Stay updated with breaking news from Arms into syria. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
naval facility. to some extent he's absolutely right. where do we have our bases? we have them to protect our national interest. i think that russia has a lot stronger base, certainly when it comes to syria, of national interest in syria than we do. because that's the single naval port that they have a long limited training, they've been selling arms into syria. as colonel schaefer mentioned, they have been building up their alliances in that region, specifically to iran. with the announcement that we are pulling the support from the cia backed rebels, and i we have to look at this and say what policies can we put into place that work. historically that hasn't been effective. i'm not looking at this as a capitulation russia, but maybe
the military that he didn't directly control. you're saying maybe it was -- >> or the al qaeda -- >> what would be the -- john kerry put a lot of evidence on the table the other day. >> no, he didn't. compared to colin powell, it's a joke. >> what would be the evidence for what you're suggesting? >> the russians and the chinese have people on the ground. they didn't pull their diplomats out. they didn't pull their people out of syria. they went to the last chemical weapons attack site in march. they did forensics on the ground themselves. they found two striking things that have not been covered in the press here at all. one was that the rockets used to deliver those chemicals were homemade rockets, not military, not industrial produced. the other thing they found was the sarin there was not military produced. they didn't use stabilizers. maybe this is totally different. maybe this time assad said, i'm winning on the battlefield, so i'm going to send chemical weapons in for the fun of it. maybe the russians have a point. here obama is going to go to russia, and we think he's not going to hear an earful? the rest of the world does not
back to the debt ceiling. we'll be back having conversation about familiar partisan lines reasserting them. thank jane, steven from roll call, my old employer and lynn sweet with the chicago sun times. there is one word that haunts the debate over syria. you probably know what it is but i'll explain it next. i'm angela, and i didn't think i could quit smoking but chantix helped me do it. i told my doctor i think i'm... i'm ready. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. i knew that i could smoke for the first 7 days. i knew that i wasn't putting nicotine back into my body to try to quit. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic
lawmakers coming out, many of them praising the president's decision. of course, when you actually put this to a vote, some of the lawmakers who said, yeah, this is a good idea. we want to vote on it. we're going to vote no. this is tricky. the white house is saying even if congress votes no, there is still an avenue for president obama to pursue -- launch a military strike against syria. the politics of that gets more complicated. certainly there's a big question mark surrounding what congress is going to do. it is very uncertain this will pap through a sharply divided body. >> thanks. really good information. >> thanks. >> stephen, to pick up on what kristen is reporting. maybe if we lose the vote, still a chance to take action. what triggered this decision by obama was what happened to britain. they took the vote, lost the
president is right to seek congressional approval before moving forward with action in syria, called the action there incredibly complex. the lawmaker will have a chance on whether or not the congress convenes. joining us a member of the intelligence and armed services committee live from brunswick, maine. senator, thank you for joining us this morning. lynn sweet earlier in the program said we can stipulate everyone in congress is going to say, great, wonderful, the president is coming to us. he did the right thing. the real question now is how are you as a member of congress going to vote on the military force in syria. have you decided yet? will you support military action in syria? >> i have not decided yet. the first is intelligence. the ghost of iraq haunted this debate. it certainly haunted the debate in the british parliament. the first we have to determine, there are going to be hearings in washington, classified
us was something unquestioned. i remember going with a key member of the bush national security team to see president clinton and he putting his arm around her, telling her not only was the intel right, but she was doing the right thing morally. it was not only a mistake, it was based on manufactured evidence. here, nobody is asking this basic question, except for our friends in moscow, what if assad didn't order this? what if this wasn't a syrian troop chemical attack? what if this was perpetrated by al qaeda affiliated oppositi oppositionis oppositionists? the consequences for going into syria are even more grave than iraq. if we go in and degrade and weaken assad to be the extent other al qaeda affiliates have, if that's what happens, and we think they're going to stop there, that's the definition of insanity. >> now, i've heard people advance that scenario, i guess, that this was not actually assad who ordered this attack. maybe it was other elements of
believe what we're saying for good reason. we made it up last time. >> josh? >> i'm not one of these people who thinks that all the rebels are good or all the rebels are bad, but there is a bunch of evidence here that i think we should just put into the discussion, especially those march attacks that hillary mentioned. there were signals to intelligence. we caught syrian military commanders talking about this. >> as we did with iraq. we interrogated those iraqis after the fact. colin powell displayed them to the world. you know what they said? they couldn't believe how much we had contorted, distorted, and taken out of context what they were saying on the phone. i spent over a decade in the u.s. government. that is not how syrians do their battle plans, on the phone. >> we should also take a look at this attack. this was a rebel-controlled area that was a key venue for how the rebels got arms into syria through jordan. it was a long desire of the assad regime to take over these neighborhoods. they saw it as a necessary
very dicey support among his conference. eric cantor number two hawkish on syria in the past. presumably trying to get republican votes here. i think the president really needs to do is get his own people on board. the congressional black caucus, a number of them. >> very tough. very tough to do. >> very opposed to any new military action in the middle east. dick durbin, number two senate democrat still not on board. he's the whip. he's got to get him on board. he probably will. dick durbin voted in the iraq war he's not a fan of overseas military engagements. >> is very supportive of obama and that's why he's keeping his options open. won't show his hand for a while. >> a lot more on the republican side, too. first we have somebody who will get a vote on this senator angus king. we'll talk to him after the break. [ male announcer ] this is jim,
execute. >> hillary, hang on. i want to get heather in here. i raised it a minute ago. given how difficult and complex this situation is and given how limited the operation would be if the operation takes place, what happens if it really doesn't change the equation at all, if it doesn't change assad's thinking? what happens then? >> we've been pretty explicit that it's not going to change the situation in the near term. in another way, it already has changed the equation. for example, assad isn't using the phone to talk to his generals anymore. the whole way they were conducting themselves, they now know we can hear. so the day-to-day operations have changed. the last week they've been spending time moving prisoners around, moving equipment around, moving weapons around. assad's comfort level with how he can behave in his own country will never be the same. at one level, we have already changed things on the ground. second, and i think the american people need to know this and it needs to be an important part of the conversation, because syria is so difficult, because the
what do we need to put in this resolution to get in the votes. >> i want to get this in. what do you make of this, john mccain and lindsey graham all on board, we cannot in good conscious support isolated military strikes in syria, not part of overall strategy that will change the momentum on the battlefield, so they are basically saying we might vote no because we want more. do you think that's an empty flet? >> no. i think they are fighting through. they will say, we support regime change, too. we just don't think these strikes are the way to do it. ultimately syrian people will bring about regime change. i think the resolution will go both ways. i think there will be attempts to limit it. great, we want it limited, to expand. of course at some point we want to expand it as well. you've got to give something to everyone to give them votes and cover they want to say i voted for something limited,