Times over the past year. Well be taking all of this up and considering why the president is suddenly trying to pass responsibility for his own ultimatums and threats to assad, and his decision to authorize punishment with Foreign AffairsCommittee Member congressman ted yohu who pressed secretary of state john kerry on the president s plans in a hearing held today. The syrian resolution passes the senate Foreign Affairs committee after members capitulated to the demands of senator john mccain. General david grain joins us to assess the strike plan but we begin tonight with the latest on the president s pitch on military strikes against syria and another attempt to distance himself from his own decision. The president today actually put the responsibility on the international community. Heres mr. Obama earlier today in stockholm, sweden. I didnt set a red line. The world set a red line. My credibility is not on the line, the international communitys credibility is on the line. And america and congress credibility is on the line. Do i hold out hope that mr. Putin may change his position on some of these issues . Im always hopeful. And for his part, president putin claimed that russia does not exclude supporting a u. N. Resolution on punitive strikes against syria, if they are provided with evidence that they decide proves assad is actually guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people. All of this before calling secretary of state kerry a liar for his denial of al qaeda involvement with the syrian opposition. Putin said, quote, this was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them, the americans, and we assume they are decent people. But he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad. Kerry today making the u. S. Military sound like a mercenary force during his testimony for the tot hou the house foreign as committee. Listen to this. With respect to to arab countries offering to bear costs and assist with answers, profoundly yes, they have. That offer is on the table. Our next guest hasnt been persuaded by the president nor today the arguments of secretaries kerry and hagel or general dempsey, irrespective of his decision. Here to discuss the hearing, congressman ted yoho a member of the house Foreign Affairs committee. Congressman, great to have you with us. It was interesting, listening to general dempsey be concise, i was thinking id rather he be more expansive and the others perhaps before the committee be less so. Your reaction to todays hearing. My reaction today the reaction today is it didnt change my opinion. I see no need to get involved in a civil war, a sectarian civil war in another country. Especially a muslim to muslim civil war. What happens when you have western include in that, it just changes the whole dynamics. This is a civil war that has gone on for three and a half years. For us to intervene now when the chemical weapons have been reported to being used over 11 times in the last, say, year and a half, my question is why now and why us . Wheres the rest of the world . You know, this all goes back to the cwc agreement that had been signed and ratified or revamped approximately three or four times since 1924. That stated that any country that produces, transports, stores or sells chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction are in violation, and so this has been going on, if you go back to the iraq war, its been used probably 20 times since then. I just question the motive of right now and america acting out in the lead of this. I think its wrong for america. Is it what you perhaps are in the frame of mind to say wait a minute to all of these folks . Youre talking about the arabs paying for an American Invasion in syria, talking about no allies whatsoever in this, no authority from any one of the institutional organizations, nato, the united nations, the arab league, that would give at least at least the inprimitor of some sort of authority to carry this out. For all the world, we look like were mercenaries here. We look as though were a vigilante nation because we dont have color of law. Lou, i agree 100 with you. That was one of my questions to mr. Kerry. Were talking were talking about attacking a sovereign nation that did not attack america, and theyre talking about it would be a Surgical Strike if we drop bombs here and there, people will die from that. My question is if another country did that to us, would we not view that as a military or act of aggression, act of war. I think resoundingly we would. We dont have the Constitutional Authority to attack another country for that reason. If it was a National Security threat, which i dont feel this is, i think its a tremendously horrible thing thats happening over there and i would love for it to be brought to a peaceful or diplomatic resolve. This is where our Foreign Policy, i think, has been askew, its been off track. Ive seen it more in the last five years. I followed the middle east for the last 15 to 20 years. What ive seen in the last five years, theres this state of confusion, and many members today say they were confused. And i think the world is confused, i think our allies are confused and the American People are confused why were going in there. 98 of go ahead. You describe all of that confusion and theres only one nation being asked to commit its forces to hostilities of conflict and thats the United States. I agree. And the way you describe it, were the most confused nation on the planet. And look where that comes from. You have the president drawing a red line in august. John kerry even said that. But the president said today he didnt draw any red line, absolutely flat out denied it. John kerry in march and april said there was a red line drawn that the president said if they crossed it was going to change the dynamic. Today and yesterday we heard there was a red line drawn. In addition to that, this is about regime change. This is not about regime change. The confusion just keeps coming. People wonder why the world is confused on what america is going to do. What we need to do is we need to lead by example. Theres 189 countries that have signed the cwc resolution or agreement. I want to know where the other 188 are. We give foreign aid to a lot of these countries. We need to demand that they come to the table and we sit there on one side and we get president assad on the other side and we have a peaceful resolution to this. And i dont think weve gone that route. The thing im encouraged about is that russia said if the results were conclusive, they would ask for a u. N. Resolution and to sit down. I think if we can do that, theres no reason to rush into this. I think Diplomatic Solutions are a better way. This is a way for america to lead on Foreign Policy and a redirection of Foreign Policy, especially in the middle east. We can win this. It can be done with diplomacy and not with bombs and guns. And i think we always and i am delighted that you are amongst those being cautious and leading on the issue. Well, thank you. Because this is not a time for people to rush to conflict. Its unseemly for a superpower, were the worlds only superpower, it seems to me, to act because this is a nation, a small nation, that we could attack and inflict damage with impunity. Just because we have the power and the technology to do so certainly does not warrant a smug response on our part and a disdain for the damage and the pain and the depth that would result. That is on us. I agree. I think back i think back what my dad said as kids growing up. Anybody can fight. It takes a man to deal with diplomacy and talk and work through a conflict like that. And i think this is time for us to man up and do whats right. Man up, woman up, however we want to describe it. We have had a fiveyear opportunity under this president to have built a solid and certainly more cordial relationship with a great nation, russia, which would be very helpful at this particular chance. This particular moment. And the chance for that, of course, is waning rapidly. It sure is. Congressman, thanks for webeg here, we appreciate it. Thank you, sir. The constitutionality of the president s authority to attack syria is one of the hottest topics in the Senate Armed Services committee today. Senator rand paul challenged the secretary of state on precisely that issue. I want to be proud of the president , but every time im just about there, then i get worried that really he doesnt mean it, that hes going to sort of obey the constitution if he wins. So i heard senator kerry say if we win, sure. But if we lose, what . I mean make me proud today, secretary kerry. Stand up for us and say youre going to obey the constitution. If we vote you down, which is unlikely by the way, but if you do, you would go with what the people say through their congress and you wouldnt go forward with a war that your Congress Votes against. Can you give me a better answer, secretary kerry . I cant give you a different answer than the one i gave you. I dont know what the president s decision is. But i will tell you this, it ought to make you proud because he still has the Constitutional Authority and he would be in keeping with the constitution. I disagree with you there. I dont believe he has the Constitutional Authority. I think congress has this. Madison was very explicit when he wrote the federalist papers. He wrote that history supposes or the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch most likely to go to war and, therefore, the constitution vested that power in the congress. Its explicit and runs throughout all of madisons writings. This power is a congressional power and it is not an executive power. Joining us now, fox news legal analyst, elise wheel. Great to see you. I thought that was a terrific exchange between the senator and the secretary of state. It was. And in precise language, hes exactly correct about the powers of declaring war, where they reside. Right. And now we have something called a war powers act. Right, 1973. 1973. A resolution that was passed which said to the president , basically you have a window, president , of about 60 to 90 days. Youve got to go to congress. Not for a war, not declaring war, but going in in a hostile environment, in hostilities. Thats the word that is used here. You have to report to report to congress and then you have 60 days and you can reup that with congress for another 90 days. If congress doesnt accept what youre doing, youve got to pull all troops out, stop and cease unless this Congress Declares war itself. This president has sanid and his administration has said we should syria but he wants the approval of congress. But implicit in that although its not stated is that hes made the decision to do so. Therefore, because we should, he will, but he wants the approval of congress. What if he doesnt get the approval . I think thats a political cover rather than a legal cover. As we just talked about, he has the legal cover. He does not need to go to congress hes done so. Right, but he did not need to do that. But having done so but now if Congress Says no, he can still go back to the war powers act. My reading of it so what youre saying is its a farce. Im saying its political cover. Clearly if he wanted to go under the war powers act, he would never have had to go to congress. So youre really saying that senator paul is exactly right. What were witnessing here is political theater in the guise of a president it becomes not a political cover, if he gets congressional approval, he doesnt have to go through the war powers act. That at that point would be asking heres the question, would be asking congress then to actually, you know, state that this is a war as opposed to hostility. When you attack a country, no matter your superiority militarily or technologically, you are committing an act of war. There is no wiggle room in that. But there was wiggle room we are committing an act of war. But there was wiggle room with president bush and iraq. That was the whole big legal issue, he did not declare war. All of these issues did we have war criminals, all of that, geneva treaty just consider this possibility. The 1973 war powers act has never been challenged and gotten to the Supreme Court. Right. This would be it would be interesting. This would give, it would seem to me, the senate and the house standing to sue the president and to take it before the Supreme Court to see whether or not the war powers act itself is constitutional. Exactly, because and i think youre right on that because what he did did, other president did, other president s have gnaw, he went to congress. He wants his cake and eat it to. He went to Congress Rather than going unilaterally, coming back to that 60 to 90day rule rather than going it alone. Thats what he could have done very clearly, very legally. Now if Congress Comes up and says no, then youre right. Were at the stalemate does he go back to the act that he could followed from the beginning. I think that this may have the law of unintended consequences. This may be one time in which that law of unintended consequences benefits the law itself, in this case the constitution. Because to me it is clearly, as a matter of common sense, judgment in American History and the purpose of our founders. The 1973 war powers act is an abomination. But theres precedence for it. Our president s have gone in. President after president has participated in things of all kinds, not just constitutional ones. But the fact is this might have a very positive result. Well, and only in your estimation if congress does not give approval for that one strike. Im kind of like that. If things are right in my estimation, they seem really right to me. Well, well see if it ends with the Supreme Court then, lou, right . Well see. Lets hope so. Well follow it there. Ill hope so. Thanks. We appreciate it as always. President obama says the red line isnt his. He said he wants a limited proportional military strike against syria. Is there such a military strategy . We ask the expert, former commander of the first infantry commission, general david grange, next. Um. Wheres mrs. Davis . She took an early spring break thanks to her double miles from the capital one venture card. Now what was mrs. Davis teaching . Spelling. Thats not a subject, right . I mean, spell check. Thats a program. Algebra. Okay. Persons and b are flying to the bahamas. W fast will they get there . Dont you need distance, rate and. No, all it takes is double miles. [ all ] whoa. Yeah. [ male announcer ] get away fast with unlimited double miles from the capital one venture card. Youre the worlds best teacher. This is so unexpected. Whats in your wallet . I have a great fit with my dentures. I love kiwis. Ive always had that issue with the seeds getting under my denture. Super poligrip free it creates a seal of the dentures in my mouth. Even wellfitting dentures let in food particles. Super poligrip is zinc free. With just a few dabs, its clinically proven to seal out more food particles so youre more comfortable and confident while you eat. Super poligrip free made the kiwi an enjoyable experience. [ charlie ] try zinc free super poligrip. Bounce keeps my clothes fresh for weeks, even when theyve been sitting in the drawer a long time. Like those jeans you cant fit into anymore. Uh. By that, i mean. [ male announcer ] how do you get your bounce . Longlasting freshness. Joining me now is general david grange, retired u. S. Army brigadier general, former commander of the First Infantry Division along with many distinguished commands. General, great to have you with us. Let me start with your thoughts about a limited proportional strike. Is this the kind of thing that military leaders like to hear as the outline of a way in which an action will be taken . No, its not what commanders like to hear. In fact if you cant define the results that you want, the effects to be gained properly and then apply what means that it would take to do that, it really doesnt mean much at all. The strike, if it happens, must be done with the right mix of force and capability at the right time and place of our choosing. Now its too late. Now we ought to stand by and strike only if necessary, demanding on the conditions. And your reaction to the mccain amendment, if we could put that up. In part it reads it is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends a conflict and leads to a democratic government in syria. General, your reaction. Well, first of all, i dont believe who is assad going to negotiate with . Which rebel force . And so either point, do you go with assad or do you go with a rebel group. Unless its one that supports your principles, you lose either way. So i would not get involved in that whatsoever. I would want involved in humanitarian assistance in jordan, in turkey. I would take measures to protect jordan, turkey and israel from a spillover in that region. This country well, you look at jordan as an example, between syria and between egypt, both basket cases. So there is some strategic reasons to maintain stability, but not by a limited strike. And further complicating it, general jack keene with whom i spoke last night, pointed out that in geographical terms, the east and the west is controlled by extremists as is the eastern part of syria and between our, quote unquote, moderate elements of the opposition all sitting well above damascus, of course, in the southern part of the country. This is a maddening feature for a military that has to carry out strikes. This is going to be very difficult by any measure, is it not . It is. And again, it has to be defined targets with objectives that have effects that support our strategy, support the United States and its allies. So again, humanitarian assistance or positioning forces tied to jordan, israel and turkey are whats key, not just striking for revenge or because of a statement made previously that its too late to enforce. So its not limited strikes are not going to do anything now for our benefit. Our commanders will, of