government is not confirming the u.n. report. we can t just yet. something we expect we re certainly taking a look at this. it s something we keep a very close eye on. all of north korea s illicit programs it is involved with around the world. the totality of the u.s. coming keeping a close eye on it. bill: more reports of chemical weapons use, you know this as well when we remember the red line. russia denies all this, by the way. what is the administration s position on the possibility of another perhaps military strike in syria if all this is confirmed? that s one of those things that we won t confirm. we aren t going to say we re going to do something specific like that. but we can say that russia and syria will be held responsible for its chemical weapons attacks on innocent civilians in eastern gaouda. as a mother and american we have all seen the horrific activities on the part of the regime of bashar al-assad.
you david quickly. it seems like they re saying when it comes to a matter that doesn t directly affect an imminent assault or attack in the united states you need congressional approval for something that involves an international norm like chemical weapons use. it seems to me that sets up the premise for six months or a year if now we have to make a decision about what to do with if the mullahs decide to weaponize their nuclear program over in tehran. doesn t that set up a predicate now where he has to go to congress? i think that s a very good point. he says i reserve the authority to do this without congress. i don t need to go to congress. but i m going to anyway. and it s hard to say why a future scenario like the one you outlined would be different. that somehow he didn t have to go to congress in the other scenario. he has set a precedent that s going to be hard to explain if here s where i disagree. couldn t he make the argument if all of a sudden we faced a threat from i
week. in this particular case people i ve talked to in the white house say this issue of congressional authorization was always on the table, that obama and his counsel were always concerned about a legal justification for doing this and they felt more politically isolated. so it s not like it came out of nowhere but they did buck the system. one thing they did here is set a precedent. you first peter and then again you david quickly. it seems like they re saying when it comes to a matter that doesn t directly affect an imminent assault or attack in the united states you need congressional approval for something that involves an international norm like chemical weapons use. it seems to me that sets up the premise for six months or a year if now we have to make a decision about what to do with if the mullahs decide to weaponize their nuclear program over in tehran. doesn t that set up a predicate now where he has to go to congress? i think that s a very good point. he says i reser
the last year more and more to a point where we have a dog in this fight? well, it s important to do the strike. as you say, we ve made it more difficult on ourselves with the delay, with now the need for congressional authorization. we ve raised all sorts of questions about our reliability. we ve raised questions about our predictability and so forth. i also think we ve now made it more difficult to thread the needle as the president wants to do. all along he said he wanted to reinforce this norm against chemical weapons use. he doesn t want to get the united states enmeshed in the syrian civil war. now with the ability to prepare psychologically and physically against these attacks, it seems that the administration needs to do a pinprick or a shot across the bow or anything token doesn t underscore the norm. it defeats the purpose, which is to inflict real pain and cost on the syrian government for using chemical weapons.
this fight? well, it s important to do the strike. as you say, we ve made it more difficult on ourselves with the delay, with now the need for congressional authorization. we ve raised all sorts of questions about our reliability. we ve raised questions about our predictability and so forth. i also think we ve now made it more difficult to thread the needle as the president wants to do. all along he said he wanted to reinforce this norm against chemical weapons use. he doesn t want to get the united states enmeshed in the syrian civil war. now with the ability to prepare psychologically and physically against these attacks, it seems that the administration needs to do a pinprick or a shot across the bow or anything token doesn t underscore the norm. it defeats the purpose, which is to inflict real pain and cost on the syrian government for using chemical weapons. so to use a different metaer