we ll be tested more. but again, my point is just simply to say i am not certain i agree with him. the president occupies a special role in speaking on behalf of america, whether we like it or not. you know, the senator senator paul made a couple of comments about how it was a likely outcome would be if we attacked it was equally likely that there had been expanded use of chemical weapons. or that he would lose control of the weapons. he called them equally likely outcomes. i don t think that is accurate. if we degrade his capacity, attack the units, degrade the infrastructure, i don t think it is likely to have assad take these weapons and use more of them. because he knows it will bring another similar response, similarly, he made a point of saying assad would attack israel, the israelis are not afraid. they have said clearly on the record we can take care of ourselves.
vote. and there is no date for vote. no time line, does this become sort of an endless discussion? no, look, i think part of the problem here is what is russia what is putin doing? what putin wants putin wants assad to stay in power. that is in his interest. so sooner or later this won t work anyway. because he is trying to do assad stays in power, we ll take the weapons but you leave assad alone. i don t see how the president can do that. our president can do that? yeah. the first this is where it gets at odds. the first thing he said two years ago was assad has to go. now, the deal would have to be, i would think, assad stays. we ll get him to give us give the weapons over internationally. put them under international control. you leave him be. now and so part of the other thing i think that is going on
personally or effect regime change. it is said that america must act to prevent assad from using chemical weapons again. but it is unknown whether attacking assad encourages him or discourages him. it is equally likely that assad could feel cornered and resort to chemical weapons in an expanded fashion. it is equally likely that the bombing could destabilize assad and he could lose control of chemical weapons. the barack obama administration indicated that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure the weapons and that they re prepared to do just that, despite the resolution s admonition against ground troops. the question must be asked would a u.s. bombing campaign make it more or less likely that assad loses control of the chemical weapons. the same question can be asked of a series of bad outcomes. would a u.s. bombing campaign make it more or less likely that
with. he said american credibility does not reside in one man. there is some accuracy in that. but when the president of the united states speaks the credibility of america is, rightly or wrongly put on the line. and when the president said a year ago, assad needs to go. and a year ago he said the use of chemical weapons would be a red line. and like it or not, our credibility is on the line. i ve heard so much about the credibili credibility on the line. and there were similar speeches, republicans said that during jimmy carter. and suddenly nobody is talking about credibility another president has to restore that credibility. but it is not fatal forever. not the end of the world. it is not good but it s not even then, look, we have three and a half years left on this president s term. and if the united states credibility suffers, if people begin to doubt our resolve, then we ll be tested more.
and there is no way of knowing who gets control of the weapons when he falls. and that is part of this, because the international community at some point, if he falls, and they re following those weapons are falling into terrorist hands, then you do have to do what happened in iraq and have 150,000 troops on the ground to get those weapons and make sure they don t end up somewhere. i m not advocating that. i m just saying this is where to be having to carry this both diplomacy and the big stick both at the same time, and with what is interesting to me is that the dictators, they don t have to worry about public opinion. no, they don t. but in a democracy, a leader has to worry about his war weary nation. and how you maneuver plus he also pretty much said he needs authority from congress, although he said he