran. >> we will talk more about iran later. your point, obviously it is not just barack obama. it is both sides of the aisle. >> there is no stomach because there is no clear target. i think the americans are asking themselves, if we take out assad, with whom are we going to end up? the facts on the ground do not convey the message that we are going to end up with secular democrats. what we are seeing on the ground, and all the facts coming out of the experts, they are saying 70% or 80% of those in the war are jihadist's. >> i don't know where you get this figure from. not everywhere. a month ago, i was in syria. 70%-80%, we have to define what is a jihadist, but if it is what i think it is, there are maybe one or two out of 10. >> you have counted them. what we have

this is i think even beyond assad. if we can get the united nations quickly to go ahead and intervene and actually obtain all these chemical weapons, secure them and destroy them, i think we would have made a good statement. >> but there's a real distinction between whatever happens in terms of the chemical weapons and the syrian civil war. all the evidence we're getting is the country by enorm on you weapons is deeply opposed to the united states picking sites in the syrian civil war, partly because, as senator paul said, there's this deep keeling that there's the bad guys and the bad guys. >> that's exactly why working with senator corker, the ranks republican on the committee, and getting a universe that went from john mccain, who is very hawkish on these issues to dib durbin, who's very dovish, to find the balance, and what did we say? no american troops on the ground. we don't want to be engaged in that civil war -- >> unless the chemical weapons break free. >> and in fact to have a time limit of 60 days, which ma

in everything he is doing, he is protecting assad, okay? this is a huge strategic issue for us, because you look at all the arab countries that we support, the saudi arabias, all the arab countries who are allies, and they are appalled over what's going on. >> who are the more numerous, sunis or shiites? >> sunis are 17 to 1. >> what's the point? >> overwhelmingly -- the muslim brotherhood is suni. al-qaeda is suni. but they are allies. >> giving no ground! >> not everything is rosie between putin and obama. in his televised address, president obama went to great length to establish that the syrian government bears responsibility for the gas attack that killed 1400 people. >> the situation for family changed, though, on august 21st, when assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. the images from this masacre are sickening. men, women, children, lying in rows, killed by poison gas. no one disputes that chemical weapons were used in syria. the world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures,

not that assad -- not just that assad might transfer the at that weapons, but moment when he is out of power, that the transfer be taking place as well. in takinge included out the generalized respond paragraph, is the specific language that says the president is authorized to use military force to prevent he transferred to terrorist groups within syria of any weapons of mass destruction, etc. we -- is there any other member who wishes to be heard on this? >> mr. chairman. >> senator johnson. first of all, i appreciate senator durbin's proposed amendment. this is similar to what i was trying to accomplish with my own amendment where i had a fourth point, to secure and prevent the transfer of chemical weapons stockpiles. i would like to ask senator durbin, i believe this encompasses about the same thing. i am very supportive because i believe one of the primary reasons if not the primary reason that the events in syria pose a national security threat to the unit is its is those chemical weapons stockpiles and those possibly being transferred to enemies of the united dates. i would like

and we will weaken assad appreciably. and i do think in fact there will be a way to recognize the views of the hawks like senator mccain and graham, maybe give the doves in congress something say nothing ground troops, at least for now, perhaps we should try to end this quickly. people forget this is a dynamic process. this authorization will go to the senate foreign relations committee for mark-up next week. >> inwrin in a broadway allowing for lots of marking up. the members of congress say we made it better. but don't you have to have an agreed-upon goal? senator paul, for instance, can say i'm against this because this is about regime change. i don't care what you say. how do you then make the case -- and i guess that's what the sarin gas revelation was about today. how do you make the case our goals are common? that's the challenge going forward not only persuading the congress to go along with the president but persuading the american people. the polls this week did not give much comfort to the white house to plunge

means that they said tax was perpetrated by the assad regime and even more skeptical of the proposed course of action you know what i have to say that the let's if we can get to the proposed course of action in a moment we should focus on the facts first but you know nobody believes this idea that the that somehow the syrian government would let the rebels shoot off you know eleven different projectiles from government controlled areas in chew only rebel controlled or contested areas you know if this is some kind of hidden conspiracy that just doesn't need to apply there we're going to see if if you live in and there is an advantage to her and be happy to sell to you can be you can anybody can dream up a while concoctions but you gotta look at the fox only party to the conflict known to have sarin or chemical weapons in this quantity is the syrian government the only government that controlled the territory from which the attacks were launched was the syrian government the attacks were launched only against areas where the rebels either held the territory or they were contested areas

assad to give up chemical weapons. the assad regime has admitted that it has these weapons, and said that they joined the chemical weapons convention, which prevents its use. it must verify that the assad regime keeps its commitments. this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force because russia is one of assad's strongest allies. i have therefore asked the leaders of congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. i am sending secretary of state john kerry to meet with his russian counterpart on thursday. i will continue my own discussions with president putin. i've spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, france and the united kingdom. we will work together with russia and china to put forward a resolution at the u.n. security council, requiring assad to give up his chemical weapons and to destroy them. under international control. we will also give u.n. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings a

problem is if you actually buy into the administration's so-called common sense reasoning surrounding assad's alleged use of chemical weapons what is the administration's real aim and has it painted itself into a red line corner. to cross-talk the continuing crisis in syria i'm joined by flynt leverett in washington he is a professor of international affairs at penn state university and co-author of going to tour around why the united states must come to terms with the islamic republic of iran also in washington we have ivan eland he is a senior fellow and director of the center on peace and liberty at the independent institute and in tel aviv we cross to mayor javedanfar he is a middle east expert right gentlemen cross-talk rules and effective means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it for and if i go to you first the syrians have agreed in some way or another that they would allow international supervision of their chemical weapons ok a form of disarmament but in fact isn't it that mr obama himself has been disarmed . i think so the administration was clearly gettin

russia can force assad to do what russia wants assad to do. it is the weapons provider for assad. it has been deeply involved in one of the very few countries that supported assad. putin made an outrageous statement the other day trying to cover up russia's support for assad weapons systems by saying all the evidence points to the use of qemicals, that they were used by opposition rather than by assad. as a matter of fact, that is a lie. all the evidence points to assad using it. russia has tried very hard-- it's their number one or number two goal to force us to give up the option of using force if assad does not comply. russia has failed in that goal. we retain the option of using force if there's not full compliance. >> schieffer: senator corker, we have been trying to arm the rebels, the opponents of assad, or at least that's what we have said. we have seen very little evidence that any of that eight aide has gotin to syria at this point. what will be the back of these developments over the weekend on those efforts? do we now have to do more than we were doing on trying to rei

that is the nerve center the bashar al assad regime. we were told there last week when the first indications of a real u.s. strike could be possible there was a flood of cars coming across the border, as many as 10,000 people in one day. we found that that flood has slowed down a bit but with the threat remaining we also found that very few people are going back into syria. all it takes is words from somebody like the syrian deputy foreign minister, he was quoted as saying on wednesday that syria would definitely retail ate against israel, against turkey, jordan if they assisted at all in any u.s. military strike. we talked to one syrian who is now living in lebanon right there on the border and he is very clear about what he thinks the syria government did and what should be done to syria. take a listen. >> translator: there must be a military hit. he killed people with military weapons. it was on tv. women and children were killed. there must be a military response by the americans or european union. they have to make a move. >> repor

he -- >> what about assad. >> i think assad, very interesting, assad said he's responding to russia. but he looks like he's been put into a position where he's going to have to get rid of these weapons. he doesn't particular like it, i think. they were his big hold card against israel. it is fascinating. a lot of people think putin is winning here. but putin has just had to jettison the most important weapon of his ally in the middle east to see if he can salvage something out of the area. i wouldn't be too sure at this particular juncture that this is necessarily all putin's game. it's interesting. we'll have to watch it. there are a number of difficult things to be resolved. but in many ways the dismantling of his most important weapon and one he seemingly was counting on to bludgeon his own public to recapture important parts of damascus hopefully is now going to be gone. >> in a way does assad win? now he becomes a part of the community of nations. he's agreed with international verification process. the rebels are not getting the airstrikes they had been counting on. >> well, i

it is assad. what assad is doing with his scuds, with his airplanes, his tanks, his artillery to the people of syria. i think it is important also to look at this because you raise the question of, doesn't this make the united states the policeman of the world? no. it makes the united states a multilateral partner in an effort that the world has accepted the responsibility for. if the united states which has the greatest capacity to do that doesn't help lead the effort, then shame on us. we are not standing up to our multilateral and humanitarian and strategic interests. >> can i stop you, secretary kerry? if you're talking about multilateral efforts, what we are talking about is the world being able -- this is a breach of a treatie. the world put within the united nations that enforcement mechanism. what we have done here with russia and china holding up the ability of the u.n. to act, we have turned -- >> with all due respect. >> we should be standing up. we should be standing up and making sure

human rights was seen to be taking the position of the american government in assuming that it was the assad regime who actually perpetrated that chemical weapon attack i wonder why is that if you are indeed an international organization why not wait for the united nations which is the main international body to conclude in its investigation and then decide and what the course of action should be well i should say that you know human rights watch does not represent any government we represent the truth i would love it if the u.n. inspectors were going to tell us who they think was the author of this horrible chemical weapon attack but unfortunately that's not their mandate they're going to come back and tell us the obvious which was that chemical weapon was used we all know that we've seen the videos we've seen the pictures their mandate is not to tell us who initiated it now human rights watch has done our own investigation looking at the facts looking at the delivery mechanisms looking at who had those delivery mechanisms we've also reviewed the evidence put forth by a number of government

our own objective is to make sure assad leaves syria and the assad regime ends. but we shouldn't try to achieve that through military goals. to do that would require the kind of massive intervention that was required in the iraq war to remove saddam from power. instead, we heard today, and from senator johnson's questions and at other points in the hearing, and from general dempsey, to pursue that goal from diplomatic means. this is one of the issues that i believe president obama will raise with president putin in russia this week. it is our hope, rather than have a collapse of the syrian state and it breaking into factions of war and instability that threatens the entire region with this is one of the issues that i believe president obama will raise with president putin in russia this week. it is our hope, rather than have a collapse of the syrian state and it breaking into factions of war and instability that threatens the entire region with the spread of terrorism and chemical weapons, that instead there could be a negotiated transition, new elections, and ne

he will try to do -- assad stays in power, we'll take the weapons but you leave assad alone. i don't see how the president can do that. >> our president can do that? >> yeah. the first -- this is where it gets at odds. the first thing he said two years ago was assad has to go. now, the deal would have to be, i would think, assad stays. we'll get him to give us -- give the weapons over internationally. put them under international control. you leave him be. now -- and so part of the other thing i think that is going on here, there is so many audiences a modern president has to speak to today. he has to make assad believe i'm really coming. so you think about giving those weapons to the international inspectors. at the same time, have congress think it is not going to be that big a deal. that is why you see these two sort of -- the straddle in his speeches and what the administration is saying. i think he has got to try to do both. that is what he has been doing for two years now. >> well, he predicted assad is about to fall, assad is about to fall. that has been going on for t

because he is trying to do -- assad stays in power, we'll take the weapons but you leave assad alone. i don't see how the president can do that. >> our president can do that? >> yeah. the first -- this is where it gets at odds. the first thing he said two years ago was assad has to go. now, the deal would have to be, i would think, assad stays. we'll get him to give us -- give the weapons over internationally. put them under international control. you leave him be. now -- and so part of the other thing i think that is going on here, there is so many audiences a modern president has to speak to today. he has to make assad believe i'm really coming. so you think about giving those weapons to the international inspectors. at the same time, have congress think it is not going to be that big a deal. that is why you see these two sort of -- the straddle in his speeches and what the administration is saying. i think he has got to try to do both. that is what he has been doing for two years. >> well, he predicted assad is about to fall, assad is about to fall. that has been going on for two y

means that they said tax was perpetrated by the assad regime and even more skeptical of the proposed course of action it will have to say that the let's if we can get to the proposed course of action in a moment we should focus on the facts first but you know nobody believes this idea that the that somehow the syrian government would let the rebels shoot off you know eleven different projectiles from government controlled areas in chew only rebel controlled or contested areas you know this is some kind of hidden conspiracy that just doesn't look like they're looking to see if if you live and there is an advantage there and be happy to sell to you can be you can anybody can you dream up a while concoctions but you gotta look at the fox only party to the conflict known to have sarin or chemical weapons in this quantity is the syrian government the only government that controlled the territory from which the attacks were launched was the syrian government the attacks were launched only against areas where the rebels either held the territory or they were contested areas of the governmen

the assad regime has now

moreover, we know the assad regime was responsible. in the days leading up to august 21 we know that assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an year where they mix sir a -- san gas, they distributed gas masks to their troopsnd fired rockets from a regime controlled area to 11 neighborhoods that regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. shortly after the rockets landed the grass spread, hospitalled filled with the dies and wounded. we know senior figures in bashar al-assad's resulttary regime reviewed the results o the attack, and regime increased their shelling of same neighborhoods in the days that followed. we have studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested president for sarin. -- that tested positive for sarin. whether dictator commit atrocity they depend on the world to look the other way until the pictures fade. these things happen, the facts cannot be denied. the question now is what the united states of america and the international community is prepared to do ab

whether it's assad doing that or it's . and opposition if they take power so i think you know you may have to have we may eventually have to see syria carved up because it's just such a mess what do you think about that because that's really the next step to get through the next step what happens after that it's very interesting what we just heard. yeah i've been saying for more than two years virtually sense this conflict started that in the end the only way out of this is a negotiated political settlement that silla tainted by various outside parties that have influence on protagonists inside syria but the goal is a negotiated political settlement which would involve some kind of power sharing arrangement between. the assad government and elements of the opposition you know roughly along the lines of what happened in lebannon you could even say in some ways roughly along the lines of what happened in iraq if eventually and this is this is got to be the goal one of the major barriers to getting there so far has been this u

one wrote those who come after assad may be enemies of assad. it's true. some are extremist. that's only the case if they see the world doing nothing to those gassing people to death. we just want to live in peace with dignity and freedom and the day after any military action we'd redouble our actions to achieve a political solution that strengthen the rejection of tyranny and extremism. finally, many of you asked why not leave this to other countries or seek solutions short of force? 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. my administration has try diplomacy and sanctions but chemical weapons were still used by the assad regime. however over the last few days we've seen encouraging signs. in part, because of the threat of us military action and talks i've had the president putin. russia had moved to push him to give up his chemical weapons. they joined the chemical weapons convention and they have admit today having them. this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of c

problem is if you actually buy into the administration's so-called common sense reasoning surrounding assad's alleged use of chemical weapons what is the administration's real aim and has it painted itself into a red line corner. to cross-talk the continuing crisis in syria i'm joined by flynt leverett in washington he's a professor of international affairs at penn state university and co-author of going to round why the united states must come to terms with the islamic republic of iran also in washington we have ivan eland he is a senior fellow and director of the center on peace and liberty at the independent institute and in tel aviv we cross to mayor javedanfar he is a middle east expert right gentlemen cross talk rules and effective means you can jump in anytime you want and i very much encourage it flynt if i can go to you first that syrians have agreed in some way or another that they would allow international supervision of their chemical weapons ok a form of disarmament but in fact isn't it that mr obama himself has been disarmed . i think so the administration was clearly getting de

so assad has a choice at least. >> exactly. he's vulnerable in several areas in the middle east, people don't worry about the syrian army. the strength of the syrians is their defenses, air defenses. and that's where they're vulnerable. those are generally fixed, very expensive, they can't be repaired easily. they become a very interesting target in managing this idea of retribution. >> meanwhile, martha, the idea, the whole specter of a possible conflict with iran weighing on the president and his advisers as well. part of the calculation of going to congress now is they believe it's possible sometime in the next six months, 12 months, 18 months, go to congress to get authorization for a strike against iran as well. >> that's right. and that's what the israelis are watching as well so carefully. that's what benjamin netanyahu, i'm sure, when the president came out yesterday, and i suspect he had advanced warning about that, thinking what kind of message are we sending to iran and to prepare his nation. exactly that. one of the

and we will weaken assad appreciably. and i do think in fact there will be a way to recognize the views of the hawks like senator mccain and graham, maybe give the doves in congress something in the authorization resolution saying no ground troops at least for now, perhaps we should try to end this quickly. people forget this is a dynamic process. this authorization will go to the senate foreign relations committee for mark-up next week. >> written in a broad way allowing for lots of marking up. the members of congress say we made it better. but don't you have to have an agreed-upon goal? senator paul, for instance, can say i'm against this because this is about regime change. i don't care what you say. how do you then make the case -- and i guess that's what the sarin gas revelation was about today. how do you make the case our goals are common? that's the challenge going forward not only persuading the congress to go along with the president but persuading the american people. the polls this week did not give much comfo

the russians say they're speaking for assad. assad has not personally committed to this. he spoke to disclose in a week. what if he doesn't meet that deadline? the only enforcement is up to the u.n. and that's still to be negotiated and russia ruled out the use of force as a threat. that doesn't mean the president couldn't use force but with congress leaning against that with the american people against that, how credible a threat is that? >> i don't want to get into the weeds on the united nations but when comes to force if somebody plays cat and mouse and wants to gum the works the u.s. is in a position to go to the u.n. and say, hey f. that happens then weath we're going to threaten force and are in a position to use it. >> that's correct. in fact, tomorrow there's going to be this big report from the u.n. inspectors, not literally tying it to assad but it will build international pressure. at the same time, though, the only threat of force if it's credible at all will be u.s. unilateral force, the brits have said no, the french have now huge public opinion against it.

assad has to change that kill rate. he has to make his side kill more from the other with fewer losses. he has to come back to chemical weapons. we've only seen the beginning of this. >> chris? >> i agree with mark. but let's make it simple. if assad can use chemical weapons he will win this war. he will win it if it means depopulating large parts of his country by terrorizing people with chemical weapons. very much the way -- you remember when saddam used chemical weapons in 1988 and three years later he didn't even have to use them and he drove hundreds of thousands of kurds out of kurdis tan and nobody stood in his way. the real question for the state craft of this, do you want to allow bashar al assad to use weapons of mass destruction to win this war? >> we obviously don't. >> from the point of view of state craft you absolutely do not. >> even better with state craft -- >> we have a commitment from russia and now possibly the u.n. security council to take care of those weapons. >> oh, andrew, that's not serious. t

and we will weaken assad appreciably. and i do think in fact there will be a way to recognize the views of the hawks like senator mccain and graham, maybe give the doves in congress something in the authorization resolution, saying no ground troops, at least for now, perhaps we should try to end this pretty quickly. people forget this is a dynamic process. this authorization will go to the senate foreign relations committee for mark-up next week. >> it's written in a very broad way allowing for lots of marking up. the members of congress say we made it better. but don't you have to have an agreed-upon goal? and if senator paul, for instance, can say, i'm against this because this is about regime change, i don't care what you say, how do you then make the case -- and i guess that's what the sarin gas revelation was about today. how do you make the case our goals are common? i think that's the challenge going forward, not only in persuading the congress to go along with the president, but persuading the american people. the

things that they said tax was perpetrated by the assad regime and even more skeptical of the proposed course of action it will have to say that the let's if we can get to the proposed course of action in a moment we should focus on the facts first but you know nobody believes this idea that the that somehow the syrian government would let the rebels shoot off you know eleven different projectiles from government controlled areas in chew only rebel controlled or contested areas you know this is some kind of hidden conspiracy that just doesn't look like they're looking to see if if you live in and there is an area to be happy to sell to you can be you can anybody can dream up a while concoctions but you gotta look at the fox only party to the conflict known to have sarin or chemical weapons in this quantity is the syrian government the only government to control the territory from which the attacks were launched was the syrian government the attacks were launched only against the areas where the rebels either held the territory or they were contested areas that the government wanted to

assad is almost a client of russia. russia has it's naval base in syria and so russians have been bad players and visit towing everything. so we can't get everything into the united nations. we'll have a lot of countries, france of course agree, turkey. the president is putting together a coalition of countries that support us. but we have the where with all to do it. other countries don't have the firepower we have. >> will the president's own congress agree with him to do it? >> that's a question. i hope so. i think it would be a shame. i do agree with the quote, i think it's clear to me that assad is iran's proxy in the region, that assad was losing the civil war until the terror organization marched into syria and turned the tide. we can sit back and do nothing, allow people to be gassed. the iranians are watching us. they will see what we're doing. when we say to iran we won't allow you to have a new clear weapon, iran will believe us or not based on what we do in syria. >> the video of the children being gassed is

the russians say they're speaking for assad. assad has not personally committed to this. he spoke to disclose in a week. what if he doesn't meet that deadline? the only enforcement is up to the u.n., and that has still to be negotiated, and russia has ruled out the use of force as a threat. that doesn't mean the president couldn't use force, but with congress leaning against that, with the american people against that, how credible a threat is that? >> i don't want to get into the weeds on the united nations, but, again, when comes to force, if somebody wants to plays cat and mouse, if somebody wants to gum up the works, the u.s. is in a position to go to the u.n. and say, hey, if that happens, then we're going to threaten force and are in a position to use it. >> that's correct. in fact, tomorrow there's going to be this big report from the u.n. inspectors, not literally tying it to assad, but it will build international pressure. at the same time, though, the only threat of force, if it's credible at all, will be u.s. unilateral force. the brits have said no. the french

assad. he's met with him several times over the years. here is senator kerry in a meeting in damascus in 2009. there was no talk of meetings or negotiations on the hill today. kerry said it's time to act in a forceful yet limited operation. he was asked this if american troops would be put on the ground as part of the resolution. >> i'm absolutely confident, mr. chairman, that it is easy, not that complicateed to work out language that will satisfy the congress and the american people that there is no door open here through which someone can march in ways that the congress doesn't want it to while still protecting the national security interest of the country. i'm confident that can be worked out. the bottom line is the president has no intention and will not and we do not want to put american troops on the ground to fight this -- or be involved in the fighting of this civil war period. >> the death toll roels in syria today. 66 people died in violence today including six children. chief con

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 have spillover effects? so we keep it to the limited stated goal of, i guess, degrading and deteriorating? >> the task was to do just that, to deter and degrade. and to be limited and focussed in scope and duration. that's the task i've been given. >> how can you calibrate that? >> well, we can calibrate it on our side. there is always the risk of escalation on the other, but they have significantly limited capabilities to do so. and most of the intelligence informs us -- we