Russias ali. He says the u. S. Claims about the chemical weapons tack are utter nonsense, protesters gathered out side of the white house today in support of and against a military strike again syria. Peace activists chanted hands off syria now. While others call for president obama to take action. The you u. N. Chemical weapons team is now in the netherlands after leaving syria early this morning. The samples they collected are expected to be sent to laboratories around europe. They will be test today for poisenespoisonous gas, the resud take a few weeks, up next consider this weekend edition. Who is bashar alassad. The syrian president could be starting another mideast war. Consider this, how did a man who trained to be an ophthalmologist in england turn in to a tyrant accused of unspeakable crimes, you have heard you are what you eat. So what does eating ever more common gametically modified foods make us and do they pose real dangers or are concerned overblown. 50 years after the march on Washington Well look at racial progress by the numbers and look at some of the images that came out of that historic day 50 years ago. Hello, i am antoine i dont mora, welcome to consider this. We begin with syria as the Obama Administration weighs its option to his inning convenient in the civil war after last weeks chemical weapons attacks, the white house repeated calls for bashar alassads removal. We take a look at the man who rules syria with an iron fist. Reporter after two and a half years of than turmoil, leag more than 100,000 people dead, the man ruling syria has earned the reputation of a ruthless leader. One the white house reiterate odd tuesday must go. It is our Firm Conviction that syrias future cannot include assad in power. Reporter but ba czar bashard seems set on staying. The 47yearold wasnt always interested in politics and power, his brother was groom today follow their father to the presidency. But he died in a car crash in 1994. The death led president bashar to return home from london. Reporter six years later, he died and bashar was elected unopposed as president of syria. Like his father, he allowed the shiite Muslim Minority to dominate the regime. At the same time, he promised more freedom and economic reforms. But members of syrias old guard steered him toward more authoritarian policies and started in 2011 he responded with the brutal crack down when syrians demanded change. President assad has said hes not suppressing his people burk fighting militants, calling them tear teaterrorists who must be k with a steel fist. Terrorism cant be dealt with real politics. Reporter as the clashes continued, the Guardian Newspaper revealed a private side of assads character. In emails between him and his wife obtained by the guardian the president showed a flippant attitude towards reforms he promised to diffuse the crisis. He also sent her this clip from americas got talent, while she shopped online for pricey jewelry and furniture. Throughout the turmoil in syria, president assad has insisted hes had popular support. He says hes trying to protect his country and his people. But critics say he only wants to protect his own power. Roxanne al jazeera new york. How how did he go from a westernized eye doctor to the president of syria now accused of using chemical weapon to his massacre his only people just as his name Sadam Hussein just did. Joining me now is ed hussein from foreign relations. And the Senior Associate Editor at the washington post. Appreciate you being here. I you interviewed both bashar and his father. What is your impression of the man now sort of in the middle of a very serious situation. Yes, he is. When i i interviewed him very early in his term as president. And he was an unknown, whereas his father had been really ruthless and killed 20,000 people on one night. Buff he was tough, ruth little, clever. And the son was an unknown quantity and thr et thought to e enthralled by hizbollah more manipulated. Despite his western leanings married a woman who was britishsyrian. There was some hopes that syria could be broken off from iran at that point, that team i cannily. Hes not a guy that resembled Saddam Hussein and ca gaf qadda. How did he turn out . He inherited his legacy from his party that has been in control for 20 years. He was torn between two worlds, the britsish wife who was strong and wore the pants in the house and him being british educated English Speaking and enthralled to the internet and wanting to connect them. And then he had his fathers old military commanders around him, who said, no, no, no, thats not how you govern this part of the world. You need strong men. And we will look after and you your interests and your brother and your sisters, do you the economic stuff the internet, the tourism and well look after the country. So the security and the military operation was handed out. Are still in the same hands as before . The old russiantrained military commanders, thats what we are seeing playing out now that old bond with russia. To your point, the author of the fall of the house of assad, points points out that which assad first became president , things were thought to be different. Lets listen to what he had to say. He was seen to be hope, he was called the hope in syria. That he would bring reform and change the system. And he was very popular for a good amount of time in syria. And it was pretty genuine. How did he change . You still have a guy who had the power and could have made different choices . Thats true. But i think what really has happened now, is that russia has really stepped in to the game and iran, the two Major Players in this game. I think they are far more important than assad, although assad wants to cling onto power. And our a is certainly playing against is United States. And when our secretary of state went to meet with the russians, he proposed a geneva conference where assad would hand overpower, five minutes later the russians were were sending in or promising to sends in longrange missiles iranians sendsing in more troops and hezbollah came in from lebanon and all of the sudden the balance of power, when the rebels, the Opposition Forces had been gaining against president assad, all of the sudden when russia stepped in and iran stepped in more heavily, the balance of power swung to back to assad. Who whom everybody in the u. S. Thought was just a matter of time. They said a matter of weeks before he went. Was that a mistake from the u. S. . Did they under estimate the strene that this assad had and his determination to stay in power . Not only the determination, but also his appeal among syrians. When i lived in syria, just between 2003 and 2006, assad was popular and he continues to remain popular inside syria and thats difficult for us to digest in that mart of the world. Part of the world. And a dictate that they know who has with all these difficulties have delivered stability i up until the recent arab up rising. However difficult it is for us he has popularity the young leader. Because of the december graphics therdemographicsthere d with him and lose if he lost people. A great number of people are dieing against him, many people have died in opposition. 100,000. Yes. He has the strength and military and now has stepped over the plate and used as secretary kerry said he used chemical weapons. The difference, though, and ill let you have your word to disagree, is that other dictators were not able to hold onto power despite similar circumstances. They werent. But the major difference here is, unlike libya, unlike yemen,y jim. In syria weve not seen huge up rises in the major cities. And outside the major mosques on fridays in the way that we saw in just in inky just a minute. For whatever reason, if hes paying them or the paging it is tim still functions. He still goes around for his walk abouts. The only 11 of the population. Thats his relike us secretary . Osecretary. Of course they range with h him. Its a serious opposition and i dont agree. People are dieing and they have very poor arms. Qatar and saudi arabia have sent in arms. Obama promise today send arms but apparently according to news accounts they havent been delivered. More strongly armed rebels are allied with al qaeda. And the Syrian Opposition is disunited unfortunately. Lets look at his own words in the spring he talked about using any means necessary to win. If what is required is an exit from a National Crisis effects most and destroys the country, there are no exception to his any means that may help us exit this crisis. Clearly he was signaling that he was willing to do pretty mitch anything. But are you surprised that he has gone this far to use chemical weapons and effect massacre his people given the circumstances and the red line that has been constantly repeated by president obama . I am a contemporarian on the question of him using chemical weapons. He has killed 70,000 people from the civilian population, slaughtered 30,000 of his own soldiers on this cause, why would he resort to using chemical weapons at this stage. So you dont think he did . I think hes winning. I am not convinced that he has, because the motivation says dont seem clear. In suburban area of damascus which he controls at this late stage in the conflict where hes not losing. Why would he risk the u. S. And international wrath by using chemical weapons. Valid question, why would he do it, he was winning the war by all accounts . I think thats a slight overstatement. I think syria has broken up in to three parts, one controlled by the opposition, and one controlled by the russians, the iranians and is sawed. Its already disintegrate and i had think in the end you will have a broken upstate. Thats what you will end up with. Assad will not control syria as he once did, ever again. And i think that the u. S. Will strike and i think he did use chemical weapons. I dont think David Cameron is making it up. I dont think john kersey making it up. I dont think the u. S. Intelligence is making it up. And medicine saw frontier says they treated 3600 people. You are not arguing that chemical weapons were used you are arguing whether he used them himself in. We are not sure who used th them. Some rogue element, his brother . His brother may have used them. Al qaeda. In may of this year Syrian Rebels used chemical weapons, the u. N. Inspection has not confirmed whether it was assad or opposition. Chemmal cal weapons were used we are not sure who used them. Its important not to override the fact and get couldnt by the you say his brother used them i think its ridiculous, i think the regime used them and i dont think there is any doubt about it. And the u. S. Is going to strike but why would they use them when they were not losing. I think they are an coy con. They killed 100,000 people. Are they confident that the russians will support them. I think they think obama weak to tell you the truth, our president , and so far they have been proven right, correct. I think there is not a doubt in the world , when u. N. Inspection fors get there they wont find anything they bombed the places where the weapons were used. The arab league has called for him to step down. Everybody has called for him to step down, but hes not about to step down. Its at fact that russia will keep him there and iran and his regime is very important to iran so they can sends arm to his lebanon to hizbollah. Its crucial to iran. Strategically. Again, iran doesnt have i in allies. And they need that access. Well see what the next few days come. I am sure there will be many more develops, we breath you both being here. Thank you so much. Thank you for having us. Consider this will be right back. Right back. There is a fight raging in the marketplace and in all branches of government over what you eat. You probably have heard a lot of talk about gametically modified organisms or g. M. Os, they are offense used in foods and defined as dna thats altered in a way that doesnt occur naturally. As the use of gameticallymodified food as increased over the past few decades, so has questions and skepticism. But is the criticism justified in the fight is well funds. Californias prop 37 would have forced retailers to label products named with g. M. O. 44 million was spent to win the vote. The bills supporters raised about 7 million. Prop 37 was defeated by a little less than 3 at the polls and similar bills are popping up across the country, so questions about both the industry and its critics are not going away. John joins us from cincinnati, he is the executive director of the gentleman met i can literacy product at george mason university. Patty is in d. C. , the assistant director of food and water watch i thank you both for joining us tonight. Patty lets start with you. By some estimates 70 of food on supermarkets she feels have some sort of g. M. O. In them. Given that its so common why there is is there a reason to be concerned about gametically modified food. This feud foo i food is diffe crops are different. Because its in a large amount of properties its a manageable number of crops and we could label them and thats the most efficient way to do this so its in corn we have a lot of gametically modified corn, soy, sugar beats, things like that, and those crops end up in lots of foods so thats why we get to this big number, people dont realize they are eating them. We think the a right to know. They are patented and charge farmers more to grow seeds, if its that different its different enough that consumers have the right know its in the food that they are buying. John you said there is no scientific studs i saying they are bad. Why are they resisting the labeling of whats in the products . There are a lot of issueses in play here, i want to underscore every Major International science organization, United States, our, china, australia, france, germany, brazil, everyone where, has come up with statements saying that gametically today md foods are saf safe, either as safer as do conventional and organic foods and far more healthy than even organic foods. We have a whole new generation of vitamin enhanced genetically modified products bench i think there is a bit of disingenuousness in the argument that its a right to know. There is no interest by activists, antibiotech organizations for right to know. If we wanted i right to know, there are labelings, genetically modified corn is modified to prevent micro toxins, carcinogen micro cock tinses wit toxins we. Genetically modified golden ricin creases betacarotene which could save a million lives a year, thats information. What these groups wants is a skull and cross bones which will sen shall i demonize these products, thats what happened is europe. She wants to cut out choice, if we label we will not have any choice on these things because scare organizations are trying to demonize perfectly Safe Products that the Science Community has overwhelmingly already evaluated. Patty, arent those two important points . The scientific literature overwhelmingly favorable to the safety of g. M. Os and put account baseballs on might it not scare people awa away. Those are two different issues. Much of the signs come from the Companies Want to go sale the crops into the marketplace, so our regulatory system isnt offering consumers an independent value of safe it and i there are a lot of issues that should be looked at. In the meantime he mentioned other countries there is some Scientific Authority that says its fine, many of those country as how their consumers allow the choice and require labeling. Many states, over half the states this year had a bill in their state legislature to require labeling, none of them mentioneddal skull and cross bones and they said they would have required basic things like saying this contains genetically modified ingredients or Something Like that. If the industry can prove to consumers that is isnt the argument. [speaking at the same time] warning out there . If you put any kind of warning out there that the Immediate Reaction i am sure john was he can am rating with the skull and cross bones, you see a warning the reaction is i shouldnt eat it because there is a warn on the ground this there . I dont think disclosing an important fact of how its raise Second Degree a warning. We already tell them ingredients, facts about knew trips, our organization has fought for years along with farming groups to disclose what country food comes from. We think consumers if given this information will make the right choice for his them. Its not squashing choice its given consumers an informed choice, withholding information is not providing Consumers Choice its asking them to make decision without everything they need to know. John, the use of g. M. O. S has greatly increased over the past couple of decades, during that time there has been a rise in Food Allergies and autism in children, and opponents of g. M. O. S have tried to link those. If these products have only been around for a fairly short period of time, how do we know that the science and in the long run wont so maybe there was some problem to them . First of all, i want to loop back to something that she said which will help inform the answer to your question that you just asked. She makes a claim that the research has been done by industry, it hasnt been going on very long. Thats what Research Organizations have based their judgments on. Thats absolutely false. Patently false, there has been about a thousand studies of g. M. O. S, about 350 of them are totally independent another 300 are independent, but financed by industry, required by the government to make sure that the public does not pick up the cost. So about a third of the studies are industrybased studies. When talk big the world health organization, the National Academy of sciences, the European Food safety authority, the european i mean, the German Academy of sciences. The french academy. They are not depending on monsanto they are doing their own evaluations,