All that right here this sunday morning. Hello again. It wasnt on the agenda one month ago, but now the vote to use military force in syria has become the most critical test of the obama presidency. The stakes are high. Americas security and credibility on the line. So is the balance of power between the president and congress, and the rest of the agenda in the second term. Right now its a vote the president would lose. Abcs whip count in the house shows 229 members likely in the no camp, only 44 are likely to vote question are. And more on that from abc News White House correspondent john karl. The situation a bit better in the senate. This is an uphill battle for the white house, and they know it. Reporter thats right. Even white house officials acknowledge if the vote were today, the president would lose. But they are promising a massive effort to turn that around. This is the biggest congressional effort by the white house since the battle over health care in the first year as president. Its a visible effort. First the president doing six Network Television interviews, National Interviews tomorrow. Therell be a big address to the nation on tuesday. And, george, the most interesting thing, they have enlisted former members of the Bush Administration to make the case for republicans. Including bushs former National Security adviser Steven Hadley whos talking directly to republican members of congress. But the president is making a personal effort. Individual members to the white house and into the situation room to show classified evidence. One key thing that is not happening here, the president s grassroots army, organizing for america, 30 million twitter followers, they are on the sidelines. They will not be taking part. Not a lot of support from the president s base. But what if he cant turn this around . The white house is dancing over that question. Reporter thats the big question, especially with the vote count. I tried to ask that to the president , he told me point blank he would not give me a direct answer. But what i can say, some of his top advisers say they cannot conceive of him Going Forward if Congress Says no. On the other hand, weve had military officials tell us given where the planning is, they cant see pulling the plug either. Thanks very much. Right to the president s chief of staff, Denis Mcdonough. So many questions about the president and what he would do. If he cant succeed in the getting the votes in the next couple of weeks. As john pointed out, the president did not directly answer the question on friday. But he said his call to congress was not a political ploy or symbolism. And he went on to say this. I put it before congress because i could not honestly claim that the threat posed by assads use of chemical weapons posed an imminent, direct threat to the United States. With those words, hasnt the president effectively ruled out taking any action if the Congress Votes no . George, i think its important for us to before we jump to conclusions, i admire john karls reporting, but look, ive been talking to dozens of members of congress over the last week. Not a single one has rebut order refused the intelligence. Which is to say everybody agrees that on august 21st, assad used chemical weapons against his own people. So the question for congress this week is a very simple one. Should there be consequences for his having used gases, chemical weapons, to kill more than a thousand of his own people, including more than 400 children . The answer to that question will be followed closely in tehran. The answer will be followed closely in damascus, followed very closely by members of lebanese hezbollah. This is a big question and big week to address that for congress, the fundamental National Security issue. As the president said, we didnt go to congress because we thought this was an empty exercise. We are investing a lot of time and effort in this because we think congress should be a full partner in our National Security matters, and when they are, were stronger as a country. Members of Congress Need to understand that if they want to see assad held to account for this activity, they should vote yes on the resolution. I understand thats the argument, but members of congress arent buying in, at least not yet. And some have raised the specter of impeachment if the president goes forward in the absence of congressional approval. Heres duncan hunter, republican of california. I think hes breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval and if he proceeds without congress providing that authority, it should be considered an Impeachable Offense. How will the president factor that into his final decision . The president is focused on right now, george, is the National Security implications of what is undeniably and unrebutted intelligence which suggests that the assad regime use chemical weapons against its own people, killing 400 children. Thats what hes focused on right now. We believe that we have the capability in place to do it. Congress should be the full partner in the effort. Thats what were focused on. Thats the question before congress this week. My hunch is you know washington better than anybody, george. Therell be all sorts of distractions and other things that try to knock us off our game. But thats the question before us and congress this week. I know youre not going to give a yes or no on answer on what the president would do if they dont vote for it. But what are the consequences. You have hinted at some of them. What are the consequences if the president and congress cant go forward after this . How much damage will that do to the presidency. Ross of the New York Times and many others have said this would finish off the president as a credible actor on the world stage. Do you agree . I really enjoy rosss reporting and writing, hes thoughtful. I have to say that right now politics, all those questions, are going to be debated and worked out by others. Were focused on the National Security question before us. Its a fundamental and important question. Will there be consequences . Now, what were trying to reinforce here and what our allies supported us, reinforcing at the g20 on friday is a prohibition that goes back a hundred years against chemical weapons. Why does that matter . In world war i, the troops were subject to chemical weapons attack regularly. Not since world war i has it seen the same kinds of attacks. Thats important, increases security, reduces the burden against our men and women in the armed forces, who are taking a lot of burdens, by the way. We to want underscore this and think congress should join us in doing it. Facing a lot of opposition. Moveon. Org, strong support of the president backed him up on the opposition to the iraq war. But this new ad exclusively they have given us this new ad theyre going to start running tomorrow. Take a look. He never set out to spend eight years at war in iraq, or to be mired from a decade of fighting in afghanistan. What should america expect if we rush into syria, alone, with no real plan for the consequences . We already know. It gets worse. Meanwhile, senator ted cruz, republican of texas, said they would be serving as alqaedas air force. Youre seeing opposition from both the left and the right, your response . Im outraged for somebody to suggest our people would be serving as allies to alqaeda. One. Two, on the question of what this is and isnt. What this is, george, very clear. Targeted, consequential, limited attack against assad forces. And assad capabilities so that he is deterred from carrying out these actions again. Here is what it is not. Its not boots on the ground, extended air campaign, not iraq, afghanistan, or libya. This is a very concerted, concentrated, limited effort that we can carry out and that can underscore and secure our interests. Finally, yes or no question, will the resolution pass . This resolution is going to pass after we work this this week. Members have been in the districts and states. We have been talking to many of them, dozens of them. When they see the intelligence, they dont rebut it. The bottom line is, they have to answer the question. Should there be consequences . And the answer will be followed closely in tehran, in damascus and elsewhere. Denis mcdonough, thank you very much. Lets go straight to republican senator ted cruz. You heard Denis Mcdonough say he was outraged by your suggestion that American Forces will be serving as alqaedas air force. Good to be with you. And i do agree theres a lot to be outraged about. Number one, all of us are outraged as assads conduct. Hes a brutal murderer, murdered over 100,000 of his citizens, gassed over 1400 people, including over 400 children, and he rightly should be condemned worldwide. But an attack . I think a military attack is a mistake. Why . For two reasons. One, because the administration is proceeding with the wrong objective, and two, because they have no viable plan for success. Theyre beginning from the wrong objective because this attack is not based on defending u. S. National security. It is not based on defending americans or our allies. Its framed by president obama, by secretary kerry, as a defense of what they Call International norms. And i dont think thats the job of our military to be defending amorphous international norms. There are other steps we can do to express strong disapproval to assads murderous conduct. But i dont think its the job of the military. Like what . What would you do . Several things. Number one, there are reports that iraq is allowing iran to fly over and resupply assad. I would right now cut off iraqs 500 million in aid unless they cut off air rights. Number two, we should force a vote in the u. N. Security council condemning the use of chemical weapons to murder his own citizens. We know you know, it would get vetoed. We know russia and china would veto it, they said that. But we should make them veto it on the world stage, and if they do veto it, we should respond by, with respect to russia, we should reinstate the antiballistic missile station that w that was cancelled to appease russia. And with respect to china, we should go through with selling the new f16s to taiwan that this administration that would hurt russia, but what to assad . Syria . We should unify International Opinion condemning him. But the second piece, and, you know, mr. Mcdonough was outraged as the suggestion it would help alqaeda, i agree. But just because assad is a murderous tyrant doesnt mean the opponents are better. In june, the intelligence showed that a benign major alqaeda benign major rebel forces in syria, at least seven appear to be significant ties to alqaeda. The problem is one of two things is possible, either the strike is really significant, it weakens assad and the result is the rebels are able to succeed. And if what happens there is alqaeda taking over, or al nusra taking over, and extremist terrorists getting access to the chemical weapons, that hurts the u. S. National your fellow republican john mccain zbrees. And adam kinzinger, an iraq war vet, also took exception to your comments. Heres what he said. They say if we go in and strike assad that we are acting as, quote, alqaedas air force. I believe thats a cheap line by some people to garner headlines. Cheap line to garner headlines. Well, look. I dont know mr. Kinzinger. I respect his service, hes entitled to his opinions. What i can tell you that was said by dennis kucinich. And where i saw it after that was a current naval sailor who tweeted and said, i didnt sign up to serve as alqaedas air force. The reason why were seeing and ill tell you, this past two weeks i have been traveling across texas, and everywhere in the state of texas, texans saying dont put us in the middle of a sectarian civil war, particularly when doing so would help alqaeda terrorists. Finally, do you think the president has the authority to go forward without congressional support or an Impeachable Offense . I dont think he does. Woe know that from two things. The Supreme Court said when Congress RejectsCongressional Authority which it would do if it votes down this resolution, president ial authority is at its lowest ebb. And the residual president ial ability to act in the declaration of war is based on an imminent threat to the United States. And president obama says there isnt. Would it be an Impeachable Offense . It would be contrary to the constitution. This is not the time for listen. Politics. Listen. This is a grave and serious moment. I would like to support our commander in chief. Focused on protecting u. S. National security. One of the problems with the focus on syria is its missing the ball from what we should be focused on, which is the grave threat from radical islamic terrorism. This is the oneyear attack on benghazi. In four benghazi, four americans were killed. It was the first ambassador killed since 1979. When it happened, the president promised to hunt them down, and yet a few months later, the issue has disappeared. You dont hear the president mention it. Its a phoney scandal. We should be defending u. S. National security and going after radical islamic terrorists. We will be talking with them in just a moment. Thank you very much. Thank you. Those interviews moments ago. Conn kinzinger, donna brazile, dan senor, a cofounder of the Foreign Policy initiative, katrina vanden huevel, and greta van susteren. Welcome to all of you. And let me begin with you, you are a republican congressman supporting the president on this. But you have a big intraparty battle in both parties. The president doesnt have the votes now. Can he get them . Is he making the right case . Its going to be difficult to get votes. It goes back not just to the issue itself, but you cant start to build a relationship with congress for the first time when you need their support on Something Like this. A week and a half ago, my Office Reached out to the white house and said we support the strike, we will help you round up support. I havent heard back from the white house. I havent heard back from anyone. I dont know who my white house liaison is who is creating the relationship. Now we have a situation where i think the president has made the decision, correctly, that the cost of using chemical weapons should far exceed the benefit that anybody gains from it, and hes trying to build a relationship with congress, and theres a trust deficit. Hes having trouble with his own party. Lots of democrats in the house especially saying we dont to want go along with the president. Can he turn it around . And what must he do to turn it around . The president has to give a forceful speech. The bible says, if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle . The president comes out and gives the American People the evidence he is seeing. If he is consistent in explaining why its in americas best interest, he may be able to move some of the democrats. But they dont want to hand a defeat like his enemies, his opponents. But they want to make sure they can go back and explain to their constituents this was a vote of conscious and a vote in favor of americas security. Many of the move on democrats are opposed to it. And theyre passionate about the opposition. Donna mentions the uncertain trumpet. Greta van susteren, thats part of the problem for the president. Why is anyone surprised that the president s having trouble . This happened august 21st. Hes been seen on the golf course. The house is not called back in session, the senate is not called back in session. And all these leaders want us to take them seriously this is very important. Where are they . Its not leadership. Im not surprised that the American People are distressed. The example they are setting this is so serious, yet they are showing by their actions showing its not particularly serious enough to come in and work and sell the story to the American People. You have seen a lot of republicans who have supported military action in the past just taking a pass here, saying no way theyre going to support the president. Two camps within the republican world right now. Republican universe. One is the rand paul camp, loosely defined, isolationist, doesnt want to be engaged in the world. No matter what, cant be moved. Theres another camp, which has been supportive of engagement, but they dont trust obama. They dont have confidence in him. They dont think hes competent. And the problem with that argument is it means theyre not going to be able to be for any type of military force anywhere for the next three years. President obama is the commander in chief for the next three year s. If they dont have confidence, what message does that send to tehran . We want to be presenting a credible threat of military no, sir force in order to stop the nuclear program. What do you think theyre seeing when the congress prevents the president. They are unlikely allies with a lot of progressives. They are. I want to step back. Ultimately any resolution of the human catastrophe in syria, the sectarian civil war is going to demand a political solution. And i think the president in this these next days is waging an intensive campaign to launch military strikes. Its a false choice. Its not bombs or nothing. Forceful diplomacy is more important than the threat of force. Dont you need the threat of force behind that . I think you need to deal with the human catastrophe in syria not by bombing, but by alleviating the misery of 2 million refugees, not surgical strikes which may lead to more civilian casualties, and not emboldening a resistance feeling america is on their side. And who knows who the rebels are. The most important thing is after americas been at war continuously since 2011. Iraq poisoned the well. Americans are deeply skeptical of military intervention if theres no imminent threat, and th