if i had missiles lobbed at me that s war. it s an act of war. if you take that action, you have to expect, as you saw bashar al assad say to charlie rose, there will be a reaction. are you prepared for the counter action to it? that s the decision matrix the administration should be going through and what the american people are looking for. when you look at libya and the fact that we went there, toppled gadhafi but now have radical islamists all over. we lost an ambassador, had an attack on an embassy and terrorists are being trained to fight in syria. we have a minute left. president vladimir putin stepping in and taking a remark by secretary kerry and what seemed like an aside. now that may be a way to wrest away weapons from assad. the kgb guy now looks like the only adult in the classroom. if you really want to take away the ability to use chemical weapons again, you have to secure the chemical weapons
those heinous actions being taken against innocent people. i think it s our responsibility, our moral responsibility to channel the moral outrage to take action, but to make sure it is effective action. effective action that will achieve the necessary objective of prevent ing another chemical weapons attack. got an idea how? first of all looking at the military strike taking action just to take action should not be the case when that action can cause greater damage and greater harm. what we have seen today with the developments, we have seen russia making statements, moving to the direction of saying let s bring the international community in to take control of the chemical weapons in syria. that s the appropriate direction we need to look. nice to have you here. i appreciate it because you have done service so recently. i like to hear from the people who have been there, done that.
chemical weapons so they don t fall into the wrong hands. what s in the best interest of our ally in that region israel? israel is right next door. they have a lot to fear and they have a lot of enemies. you know, i think an attack on israel is more likely to happen if we destabilize assad. if we lashes out in desperation he s likely to send missiles and maybe gas towards telaviv. it destabilizes the position and makes it riskier for israel. some have criticized me and said these israel pro israeli, american israeli groups say they have to attack syria. my point is that opinion in israel is more plural i didn t say pluralistic than that. not everybody has the same opinions. they are pluralistic like america is. a good healthy debate about an attack helping or hurt hing israel, i defend israel but attacking assad makes it more likely israel would be attacked and more likely israel would be
problem. if the chemical weapons loose and uncontrolled and end up going into the hands of al qaeda, everybody thinks that s a bad idea, myself included. if we destabilize assad, is it more or less likely that al qaeda may come into contact and in possession of chemical weapons? is it more likely or less likely that israel will be attacked? is it more or less like hi that will will be more refugees in jordan, an attack on turkey, our ally? i think those scenarios are more likely if we destabilize assad. i m not sure it s a good thing. nor am icon vinced being an ally of al qaeda is a good thing. what happens in response to the letters you have written? have you had a response from senate colleagues and do you have a sense if the vote did happen, it s been put off, but do you have a sense whether it would pass the senate to have
says if there is an attack on one nato ally then it is up to the united states and the other allies, we have to go and protect that ally. so if there is an attack on turkey, then we are in it. that s for a limited strike. no one s discussing it. are you suggesting a more aggressive strike, a more definitive strike, a regime change strike though someone does get right into the weeds over there in terms of this civil war, are you suggesting to do that or do nothing? no. it s a disaster on every level. the administration has made this is not partisan. they have made almost every wrong foreign policy move they could make. they have been consistent though in the world view. i will give them that. they have been consistent. any time in any nation they could choose the side of the muslim brotherhood, they have chosen the side of the muslim brotherhood, whether it is in tunisia, libya, egypt, now in