ambassador to syria will join us to talk about not only his perspective in dealing with the assad family, but an inside syria take on what is going on there. two reporters joining us. by a. foukaraned from al-jazeera. we will take your calls, take a look at the newspapers as well. we will also look at the newspapers as well. this comes her way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. 7:00 tomorrowway morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] ♪

>> coming up, the senate or in relations hearing examining proposed military strikes on syria. after that, members of the senate foreign relations committee proposed an amendment to using force. then a discussion on the syrian civil war and how it might impact region. >> trying to maintain family time and protect their privacy, it edith roosevelt purchased a family retreat called tying not -- pine knot. >> it was close enough to dc that he could get out here as often as needed but far enough away that there was wilderness. this was a damn replace. it was unique for the roosevelt. -- a family place.

it was unique for the roosevelt s. this is the one place where it was private tammy time. roosevelt made it very clear they do not want anyone but family here. first ladies, influence and image. looking at the public and private lives as the women who have served as first ladies. monday night live at 9:00 p.m. eastern. tune in today for a look inside the media coverage of america's first ladies. , john kerry week generalhuck hagel and martin dempsey. they appear before a senate or in relation committee talking about the potential use of military force against syria. the hearing was held a few days requestedident obama

congressional approval for a military strike in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian regime. this portion of the hearing is 50 minutes. it begins with remarks from john mccain of arizona. >> thank you. i think the witnesses. to see teresad here with you and in good health and good spirits. thank you. i apologize for what i'm about to do to john. this is a set up. >> john. goingou tell the enemy to attack them, they are obviously going to disperse and make it harder. i am looking right here at a story, syria said to be hiding

weapons and moving troops. there is even open-source reporting that they may be moving some of their assets into the russian naval base. let's not get -- it is ridiculous to think that it is not unwise from a military standpoint to advise the enemy you're going to attack. pentagon planners were instructed not to offer strike options that could help drive mr. assad from power. the concern is the wrong groups will be able to take advantage of it. a senior military officer said, is there any truth to that? >> the president asked us for a range of options and we provided him a range. >> i am asking if there is any truth to the story in "the wall street journal." >> our options were not limited to -- >> any truth to the story in "the wall street journal"? >> no. >> secretary kerry, the same article, the delay reflected broader u.s. approach rarely discussed publicly that underpins decision-making according to former and current u.s. officials, the administration doesn't want to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear. the outcome may be worse than

the current stalemate. is that story accurate? >> no. by the way, can i add something? on the warning issue, i don't disagree with you. in fact, the general wouldn't disagree either. we are all -- >> the general said it would be let's not get into that. >> although i want to say is that there were leaks, which are the bane of everybody's existence. the fact is that the newspapers began to carry stories about a strike and targeting well before any decisions were made. that began a process of moving. now, -- >> i got it. i would like to move on to more important questions. >> i thought all your questions were important. >> thank you, john. i will try to remember that. the president said today that the purpose of military action in syria is not just to respond to chemical weapons use, but to

degrade his military capabilities as part of your broader strategy. the president said, to allow syria to ultimately free itself. do you agree with that assessment? >> i said up front, they will automatically be as a result of degrading his ability for chemical weapons, there will be downstream impact which will have an impact on his military capacity. i agree with the president. >> general dempsey, do you agree with that statement? >> i agree. i have never been told to change the momentum. i have been told to degrade capability. >> do you think without a change in momentum that syria could ultimately free itself? >> i think they all are connected. degrading military capability as you know is a pretty significant

part of momentum shifts. >> john, over the weekend, "the wall street journal" ran an important op-ed, i hope you saw it. a syria analyst spent a great deal of time inside syria including this month. i want to read her assessment of the situation on the ground. i quote the story. the conventional wisdom holds that extremist elements are mixed in with moderate rebel groups. this isn't the case. moderates and extremists wield control over distinct territory. contrary to media accounts, the war in syria is not being waged entirely or predominantly by dangerous islamist and al qaeda diehards. jihadists pouring in from iraq and lebanon are not flocking to the front lines. they are concentrating their efforts on consolidating control in the northern rebel held areas

of the country. moderate opposition forces, a collection of folks known as the free syrian army, continue to lead the fight against the syrian regime. while traveling with these battalions, i watched them defend christian villages. they demonstrated willingness to submit to civilian authority working closely with local administrator councils and they struggle to ensure that their fight against assad will pave the way for a flourishing society. do you agree with this assessment of the opposition? >> i agree with most of that. they have changed the definitely. as i said earlier, the fundamentals of syria are secular.

i believe it will stay that way. >> i think it is very important to point out, it is a secular state. they would reject radical islamists and in some cases come in the areas in which they have control -- the information i have. when we see these commentators say, we don't know which side will win, we don't know who the bad guys are. if you agree with this assessment, we know who the bad guys are. is that correct? >> i believe we do for the most part. there are some worse and they tend to be mostly in the northern area and the east. >> i thank you. again, i would like to ask. can you assure the committee that the administration does not see a protracted stalemate in syria as somehow a good thing or a goal of u.s. policy? >> the goal of u.s. policy is

not a stalemate. the goal is a negotiated solution which resulted in the departure of assad and a free choice of the syrian people for their future. >> i would like to ask again, if we reject this resolution, doesn't it send a seriously bad message to our friends and allies? encourage our enemies and despair at our friends, particularly those fighting in syria? >> senator mccain, i have gotten to know my counterparts in the mideast particularly well because of the number of crises and initiatives that we have had to deal with in that region. i cannot emphasize enough how much they are looking to us now,

making judgments about us for the long term, and how critical the choice we make here will be, not just to the question of syria, but to the support we may or may not anticipate in the mideast peace process, to the future of egypt, to the transformation of the middle east, to the stability of the region and other interest that we have. there is no way to separate one thing from all of the rest. relationships are relationships. they are integrated and that is why this is so important. >> i would also emphasize, if it is a wrong kind of resolution, it can do as much damage in my view. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. senator.

>> thank you very much. i thank all the witnesses for their testimony and for their service here today. i also want to thank chairman menendez for the way he is conducted this hearing. like everyone here, i deplore what bashar al-assad has done to his own people. by attacking them with chemical weapons, assad has committed an atrocious crime so heinous that international law singles it out as an assault deserving of international action. let there be no mistake, i fully agree his horrific acts deserve 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. i have grave concerns about what 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 legal foundations with this potential strike. we need to know if we have exhausted all options to affect syria's behavior. we need to increase our attention on the source of assad's ability to continue to ruthlessly kill his own people. that is support from nations including russia and china who are cynically trying to hold the moral high ground.

assad would not be able to maintain his grip on power if he were not being supported from outside. the full force of international outrage should come down on those nations that are refusing to allow the u.n. to act and find a solution. finally, i see this potential bombing campaign as a potential next step towards full-fledged war. you have been here before. the iraq war began as an international effort to kick some hussein out of kuwait, and then years of a no-fly zone to keep saddam from threatening his neighbors or reconstituting his arsenal of chemical weapons. as we all know, this limited military action eventually led to what is one of the biggest blunders in u.s. foreign policy. a war that i voted against. many who voted for it came to

regret that vote. americans are understandably weary after the fiasco of iraq in over a decade of war, how can this administration make a guarantee that our military actions will be limited? how can we guarantee that one surgical strike will have any impact other than to tighten the vice grip assad has on his power? or allow rebels allied with al qaeda to gain a stronger foothold in syria? i take our role extreme the seriously here like many of the other senators have said. i will hear the president and his team out. the president made the right decision to pursue an authorization for the use of military force. i hope these hearings will give the american people the answers

they deserve. there are troubling questions that need to be answered. secretary kerry, i want to start with you. you have assured the american people -- i watched your national television performances that the u.s. action will not include -- that you said this today, will not include the use of ground troops. it will be limited in nature to deter assad and others from using chemical weapons. yet the use of force proposed by the administration states that it would allow the president to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict with syria." this is a very open-ended proposal with no specific limits on types of forces that would be used, no limit on their duration. why was a proposed in a way that it conflicts with the statements of no ground troops and what

kind of language -- the precise language are you willing to back in terms of showing the american people that we really mean what we say in terms of no boots on the ground? >> senator, all good questions. i will respond to all of them. i want to address the suspicion and concern that you have which is appropriate. i think everybody understands that iraq left a lot of folks reeling for some period of time. it is appropriate to ask the questions you have asked. let me try to emphasize. this is not sending a message, per se. this is having an affect, and impact. this is taking action to achieve something more than just a message.

it is to degrade his current capacity. it will make it harder for him to do that in the future and it will also facilitate our ability to hold him accountable in the future if he does. he will know that. this will affect his calculation. that is number one. >> secretary kerry, by degrading his capacity, don't you in fact make him weaker and make the people out there like al qaeda and these other extremist forces stronger?

this is what i want secretary- general dempsey to talk about a little bit too. could you answer that? by degrading him, you make these extremist forces stronger, do you not? >> i don't think you do. you actually make the opposition stronger. the opposition is getting stronger by the day. i think general idris would tell you that, that his daily concern is not the opposition. 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 that they are condemned, those countries that are not allowing us to move forward to find a solution. >> i don't disagree. the fact is that just a few weeks ago, just a few weeks ago at the u.n., we saw a condemnation of a chemical attack. without blame, without citing assad, without saying who was responsible, simply a condemnation of a chemical attack and the russians blocked it. we have no illusions. if the un security council having difficulties from its conscience?

yes. does that mean the united states of america and the rest of the world should shrink from it? no. i would urge you, you said how do we know it won't result in x or y or z happening if we don't do it? let me ask you. it is not a question of what will happen if we don't do it. it is a certainty. are you going to be comfortable if assad as a result of the united states not doing anything gases his people yet again and the world says, why didn't the united states act? history is full of opportunity

and moments where someone it and stand up and act when it made a difference. whether you go back to world war ii or look at a ship that was turned away from the coast of florida and everybody on it lost their lives, those are the things that make a difference. that is what is at stake here. i would say to you, these -- it is a guarantee if the united states doesn't act with other countries, we know what assad will do. that is a guarantee. i can't tell you what is guaranteed that some country will do if we do act. i know what happens if we don't. i am pretty darn clear that a lot of things that people think will happen to happen if the united states act -- it will have enforced this international standard with respect to the use of chemical weapons. if the multilateral institutions set up to do it is being blocked, that doesn't mean we should turn our backs and say there is nothing we can do. that is not the case. we did it in bosnia and made a difference. we saved countless lives. i believe the president of the united states believes we can do that now. >> i don't believe that we should have given up so easily on using the united nations. we have not taken russet to

task. that is what we should be pointing out. i want to respectfully disagree with you and say also i very much appreciate your service. i know that you're trying very hard to find on the diplomatic side, a peaceful resolution. thank you for your courtesy. >> senator. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i heard from people across the state who all believe what is happening in syria is awful, despicable. they do have concerns about the administration and what the plan really is. they want to know what the core national security interests of the united states are that are at stake in syria, what is our

ultimate goal of proposed strikes and what happens if he strikes are not effective? to that end, i would ask you what exactly it is that we are going to be voting on. senator durbin also asked about the narrowness or expense. would we be voting within the next 24 hours? >> the chair is working with a ranking member and others to come to an agreed-upon -- that we will meet the goals of achieving the ability for the

administration to pursue the military actions they have sought the congresses support for. by the same token, taylor it sufficiently so that this is not an open-ended engagement and specifically not with boots on the ground. we're not there yet. it is our aspiration to try to get their before the end of the day. and then to look forward to the possibility of a markup tomorrow. we will see if we can get there. if we do, we will give all members ample notice. we start off with a classified briefing and will move from there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i appreciate you coming to congress. president obama specifically asserted on saturday that he already had the authority. when the british parliament rejected a motion supporting u.k. participation, the prime minister said that he would respect the will of the british people and there would be no british military intervention. where does president obama stand now that he has come to congress?

>> he intends to win the passage of the resolution. >> on the case that he does not, is the plan -- >> we are not contemplating not. it is too dire. >> we talked about the risks of delays. there are already reports that i delaying the military action, that assad is moving military assets, hardware, troops to civilian neighborhoods. reports indicate that russia plans to send an anti-submarine ship to the mediterranean in the next few days. i wonder what this means to our contingency planning and what this impact is going to be for our military operations. >> the movement -- there are already four russian warships and they are staying a respectful distance. i don't see that as a factor. >> has the administration created a threat assessment of how russia, how iran, how hezbollah is going to respond to a u.s. attack?

>> we all agree that that would be best handled in a classified session. >> in terms of what success looks like, senator udall specifically said what happens if gases are used again. i wonder if we do a limited strike as is proposed and still assad goes back and uses chemical weapons on his people, that creates an entirely new set

of hearings and how does this end? where are we one month from now? >> as i said, we are preparing several targets come in the first of which would set the conditions for following assessments. the others would be used if necessary and we haven't gotten to that point yet. what we do know is that we can degrade and disrupt his capabilities and that should put us in a better position to make the kind of assessment you're talking about. >> let me add to that. senator feinstein brought this up today at the white house. it would not be sensible to pass this resolution with a view to degrading his capacity and preventing him from doing it if he were full is enough to do it again, the general does have follow-on possibilities and since the objective would remain the same, it would be important for assad himself to know that you have not limited this to one specific moment with respect to chemical weapons. you can still have a limited authorization but with respect to chemical weapons, it would be a huge mistake to deprive general dempsey and company of their options to enforce what we are trying to achieve.

>> a negotiated departure of assad. you keep mentioning trying to get him to do this from the negotiating table. it seems to me that somebody who will go to any length to stay in power to the point of using chemical weapons against his people, that wouldn't he be just driven to a more serious level of determination to keep our? >> that is a very appropriate question. i don't believe so and there are a number of reasons why.

most of them are best discussed and i look forward to it, and a private session. there are very strong indications. from a number of discussions that have taken place between countries over the past months that assad would not necessarily avoid making a different decision under different circumstances. i think we ought to leave it at that. in a private session, we ought to dig into it. >> i was going to ask about chemical weapons stockpiles. in terms of steps that we could take in terms of command and control of the regime's chemical weapons stockpiles. to make sure these things are protected in a way that they cannot be used. >> absolutely. this is something that ought to be done in the other session. i will say generically that general dempsey and his team have taken great pains at the instruction of the president to make certain that whatever we do doesn't make people less safe or

potentially more exposed to weapons or that those weapons would have less control and so forth. all of these things have entered into the calculation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i just want to add onto my original response to you. the resolution sent to us by the administration will not be a resolution that we will be working on but it is a good opening to what the desires are and intentions are, but it will not be the specific resolution we will be working on. senator murphy. >> thank you very much. we all are referencing conversations we have had over the last week. i have never seen a greater level of public engagement on an issue since the health care reform debate of 2009.

while there are hard-liners that have come to me with a resolution that we should go in, most people see both sides of this issue. they wrinkly appreciate the fact that they have an american president who has taken so much time and put so much thought into arriving at this decision even if they disagree. they appreciate even more that this president trusts them and their elected representatives enough to bring this conversation to the united states congress, albeit the fact that it may be messy to get from point a to point b. given all of the commotion we will hear from our constituents, that comes out to me loud and clear. when i look at this question, i see two questions inherent. we have to ask ourselves, is there a moral or national security imperative? i think you have made the case that there is. atrocities that we cannot let stand, a country that is very vital security interests. there is a second question. that is the one that i have

trouble with and some of my colleagues have trouble with. that is this. will our action lessen the acuity of that action or advance our security interests? there has to be a problem that needs to be solved and a way to solve it. that is why i struggle with this.

frankly, i don't think the fact that i and many others struggle with that question means that we lack courage or that we are enabling the syrian regime. i think that we wonder whether there is a limit to the ability of american military power to influence the politics on the ground in the middle east. clearly there is not some direct linkage between what happened in iraq and what happened in syria, it does chill the ability of people to believe that military might influence politics on the ground after they have watched the last 10 years. the second problem people have is the question of escalation. i think one of the most important things that you said in your prepared remarks was this, you said that we would be prepared to respond to a miscalculation of assad whether it be in reprisal against his own people or attacks against our allies in the region.

we would be prepared to respond without going to war. some people will find that statement incongruous. how do you respond without going to war? let me ask the question this way. there are a variety of responses from assad. he could launch another attack against his own people. he could launch a conventional weapons attack. he or his allies could launch attacks against our allies in the region. i don't expect you explain this as early what the response will be today. does this resolution that we are debating give you the ability to respond to those reprisals or in any of those situations that i just outlined, responses within syria against his own people or responses outside of syria against our own allies, would you have to come back to congress for a new authorization of force? >> excuse me, sorry. as i think the president has made clear and as we have seen

in many of these crisis over the course of my career, i saw presidents do both. i supported some and i opposed others. on a number of occasions, presidents acted without the authorization of congress. there is no question that the president would have the authority and the right and conceivably the imperative to respond without authorization if assad were to attack again. i can't speak for the president in terms of what decision he would make, but he has the authority. that right would be available to him. if i can just a quickly with respect to -- it is absolutely appropriate to ask a question, will this make a difference? totally appropriate. and to think about this question of escalation. let me say something quickly about both of those. if the congress decides not to

do this, it is a guarantee whether it is with assad in syria, or nuclear weapons in iran, or nuclear weapons in north korea, we will have invited a certain confrontation at some point in time that will require you to make a choice that will be even worse with a potential of even greater conflict. that, i guarantee you. that is the message that will be sent. there is a distinction between this and iraq. we lived through that here. in iraq, intelligence reported that weapons of mass destruction existed here it we didn't know if they existed. so we had a massive invasion in order to try to find if they existed and we found they didn't. here, we have weapons of mass destruction that not only we know exist, they have been used.

not once, not twice, not tree times. multiple times. we estimate in the teens, and the opposition estimates more than that. now we have this most recent use of weapons of mass destruction in contravention of nearly 100 years of prohibition against their use. >> i don't think that is the dispute. >> the dispute is what are you going to do about it? the dispute is what are you prepared to do? that is the dispute. if you believe that by doing nothing you're going to stand up for the norm and somehow reduce the threat of use at some future time? your right to believe that, but i think and the president believes that flies against all common sense and all human behavior. >> let me ask this question about iran. i think it is important.

the circumstances are very different. not to trivialize what has happened in syria, but the stakes of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon which could kill millions is different than syria killing thousands with chemical weapons. i wonder whether or not it lessens our moral authority to make a decision with respect to iran. second, i worry about this weariness we have talked about within the american public. it may ultimately make it harder for us to rally the american public with respect to a response to iran having gone through what could be a slightly protracted engagement with syria. i want to challenge you on the

automatic nature of a failure to step in in syria. >> let me just make it very clear. the world decided after world war i and the horrors of gas in the trenches and the loss of entire generation of young people in europe, that we would never again allow gas to be used in warfare. so, if all of a sudden at this moment, the third instance -- it was used by adolf hitler. it was used by saddam hussein. now it has been used by bashar al-assad. three people in all of history. if the united states, knowing it and knowing that we have drawn the line that the world has drawn with us, is unable to

stand up and confront that, it is an absolute certainty that gas will proliferate. we've had a sarin gas in the tokyo subway. -- i don't know how we could live with that. is there a difference between gas and nuclear weapons? i suppose it would depend on the scale. it would depend on the scale. the world decided that chemical, biological and nuclear are prohibited in warfare. we as a nation and as a global community have struggled to try

to enforce that through the years. it is hard for me to imagine that the united states would not stand with world against that. is it going to be effective? i am convinced that what we can do will reduce the possibilities of more use of gas and degrade his capacity to use this weapon. i think it is imperative for us to take that step. it is significantly different from what took place in iraq originally with respect to weapons that we didn't know existed and the two just are not similar. >> senator paul. >> thank you for coming today. it is not often that i get to complement the president. i can probably count the number of times on one hand. when i first heard that the president was going to come to congress, i was presently

surprised. i was proud that he was my president. i didn't vote for him but i was proud that he did this. i was just about to stand on my feet and clapped, but then i heard, if i lose the vote, i will probably go ahead and did the bombing anyway. it does concern me. i want to be proud of the president but every time i am just about there, i get word that he doesn't really mean it. he is going to sort of obey the constitution if he wins. i heard secretary kerry say if we win, sure. if we lose, what? make me proud today. stand up for us and say you're going to obey the constitution and if we vote you down, which is unlikely, but if we do you will go with what the people say through their congress and not go through with a war that your congress votes against. can you give me a better answer?

>> i can't give you a different answer than the one i gave you. i don't know what the president also decision is. i will tell you this. he still has the constitutional authority. it would be in keeping with the constitution. >> i disagree with you there. i don't believe he has the authority. i think congress as this. madison was explicit when he wrote the federalist papers. he wrote that history supposes the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most likely to go to war and therefore the constitution vested the power and the congress. it is explicit throughout all of madison's writings. this power is a congressional power and not an executive power. they didn't say big war, small war. they didn't say boots on the ground, not boots on the ground. they said, declare war. ask the people on the ships if

they are involved in war or not. if we do not say the constitution applies, that we will abide by this vote, you are making a joke of us. you're making us into theater. we play constitutional theater for the president. if this is real, you will abide by the verdict of congress. you are probably going to win. just say it is real and let's have a real debate in this country and not a meaningless debate that in the end you lose and say, oh well, we had the authority anyway. >> a couple of items. i assure you there is nothing meaningless. there is everything real. >> only at our vote makes a difference. >> i will leave to the man who was elected to be president the responsibility for telling you what his decision is. the president intends to win this vote. >> we have had a lot of discussion about whether or not we are going to make the world safer with this. i think that is an open question. i think it is conjecture at best. you can say, we think assad will be less likely to launch chemical weapons after this. we may be able to degrade his capacity, but he has a thousand

tons. are we going to wipe it out? most groups say we aren't going to directly bomb weapons because of what might happen to the surrounding population. most people say, assad acted illogically. why would he release chemical weapons on his own people when it brought the anger of the entire world? he is already acting irrationally. now we are going to determine him and he will act in a rational manner. i think it is equally likely that he either does it again or doesn't. i don't think you can say for certain which is better. we can't say that by attacking them he is not going to lunch another chemical attack. will the region be more stable

or less stable? we all say we want stability in the middle east. that is a national interest for our country. i think there are equal arguments on both sides. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack on them or less likely? i think there is a valid argument for saying it will be more likely to suffer an attack? will russia be more likely or less likely to supply more arms and get more heavily involved? there is a valid argument they might become more likely to be involved. iran, more likely or less likely? if a run gets involved, more likely or less likely that israel launches a reprisal attack on japan? there are all kinds of unknowns that i can still you're absolutely the answer and neither can you.

i think there is a reasonable argument that the world may be less stable because of this. they may not deter any chemical weapons attacks. what i would ask is, how are we to know? i haven't had one person come to me and say they are for this work. we get calls by the thousands. nobody is calling in favor of this war. i was home all month. i didn't have one person come up and say, do they all agree it is around this? yes. we all agree. people are not excited about getting involved. they don't think it is going to work. they are skeptical of what will occur. i would appreciate a response. reassure us that the boat is meaningful and valid, and also that you are convinced that all of the different items will be better and not worse. >> i would be very happy to do that. will israel be more likely to suffer an attack or will it be safer? i can make it crystal clear to you that israel will be less

safe unless the united states takes this action. iran and hezbollah are two of the three biggest allies of assad. iran and hezbollah are the two single biggest enemies of israel. if iran and hezbollah are advantaged by the united states not curving assad's use of chemical weapons, there is a much greater likelihood that at some point down the road, hezbollah will have access to these weapons of mass destruction. israel will for certain be less secure. i would also argue -- >> but it is more likely that hezbollah will attack because of this attack? >> israel feels confident in its ability to deal with hasbro but

if it does so. israel has on several occasions seen fit to deal with threats to its security. not once has assad responded to that to date. i think there are a bunch of things we should talk about in a classified session. let me just make it clear to you that you asked these questions. will this or that be more likely to happen? if the united states of america doesn't do this, is it more or less likely that assad does it again? do you want to answer that question? >> i think it is unknown. >> senator, it is not unknown. if the united states doesn't hold him accountable on this, it is a guarantee assad will do it again. a guarantee. i urge you to go to the classified briefing and learn that. secondly, let me point out to