supporting, will be a friend of the united states. i'm not certain that either side or any of the multiple sides of this war will ultimately be a friend to the united states. >> you know, you have disagreements among some of your republican colleagues, republican senator bob corker for example, a key member of the foreign relations committee. he said after being briefed by the administration, he says he now supports what he calls surgical proportional military strikes. so why is he wrong and you're right? >> well, i would ask the question, what is the strategic objective? is it simply to say shame on you for launching and using chemical weapons? i would like to know who used the chemical weapons. in all likelihood it probably was the syrian government. but it really isn't to their advantage. it's actually more to the advantage of the rebels to have launched this attack because the whole world now is uniting against assad. i would want to know though would the surgical strikes that are favored, would they somehow eliminate chemical weapons and