the support of his government, you know, i mean, in the past, i think he has not been able been successful in getting support when he wanted > yeah. that s a very good point and actually david cameron will be going before the house of commons in december to make the case for british military action in syria against isis he is expected to win this vote in the wake of the terrorist attacks. i think many members of the option socialist party, will back the prime minister. although the labor leader corbin opposed to british military action in syria. the british prime minister will actually win this vote. why did prime minister cammeron go to paris? what was he seeking to do today? well, today s visit by the prime minister to paris was a, i think, in order to send a message of solidarity with the french people, to let them know that great britain stands with france in the waker÷ of this terrible tragedy in paris in the wake of these brutal barbaric
they used it disingenuously, maybe doing so they broke it forever. here is the question, we still have the question of who to do if there is the back door terrorists. we have a question on how to answer it. because now it is in five pieces because the bush administration bent it in half, waited for elephants to roll over it, and then set it on fire. we can t use that argument anymore. it makes your skin crawl, but in deciding to use the weapons, the president is trying. how to justify taking action, i know you talked about international norms because of chemical weapon use and not because of the 100,000 people who were killed there in the past. the 2 million refugees who fled across the border. well, what is happening has
action that is meaningful. might not be something that would mitigate this particular problem. it might be that military force is the kind of intervention that will make this problem any better. that will alleviate the threat of chemical weapons use in the future or deter anyone else who feels like using them. it is a world of bad options. why choose the one that involves cruise missiles. joining us now is one of the democratic senators who voted no on the authorization to use military force. chris murphy. thank you for your time tonight. why did you vote no against using authorizing the use of force? well, let me tell you, it was a close call for me. when i talked to people back in connecticut. it s a close call for many of them as well. i m amongst the millions of people who watch those videos and saw those pictures, and saw them in abhorrence, clearly assad has used chemical weapons
or 1400 incertainty civilians dying senselessly in an environment in which you already have tens of thousands dying. and we have the opportunity to take some action, that it s meaningful even if it doesn t solve the entire problem, may at least mitigate this particular problem. then the moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing. there s a case to be made that doing nothing is a bad response to this alleged large scale use of chemical weapons. there s also a case to be made that it is a bad response to not exhaust every possibility of getting a true international response to that kind of alleged attack. why not wait for the u.n. weapons inspectors. there s also a case to be made that even if you do wait for the u.n. weapons inspectors, whether we are alone or in some sort of
we have a question on how to answer it. because now it is in five pieces because the bush administration bent it in half, waited for elephants to roll over it, and then set it on fire. we can t use that argument anymore. it makes your skin crawl, but in deciding to use the weapons, the president is trying. how to justify taking action, i know you talked about international norms because of chemical weapon use and not because of the 100,000 people who were killed there in the past. the 2 million refugees who fled across the border. well, what is happening has been heartbreaking. but when you start to talk about chemical weapons in a country that has the largest stock pile of chemical weapons in the world, over time their control