Language that rules out, quote, enduring offensive combat operations . Will hawks say this overly ties the president s hands . The president says he hopes to have strong bipartisan support but can the combination of the doves and hawks alike deny him that support and how is that going to look to americas enemies . The draft language says the president is authorized to use the armed force rs of the United States as the president determines to be necessary and inappropriate against isil or its associated persons or forces. However, it also sets limits, according to the draft. The authority granted does not authorize the use of the United States armed forces in enduring offensive Ground Combat operations. Well this afternoon, the president elaborated on what this authorization was not, another iraq or afghanistan war. Lets listen. The resolution weve submitted today does not call for the deployment of u. S. Ground combat forces to iraq or syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war like afghanistan or iraq. As ive said before im convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the middle east. Thats not in our National Security interests and its not necessary for us to defeat isil. Local forces on the ground who now their countries best our best position to take the ground fight to isil and thats what they are doing. At the same time this resolution strikes the Necessary Balance by giving us the flexibility we need for unforeseen circumstances. Joining us right now, senator joe manchin of West Virginia. Senator manchin, do you think the United States should be using military force to defeat isil . Were going to have to use military force. Its a matter of do we use our own combat troops on the front lines to get bogged down like we did in iraq and afghanistan. Not intended to and i appreciate the president for saying he doesnt intend for that to happen but in West Virginia we have a little commonsense and we know what the definition of insanity means and it looks like over in that part of the world you get bogged down and if money or military mite would have changed that we would have done that by now, chris. And you read the thing about the enduring offensive Ground Combat operations. Right. What does that really mean . Well, what could it mean to you in a way that would concern you and make you vote against this resolution . Well the bottom line is im not going to vote for anything that has the interpretation and we can have combat Ground Forces on the front line fighting someone elses war. Now, were going to go after isil, it make no, sir difference, were going to protect america. But if we could just fast track jordan getting them the necessary equipment that they need to fight this war, if we can get the turks to engage saudis engage the kurds are fighting and doing a heck of a job. We need to make sure were getting them the equipment to do the job. The other thing is chris, the 2001 aumf its still in force. I dont know the purpose of why we need this one if youre not going to repeal 2001. Well im just looking at the language that you just mentioned, senator. I know youre going to have to deal with this in a more fine way but one word that both they ares you is enduring you want to say no offensive Ground Combat operations. Wouldnt that get to where you are at . Yes. I think from the stand point we have to look at this and if we can get it to a point that we have comfort with that but enduring could mean we dont intend for them but were going to go ahead and if it takes 5,000, 10,000 surge, youre putting an awful lot of american lives on the front line again and weve seen the outcome of that. I dont wish to repeat that again. Until they are determined to fight their own ground war, i think King Abdullah was very precise about what he was going to do and he did it. You know what i know senator, probably more from briefings but the president says today that he needs that authorization for anything short of enduring Ground Combat operations because there may be an opportunity to jump in there with special forces, s. E. A. L. S or whatever and capture the bad guys at once. He wants the option play to be able to go in there not sweeping across the isis territory but in that opportunity, he wants to have a chance to use Ground Forces in an opportunity situation to grab the leadership. Are you against that . What im saying no. I want to make sure we stop isil any way we can to support the people over there fighting the front lines, the iraqis are engaging. We have to use our special ops to ensure that were being effective. The only thing im saying the 2001 aumf is still in play. Thats the one that bush has used, thats the one that president oembama as used and a broad scope. I dont know who they are trying to apeasse with it. So im going to wait and see the language that they come up with. If we are able to have strategic strikes, get in and out, this would be different. I can see your argument and certainly your background on this in representing West Virginia. But the president i would say is to your left in terms of war. Hes a bit more doveish. Do you really think hes going to turn out to be more hawkish than joe manchin . I would hope that would not be. I mean i say in West Virginia were one of the most patriotic states in the nation. Were willing to go anywhere to defend this country but again, ive said Ground Troops in that part of the world has not solved that problem. Weve lost 6,000 more than 6,000 americans already. 55,000 have been maimed and weve spent 3 trillion chris. They have got to engage over there. Make no mistake, if it likes like isil is a threat and coming this direction, well deal with that. But basically they are coming back to our country and coming to the western world. Heres the hardball question. Whats the word agony, what they have done to our people over there, especially the young woman, Kayla Mueller. And what they did to that poor courageous pilot for jordan. We look at that and we want to stamp it out. We dont want that to be on our planet with us. We want to get the people and erase them who do that. At the same time you draw restrictions and say let the Jordanian Air force do it let the kurds do it and maybe these sleeper cells at our side in the Syrian Free Army whatever they are, but in the end, do you see any coming together of ending this war, ending this isis organization in the near future . Do you see it in any future . Chris, first of all, my heart goes out to the families in these horrific tragedies, horrible horrible atrocities. My heart goes to them along with all of the americans. Theyve got to stand up and fight for themselves. Theyve got to clean up their mess. Weve got to keep them from coming in through any way, shape or form into this country. Sleeper cells, whatever it may be, people coming back quite a few americans engaged now, weve got to stop that. Europe has got a horrible problem with it. So putting more troops on there, kind of rile them all up and get more people that doesnt seem to win that war over there. I know its a complicated one. Thank you very much senator joe manchin of West Virginia. Thank you, chris. Im joined by Congress Mike perry. Congressman perry, would you support the authorization for military force against isis as its been written today by the president . I dont know that i would authorize it as written. I dont think they were ever meant to go into perp tu tea together as they have. I do support an orz zags of force but we have legitimate questions and the president kind of implied that was going to be case and were going to have a responsible conversation about the use of force and actually make it better. So with that thats kind of my position at this point. Well, hes seemed to bill a wall on the dovish side by saying its not going to be an enduring combat operation. Right. Do you have some concern on the other side the republican or conservative side that theres not enough stretch to this thing, not enough width, bandwidth to get something done . Yeah i think there is some question about the term enduring, what does that mean and to some it means a limitation to others, it mean it is could be wide open and leaves it open to conjecture and from my standpoint what is about khorasan and boko haram and a kwchl ap. Today its isis and tomorrow its somebody else. Is it too limiting . This is an ideology. It tran sends borders. There is the 2001 document which were not going to get rid of which is pretty inclusive according to your concerns. Thats exactly right. The president already said he got the article 2 power. So maybe this is an unnecessary at all. Thats a good point. I bet hed argue that point if he has to. Well, i agree. I think he would argue it and i think hes already said it. I think hes coming to the congress for validation and, listen i think is an appropriate discussion to have but i dont think what he sent is ready for primetime and congress thooshas to do its part. The speaker said he doesnt believe theres such a strategy. This is a good argument and respond to what the speaker says. Lets watch. Okay. I believe that if were going to authorize use of military force, the president should have all the tools necessary to win the fight that were in. And so as youve heard me say over the last number of months im not sure thats a strategy thats been outlined will accomplish the mission that the president says he wants to plesh. Plesh accomplish. At this point, the president wants to dismantle and destroy isis. I havent seen a strategy yet that i think will accomplish it. Congressman, same question how do you connect our hatred of what these people were doing to their prisoners over there, burning somebody alive, a good soldier, killing an american woman, however they did it they killed her and yet were limiting ourselves to helping their Jordanian Air force, helping the kurds, as always maybe having the Free Syrian Army somehow get equipped to fight and train but it doesnt sound like our emotions are backed up by our actions. It doesnt seem to be enough there. My thinking. What are yours . My thoughts exactly. With all due respect to the speaker, i think what we see from the president is some aspirational goals, right, an objective. We want to defeat isis. We want to destroy isis but thats not a strategy. Thats where you want to end up but he hasnt laid out the points how we get there. He hasnt talked about the financial implications, diplomatic implications how we get their soldiers get their lives engaged and involved because they have the most to lose. Thats what a strategy includes and, quite honestly we havent seen that on the greater issue of terrorism on isis or syria, which is right next door. What happens when were with isis and were next door with syria and assad. And youre a military man, right . I served in iraq, yes. I know that. Thats why i wanted you to say so. Thank you, sir. Scott perry of pennsylvania. Coming up the horror of what happened to american hostage Kayla Mueller raises a critical debate and its a hot one. Should we pay ransom to prisoners . Should people be allowed to pay it . President obama says theres nothing worse than telling a parent we will do everything we can to take your child home short of paying ransom. Plus top strategist says there were 12 days during the 2012 campaign where he was actually worried, catch this about sarah palin and her amazing electoral ability at the time. An inside look at both obama campaigns, 08 and 12 and then well look at the early stumbles by the big names in the race. Thats happening already. It will have a huge impact on latenight comedy. Jon stewart is stepping down from the daily show. Finally, let me finish with the president s call to back military action against isis. This is hardball, the place for politics. Before larry instantly transferred money from his bank of america savings account to his merrill edge retirement account. Before he opened his first hot chocolate stand calling winter an underserved season. And before he quit his friends leafraking business for not offering a 401k. Larry knew the importance of preparing for retirement. Thats why when the time came he counted on merrill edge to streamline his investing and help him plan for the road ahead. Thats the power of streamlined connections. Thats merrill edge and bank of america. Late today the house of representatives voted to pass the Keystone Pipeline bill. The vote was 270152 with 29 democrats joining all but one republican in favor of the pipeline bill. The bill will head to the white house where president obama is expected to veto it. Well be back after this. You cant predict the market. But at t. Rowe price weve helped guide our clients through good times and bad. Our experienced investment professionals are one reason over 85 of our mutual funds beat their 10year lipper averages. So in a variety of markets we can help you feel confident. Request a prospectus or summary prospectus with Investment Information risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. Call us or your advisor. T. Rowe price. Invest with confidence. The 415, 628 area code overlay begins. Starting february 21, 2015, if you have a 415 or 628 number youll need to dial 1 plus the area code plus the phone number for all calls. Even for calls within the same area code. Youll still need to dial 1 plus the area code plus the phone number. So when in doubt dial it out for more Information Contact your service provider, visit the website at www. Cpuc. Ca. Gov 415areacode welcome back to hardball. President obama in an interview with buzzfeed talked about the anguish of talking to the parents and Family Members of hostages and telling them that the United States will do Everything Possible to secure their release except pay ransom. My Immediate Reaction is heartbreak. You know, i have been in touch with kaylas family. She was an Outstanding Young woman and a great spirit and i think that spirit will live on. The one thing that we have held to is a policy of not paying ransoms with an organization like isil. And the reason is that once we start doing that not only are we financing their slaughter of innocent people and strengthening their organization, but were actually making americans even greater targets for future kidnappings. So you know its as tough as anything that i do having a conversation with parents who understandably want by any means necessary, for their children to be safe. The president went on to point out that paying ransom actually makes americans less safe. The one thing that we have held to is a policy of not paying ransoms with an organization like isil and the reason is is that once we start doing that not only are we financing their slaughter of innocent people and strengthening their organization but were actually making americans even greater targets for future kidnappings. But is paying ransom to terrorists always wrong . Joining me right now is Atlantic Steve clem mondays and u. S. Congresswoman donna. Steve, you first. You take a position that isnt common. Tell me about the aprepare pree ateness of having a Family Member taken hostage by an isistype organization what should they be called upon to pay ransom . I think if families have the resources, if they have the ability to move in ways that save their loved ones i dont think government should be impeding that process. This is too dire of a process that is there. I think government should stay out of it but the fact is lots of governments do pay ransom. You have a conflict between european governments and america not paying them. I think they all not to pay them but remove the restrictions on families to do whatever they can to save their loved ones. I just dont see it is right that the United States government says it may prosecute families if they proceed in getting ransom money paid for their loved ones. Congressman, where are you on private families with the wealth to do it . Should they be giving it to the isis forces to use as they will . They are not going to use it for food and children but for guns and torture. But do they think they should be doing that, morally, politically or whatever . I think its a heart heartwrenching choice but i agree with the government. I think it ups the ante for terrorists to continue their kidnapping and hostage taking and to continue to finance their destruction. And so as sad as it is i think the government policy is the correct one and my heart just breaks for families like kaylas, a wonderful young woman just trying to do good in the world but i do think its the right policy for the United States. Let me go back to that question what about the use of the money. Its a twoway street. You give a couple million bucks 20 million bucks, you may have a corporation thats wanting to dip into their treasury for that. That money goes towards the assets of a horrible inhuman crowd. How do you justify that . I mean actually its not a justifiable thing. Absolutely. If you give money to terror organizations, it enhances the market for taking them. I think governments ought to do everything they can to stop that market from growing except for the fact if a Family Member or someone was taken, i think that we ought to impede it. Were inconsistent. How . I think you have a problem here. David rhode of the New York Times. What happens if you give somebody a lot of money . Are they likely to take another capture, a hostage and ask for more money . That would be human nature. Of course they are. But chris, i agree with what you said last nigh