Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20130901

White house staffers were reportedly stunned on friday evening when the president called them and he decided to get congressional approval. Now its up to senate and house lawmakers with hearings and votes expected next week on whether to use force against the Syrian Government. It is sunday morning, september the 1st, and well be focusing much of todays washington journal on the president s announcement yesterday and what happens next. Our phone lines are open at 2025853880. Thats our line for democrats. And 2025853881 for republicans. We also have a line for those of you affiliated with third parties or who are watching outside the United States. And as always, you can join us on facebook or send us a tweet at cspanwj. Lets take a look at some of the headlines beginning with the washingtothethelos angeles tim and from the miami herald, attack on hold, a photograph of the president as he spoke to reporters in the rose garden misafternoon yesterday. And from the hill newspaper, there is this the president s decision to ask congress to authorize a military strike represents an enormous gamble for the white house and one that could have lasting repercussions on president ial power. Joining us live on the phone is the managing editor of the newspaper bob cusa k. Thank you very much for being with us. How big of a gamble is this . Caller i think its a huge gamble. The president is going to congress. Not a lot of things pass congress. Certainly the last congress and this congress. This could be the exception to the rule. The tricky spot is the house, which, of course, is controlled by republicans. And i think a lawmaker to watch is nancy pelosi. Shes going to have to shore up votes on the left but also there are going to be votes against syria on the right. So this is a highly unpredictable vote outcome and thats why the president is going to have to make the case i think consistently between now and the votes. Host so walk us through the schedule. What is the time line in terms of hearings and when we could see a vote . We know that Congress Officially returns next week, september the 9th. Caller yes. It looks like there will be some hearings in the senate. The schedule has not yet been announced and that those hearings will happen actually this week. So after labor day there will be some action in the senate. There will also be briefings. Theres a briefing today for members on capitol hill. And i believe thats at 2 00 p. M. But the votes wont happen until the week of the 9th. So both on the house and senate side, the votes will happen then. Its not clear also which chamber will go first. I would imagine the senate would go first because the chances of passage there i think are greater. But a lot of the Big Decisions of who is going to for example, whos going to be the one that introduces the resolution on syria in both the senate and the house . I would think that youd need a democrat in the senate because that chamber is controlled by democrats. And i think you need a republican in the house because its controlled by the g. O. P. Host the white house did release the text of the letter for the that arization for the use of force in syria. That came late last night. You mentioned House Republicans. One key House Republican to watch is. Ed royce. He issued a statement that reads as follows quote the administrations syria policy has been incoherent and there are many unanswered questions, so i welcome the president s decision to seek congressional natioauthorization for any use f military force and look forward to a vigorous debate on this critical issue. He went on to say that any proposed u. S. Military response to the Syrian Regimes use of chemical weapons demands thorough and deliberate consideration. Your comments. Caller translition, th translas on the president to make the case. House republicans are not going to be carrying his water. This is what the president wants. He sought this. A lot of members did want him to go to congress. Senator rand paul actually congratulated the president yesterday, said hes proud of him. But that doesnt mean senator rand paul isgo rhe syria resolution. So i think this is an uphill battle for the white house, one that they could win. But theyve got a lot of work to do. Host let me share you with some of the reporting from mark landlard and theres a similar story in the Washington Post. The headline, the president pulls lawmakers into the box that he made and begins with these words. The president s aides were stunned at what their boss had to say when he summoned them to the Oval Office Friday evening at 7 00 p. M. On the eve of what they believed could have been a weekend when american missiles streaked again across the middle east. In that twohour meeting of passionate, sharp debate in the oval office, the president told them that after a frantic week in which he seemed to be rushing towards a military attack on syria, he wanted to pull back and seek that congressional approval first. He had a couple of reasons, first and foremost, what happened in the british house of commons last week, rejecting a proposal put forth by Prime Minister david cameron. Based on your understanding of this white house and what we can expect, take us back to last friday evening and and the debate that ensued. Caller i tell you, were in a 24 7 news cycle but if you just think a couple days ago, most people thought that a strike was imminent on syria and it could have happened as early as thursday. And then we saw this really stunning reversal by the white house. I think affected by letters in Congress Asking for congressional approval that got a lot of signatures from both republicans and democrats. And certainly the vote in Great Britain i think had an impact. But but you think that possibly that would have an impact the other way, that you wouldnt ask congressional approval, especially because the vote in britain on syria went down. So this is a gutsy call by the president and thats why so many people, including within the white house, were stunned and i think another key person to watch is joe biden. Hes the one whos gotten a lot of deals done in congress. He is definitely going to be making some calls to get the votes certainly on the senate side. Host it was a jointed statement by Congressional Republicans led by the speaker of the house, john boehner, available on Speaker Boehners web site. Let me share with you, bob cusa k, part of what he and congressman eric kantor, the republican leader, the republican whip, and the conference cherish youred in the statement, saying we are glad the president is seeking authorization for any military action in syria in response to serious questions being raised, in consultation with the president , we expect the house to consider a measure the week of september the 9th. Didnt give any indication as to how they view military intervention, but politically, what does this give the president , what does this do for members of congress . Caller well, as far as the schedule, it it weve got a busy schedule in september. The house is also scheduled to go out of into recess the third week, the week of september 23. We have a Government Shutdown possibility. I think that recess could be canceled. But as far as members of congress and this vote, this is a very difficult vote. I think a lot of members are undecided. Weve seen some members already come out and say where they are. Charlie wrangle, a democrat from new york, said hes not going to be voting for this. But this is this is where the president s got to make the case. Speaker boehner, as you mentioned, he sent a letter to president obama basically very detailed, a lot of questions that he feels has not been answered and he wants basically he wants to know, whats the plan. If you seek Cruise Missile strikes, then what . What is what is the overall plan . And thats going to be the question i think members are repeatedly asking. And the other question theyre going to be looking at on the intelligence is, did the assad regime, is there proof that they were behind the Chemical Attacks . And theyre going to need a lot of proof on that fact. Weve seen some videos on youtube but theyre going to need clear proof that it was from assad in order to vote for this resolution. Host were talking with bob cusa k, managing editor of the hill newspaper. Summarize and walk us through the time line. What can we expect . Caller i think this week youre going to see possibly the Foreign Relations committee hold a hearing on it. Were going to have classified briefings from members of congress. There will be a lot of conference calls. There will be basically a whipping operation run from from the white house because theyve got the most vested in this. If this resolution goes down, this will significantly weaken president obama. So theyve got to have both the house and senate pass these measures. And then next week, the week of september 9th, youre going to see a vote. Whether its the senate or house go first. If it passes the first chamber, it will go to the next. If it doesnt pass, well then it probably wont go to the other chamber and thats why i expect the senate to go first. But again, no decisions have been made on that. It looks Like Congress is not going to be or the house will not be coming back before september 9 but the senate there will be some action this week in the senate, as in hearings. Host managing editor of the hill newspaper and more details on line at thehill. Com. Thanks for joining us. Well get to your calls and reaction to all of this. But how is it playing overseas . Theres this story from the bbc web site. The headline the syrian crisis. Obama delay could embolden syrian president assad. The story points out that theres concern about its impact on opposition leaders, saying that military action in syria could embolden assad. According to opposition leaders who are trying to force him out of office. More details Available Online from the bbc news web site. Kevin is joining us, hartford, connecticut, independent line. Your reaction to all of this. Kevin, good morning. Caller i think the president might have done the right thing for the sake of america. America is not interested in war right now. But my concern is my concern is cspan. My concern is. Hello . Host go ahead. Were listening. Caller [inaudible] if a leader can gas his people and yet the opposition doesnt have anything to say . I dont understand. They oppose the president. They oppose the American People. America cannot police every part of the world. I dont see what is the urgency. I think we should stop the funding that organization and just call it a quit from there. Host to craig next in new york city, our line for democrats. Good morning. Caller yes. Hello . Host good morning. Caller yes. My idea about the president going to congress is that basically the American People are not exactly wishing this. If they go along, theyre going along kicking and screaming. Nobody likes a guy thats using chemical weapons against his people. But its sort of cynical, with no decapitation of the leadership, you know, just sending a few missiles. He could do it again. And if i was a syrian, im going to suffer the missiles coming in and maybe the anger of assad once again. And to me, asking congress to help him out on this gives him more time to get the International Community to join him, which we dont hear about a lot of people backing him up on this. But hopefully the time delay that it takes for this stuff to back and forth between congress will give him a chance to get International People onboard with him. But i dont see this bringing assad to the to the table. But anything is possible and i thank you for taking my call. Host craig, thanks for the call. Meanwhile, gene has this point on our twitter page. Why did not the president request Speaker Boehner to recall congress if bombing in syria is so important . And from the editorial pages, there is this from the Washington Post on to congress, is what the editorial states, pointing out that we also argued previously that the president should maximize congressional buyin to the operation imperatives inside iraq or inside syria, i should say. In congress, like Britains Parliament last week, could say no. A current of isolationism is running strong in both parties and many republicans welcome any opportunity to bloody the president s nose. Ththe Washington Post points out, we have enough faith in the institution and its leaders to believe that they will not treat the vote as such an opportunity. Next call is mary ann joining us from atlantic beach, florida. Good morning. Go ahead, please. Caller yeah, the president is calling attention to the fact that agreements as important as the ban on using this kind of weapon, it exists. And if we ignore it and the world ignores it, what is the point of an effort to do things on a worldwide basis to improve what were supposed to be as human beings . I applaud the president for the first time. I just really have seen his world vision. Hes appealing beyond politics, in my view. This is not a trick. And im sincerely hoping that the congressional members will understand his thinking and the importance of his position. And i generally am quite reluctant to praise the president , but on this point, he is exactly right. Host mary ann, thanks for the call from atlantic beach, florida. Michael is joining us, riverside, california. Good morning to you, michael. Caller yes, good morning, steve. First of all, id like to say that this is what he should have done in the first place, because if hes going to go to war and take spends millions and billions of dollars attacking another nation, he really needs to get most of the people and america onboard. Second, id like to say that we pay over 4 a gallon for gas here in california, and, of course, that means food prices and Everything Else is through the roof. Now, for all of you warmongers out there, you think this is a joke. How would you like to see your gas at 6 or 7 . And now youre worried about al qaeda and the taliban. Well, guess what . Youre going to have to add the hezbollah to your list of perspective terrorists. Host thanks for the call. If youre just tuning in or listening on cspan radio, which, by the way, is heard coast to coast on x. M. Channel 119, were getting your reaction to the announcement yesterday being described as a surprising, a stunning development, according to the Washington Post, as the president now seeks congressional authorization on any attack on syria. Again, the time line, as we heard from bob cusa ck of the hill newspaper is that the senate should begin hearings this week. Any vote in both the house and senate also not expected until the week of september the 9th. Yon is joining us from bradenton beach, florida, democrats line. What do you think of all of this . Caller good morning, steve. I appreciate you taking my call. I got a couple kids over there and i dont want to lose them for nothing. And this is a bar fight. And the best thing you can do in a bar fight is turn around and walk away. Host john, where are your children at the moment . Caller you know, theyre on a ship and i dont know exactly where theyre at, but, you know, its just this is something that you walk away from. It doesnt have anything to do with us and we need to move along and bring our kids back. Thats how i feel. Host okay, john, thank you. And thank them for their service. Appreciate your call from florida. The president did address the issue of the situation in iraq and afghanistan. He clearly ran for president in 20072008 running against those two wars by president george w. Bush, and addressed that issue headon yesterday in his rose garden statement. Heres a portion. [video clip] finally, let me say this to the American People. I know well we are weary of war. Weve ended one war in iraq. Were ending another in afghanistan. The American People have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the arab spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. Thats why were not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone elses war. Instead, well continue to support the Syrian People through our pressure on the assad regime, our commitment to the opposition, our care for the displaced, and our pursuit of a political resolution that achieves a government that respects the dignity of its people. Host the president yesterday in the rose garden. Meanwhile, david corn of mother jones is writing about all of this, claiming that neocons forcing the president into action. The story is available on the mother jones web site. David corn begins by pointing out that the drums of war are beating in various news reports with the president. Now, this story was posted midweek last week but its based on a letter sent by a number of what are described as neocons to the president saying quote we urge you to respond decisively by imposing meaningful consequences on the assad regime. At a minimum, the u. S. , along with willing allies and partners, should use standoff weapons and air power to target the syrian dictatorships military units that were involved in the recent largescale use of chemical weapons. Among those who signed, elliott abrams, bill crystal, james church, robert lieber, max boot, and ambassador or ellen bork and ambassador l. Paul bremer. Again, the full list is available on the mother jones web site. Their letter to the president urging for, what they called, Decisive Action against the assad regime. Bobby is joining us, hyattsvil hyattsville, maryland, democrats line. Good morning. Thanks for waiting. Caller good morning, steve. Ima native washingtonian and id like to speak for just one second on the effects of cspan on our political process. After we heard here in washington about the vote in the British Parliament, youall were able to rebroadcast the twohour debates, which im sure a lot of politicians in washington, d. C. Had the opportunity to watch on our tv. And after we saw that open debate over this issue, we realized that our politicians our politicians came to the conclusion, rather, that we also needed more debate. And id like to thank cspan for finally putting their finger in our political pie, making us realize that we need to make our government function for the people. And id just like to conclude with saying that that its a wonderful place and we really do need to focus on making the world a safer place. Thank you. Host bobby, thanks for the call. Our goal is not to put the finger in the face of anyone but also to rather, to show the country and the world essentially what happened. We carried that debate from the british house of commons, as we do every week, with question time. Thanks for the call. Thanks for listening. Cyrus is joining us from iran. Good morning. Caller good morning, steve. Good morning, everyone, on cspan. Host how are you viewing this program at the moment . Caller im viewing your program through satellite. As you know, Satellite Television is illegal in iran. Our houses get stormed by revolutionary forces in order to take down the satellite dish. And there is a very heavy fine for having that, watching that. And also the government tries to jam it by sending a jamming signal which is bad for the pregnant women, for children and for the seniors. And this is the situation going on right now in iran. Host and your thoughts about whats happening in neighboring syria . Caller well, as you know, iran the government of iran, not the people of iran, is a strong ally of syria. Us as iranian people, we really disgusted by the things that assad is doing in syria. Hes for her dictator another de dictator of iran. Hes gassing his people and hes doing a massacre right now. And i just want to Say Something to president obama. President obama, you are the president of the superpower in the world and your responsibility goes beyond United States border. You drew the line on the assad gassing its people and he went ahead and did that. And right now the world is looking to you. And youve got to do something. This goes to the core of the United States credibility. If you dont do anything. But if you are seeking congressional authorization, what if the congress doesnt give you the mandate to, i dont know, eradicate syrias chemical weapons and chemical arsenal . Whats going to happen next . Then the mull las in iran are going to go ahead with the Nuclear Programs. So i just want to give my voice and give the people of irans voice that we expect you know, four years ago we took to the streets and we demonstrated against the iranian dictatorsh dictatorship. Again we were waiting for president obama to do something. And the only thing he did, he waited for a week and he didnt make any comments, nothing, because he was seeking some sort of establishment of some sort of resuming relations with iran. He didnt back us. And but he just you know, president obama seems to be a democratic man but i dont know why hes hesitant in dealing with dictators, especially at such critical time. Host let me just ask you quickly because youre inside iran. Do you think that if we attack syria, it does appear likely even if the president does not get congressional authorization, that iran would attack israel . Caller well, iran is dealing with a whole lot of problems right now. As you know, iran is being choked off by the sanctions. The economy is terrible here. And the iran, despite of all the huffing and puffing of attacking israel, does not enjoy the backing of its people. Im talking about the majority of the people. Im not talking about the people who are affiliated with the system, with the regime, or people who are, i dont know, who are revolutionary guard. Im talking about the people who are hungry for freedom in iran. So if United States takes Decisive Action, if United States says that it means business, i i dont think that iran is going to attack or iran is going to seek any outside its borders, kind of you know, its going to be a huge reach for the mul mullahs i dont think theyre going to do that. We need president obama to be decisive and firm and be strong because he himself drew the line. And right now hes something hes saying something else. And im afraid if he doesnt do anything, it goes to the core of United States credibility. Im sorry to say i believe that the United States hasnt had i think president obama is the weakest United States president ever United States had. Host im going to stop you there. Thank you very much, by the way, for sharing your perspective from inside iran. Appreciate the phone call. Caller thank you very much. Host thank you for being with us. From the front page page o of te Washington Post theres a photograph of the president and Vice President who then board a helicopter to go to fort belvoir to have a round of golf. Syria attack is put on hold. And theres details of what happened in the friday evening session in the oval office in a debait about whether to involve lawmakers. He begins by pointing out that the president campaigned for office as a critic of the Bush Administrations lack of consensus. On the briggesafter weeks of deg that the government of assad had used chemical weapons, obama was believed by some of his closest aides to be willing to launch a military strike against syria, even if the administration lacked the support of the u. S. And its closest ally, Great Britain. But the piece points out that at 7 00 p. M. Friday, a handful of obamas closest aides, including National Security advisor susan rice, were summoned to the white house. According to Administration Officials, the president concluded that he needed congressional authorization. There is this from George Monroe on our twitter page. Congress got what it had been yammering for. Now go to work. Heres more from the president on that issue of asking congress for its support from his statement yesterday. [video clip] we all know there are no easy options but i wasnt elected to avoid hard decisions and nehhe e and the senate. Ive told you what i believe, that our security and our values demand that we cannot turn away from the massacre of countless civilians with chemical weapons. And our democracy is stronger when the president and the peoples representatives stand together. Im ready to act in the face of this outrage. Today im asking congress to send a message to the world that we are ready to move Forward Together as one nation. Host the comments of the president yesterday in the rose garden. Bob is joining us from smith station, alabama, independent line. Your reaction to all of this. Caller hello . Host yes, bob, good morning. Caller yeah. The way obamas doing a lot of things, hes overriding the constitution quite a bit and i believe that hes going to eventually be made to comply with the constitution of this country. That documents put there for a reason and people need to put a lot of deep thought into that and and think about that and read it and understand it. And weve got to give back to living by it. Because this man here acting as a dictator and trying to just make his own laws as he goes. Its always all about him. Its i me and us. Hes no different than ahmadinejad, in my book. Im sorry, i just listened to you awhile ago talk to the man from overseas. And we need to do something about his his progress. Hes not making any progress. He never has. Hes not done one thing good for this country. And thats how i could say a lot more but i need to stop before i get in trouble. Thank you. Host mike murphy has this point, that a raid on syria, will anyone be safer, is pure malarkey. And this email by the way, you can send us an email larry says the only reason the president is asking for congressional approval is because hes hoping that they will bail him out of his redline statement which he would have been forced to actually act upon if the brits hadnt voted no. He is in over his head. He has no real plan and is looking for negative sound bites for the 2014 election against republicans. Next is charles joining us from dekalb, illinois. Good morning. Caller hello. Host yes. Good morning, charles. Caller yes, i just wanted to say i think its great that the president is doing what hes doing with congress. I feel that a lot of politicians out there are using this as a tool to make the president look bad. And ive also been a little disappointed in a lot of the Media Outlets that are really twisting all of this and making a lot of statements that are just twisting everything for the public and a lot of storylines. And i also feel that we shouldnt be the worlds police and that all the countries over in the mideast arent going to come together, that have also banked against all these banned against ou all these chemical weapons. And i believe why should we go over there and expend our resources if theyre not going to band together as world. All these people are saying america is not doing anything. But theyre not coming. The gentleman from iran somebody from her to country, its always america, america, america, why isnt america doing this and doing that. I just dont understand why its always us. Host thanks for the call. David sanger writes for the New York Times and the headline, tripping on his own red line . The president s own caution about foreign intervention puts him in this spot, writes david sanger. Henry is joining us from parkville, maryland, on our lean for republicans. Good morning. Caller good morning. Yes, i think the president is making a very smart move but i think hes trying to back out of his redline comment, like your earlier commenter said. I think he put himself in a bad position. Right now weve got four cruisers four destroyers over there and probably a couple submarines. But the tomahawk missiles arent going to really do anything effective to stop the gas attacks. Any bunkers they attack or any headquarters they attack are going to be emptied by the time the tomahawk missiles hit them. Theres nothing really we can effect wallize iual. Isiaheffectualize. A lot of things can spiral out of control. But we do need to look tough when it comes to chemical weapons being used. But i think for the main point is, you know, in the syrian conflict, the chemical weapons are a very small matter. You know, most of the damage has been done by conventional weapons. And i think something does need to be done. But i think he understands that we have no real clear goals of success in going in there. And, you know, he can go im sorry. Host okay. Im just saying okay. No, please continue. Caller oh, yes. We have no clear goals of success in going in there. And we have nothing we have nothing to stop the gas from happening again. So unless we set up airfields and antimissile platforms, which is all going to cost a lot of money, be very unpopular and will be without the support of our allies, i think i really dont see how we can how we can effectualize any change in syria. I think that something needs to be done but i dont see how you can do it with tomahawk missiles. Host henry, thanks for the call. One other point. Why should the u. S. Step in to help al qaeda, is the question mark. And from the Atlanta Journal constitution there is this headline, the president saying congress will get its say on syria. Well, earlier we had a caller with reference to the United Nations. We want to get that perspective and joining us live on the phone is joe laurie who covers the u. N. For the wall street journal. Thanks very much for being with us. Guest good morning. Host where is the u. N. In all of this . Guest well, theyre kind of on the margins, i have to say, which is often the case when we get close to a conflict. As the president said yesterday, basically that the u. N. Is irrelevant. He didnt use those terms. George bush would have used more aggressive terms against the u. N. , like irrelevant. He actually said that. But the president is saying basically he doesnt need a Security Council resolution to go to war. He said he wanted congressional approval but he said he didnt need the Security Council to go to war, and he didnt have to wait for the weapons inspectors tests to come back from the lab. What happened, the inspectors came out of syria yesterday. Now, a lot of people are debating what happened in iraq back in 2003. The inspectors had just arrived there to investigate three earlier sites of small much smaller use of chemical weapons. They just happened to be there when this incident took place. And the Syrian Government, after three days, allowed the inspectors to go out there and they collected samples and theyve left. What has to be kept in mind is that the inspectors, the mandate given to them by the General Assembly and they report back to the secretarygeneral the mandate is simply to discover whether chemical weapons were used or not. Not who used them. Of course, thats the key issue in the International Community right now, who used them. Because the russians and the syrians and the iranians and some others do not believe that the government of syria actually did this, that they wouldnt be stupid enough to do this because what the result could be is an attack by the United States. And also, having the inspectors in the country and then use them, chemical weapons inspectors, in your own country when youve invited in and then using chemical weapons seems kind of i guess its a trouble. Plus, mr. Assad has been winning on the battlefield recently anyway. The cost of war has been going back and forth over the last 2 1 2 years but hes been winning on the battlefield. Mr. Putin yesterday made some very strong remarks rejecting the american unclassified dossier that we saw and demanding that the evidence be presented to the Security Council. And its just something thats not going to happen, it looks like. The United States again is moving forward on its own time line and the United Nations is not going to play a major role in this, unfortunately, for those who would like to see the u. N. Be, you know, a peacemaker. Host let me go back to president putins comments, the russian leader, because he said it was it would have been quote Utter Nonsense for the Syrian Government to use chemical weapons, as the white house alleges. Guest and he went further than that. Hes suggesting, as others are, that it was the the rebels in some way used chemicals themselves to perpetrate this attack to get the response, to provoke a military action by the United States, which, of course, the u. S. Is right now contemplating. And there are i have to say, there have been incidences in turkey and iraq earlier this year within a few days of each other back in may and june where some of the rebels associated with the syrian conflict were arrested with either chlorine gas or trying to make mustard and sarin gas. You go back to 2007, al qaeda in iraq was found to have a few instances used chlorine and killed 12 people. And this al qaeda in iraq, of course, has now merged with the al qaeda the alnousra front which is fighting in syria against assad. And these are foreign fighters as well. One has to keep in mind, they may not have sympathy with syrian civilians. Theyre in many ways working at the behes of outsid behest of o. So its not beyond the realm of possibility that the rebels would have done this to provoke the very discussion youre having on cspan today, whether the United States should go to war. But i like some of the comments that your viewers have made, very intelligent ones, that even if there was a strike, you know, even the president is not pretending that this is going to change the course of the war. It is a show of force, i think, that theyre contemplating. Host were talk about joe lauria, who covers the United Nations for the wall street journal. And the secretary of state is reportedly telling opposition leaders that we stand by you, we support you. There was a story in th story ob site that this could embolden president assad. And late last week, the secretary of state also had this to say about the International Community with regard to syria. [video clip] smi they want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say. It is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something. They are watching to see if syria can get away with it because then maybe they, too, can put the world at greater risk. And make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own securi security. Some cite the risk of doing things, but we need to ask, what is the risk of doing nothing . It matters, because if we choose to live in a world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar Al Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe that they can do as they will. Host secretary of state kerry last friday at the state department. Joe lauria, who is following all of this from new york at the United Nations. Your comment. Guest well, first, its interesting that kerry made that speech and not obama. If youre going to go to war, thats a speech that normally a president makes. And number two, this is all mostly or a lot about the american credibility. He made that clear. We said we were going to do something if this kind of thing happens, weve got to do it now. And you wonder whether thats the right reason to go to war, just if you paint yourself in a corner. But number three, the clear message is to iran there, that if we dont if we dont back up what were saying about syria on a small matter relatively small matter of this gas attack, which maybe a thousand people died, but hes referring to the Nuclear Program of iran. That he wants to send a message to iran that the u. S. Means when they said they have not taken force off the table with regards to irans Nuclear Program, that they mean it. Those are the things that i think kerry was saying there. And i dont know if irans going to get the message. But certainly the war in syria in many ways is all about iran, has been from the beginning, because iran is heavily involved in the syrian war. Theyre helping the Syrian Government. They have iranian guard fighters are inside syria, as many foreign fighters are. So they want to send a message to iran there. They want to cut off assad, which would, of course, stop the iranians from giving weapons to hezbollah in lebanon. Its all connected. And getting iran through syria has been a big strategy of gulf countries as well, which is very hard to attack iran straight on. Theyre very strong. If you can cut off assad, that would really weaken iran. So i think that secretary kerry was talking about iran very clearly. Guest joe lauria covers the United Nations in new york. Thanks very much for adding your voice to this program. Guest thanks a lot. Host there is this from joe ramirez congress, get back to d. C. And get to work. James pratt has this to say on our facebook page. Its none of our business, he says. Let the arab league of nations take care of it. James says this is tactical. Wow, he, the president , is good. Meanwhile, Michael Thomas says, you mean hes not going to be bush 2 and congress can either say no, like theyve been for years, or they can say yes and be against the will of people. What are you going to do, congress . Ben says this its his only way out of a stupid mess. If Congress Says no, hes out of it. If Congress Says yes, theyre complicit. And jacki lawson says, smart move. If congress agrees, then lets do it. If not, then lets stay out. More of your calls on the president s decision to seek congressional approval authorizing any force in syria. Michael is joining us from carnie, new jersey, independent line. Good morning. Caller good morning. Yes, lets see whos behind the statement of the middle east. Its the turkish. They say all these benefits with that because they have a problem with the iranian. And most of the people live in syria are shia. And the people in charge of the country is 10 christian, 10 some shias. So what is all of this . Theyre pushing us to involve in a war. The turkish also have we forgot what the turkey done to the armenians . They killed 800,000 people. And what happened in sudan . They killed about 2 Million People. And in africa, all around or many years ago, millions of people got killed. We never got involved. And what happened now if it collapse. Whats the future of the christian people live there . Look what happened in egypt. As soon as the Muslim Brotherhood took over, what did they do . They burned 50 of the churches. The christian in iraq is finished. No more christian in iraq. What we doing . You know, what [inaudible] for the last years, they will not talk to the United States. They have a very bad relationship because hes pushing United States to get involved in syria a long time ago. Host thanks for the call from new jersey. Doug has this point. It is not our way to stay out of it. This cannot benefit anyone. Some other news this morning from the bbc web site on former South African president nelson mandela, who has been hospitalized since june. The story points out that he has been discharged from a South African hospital. The announcement coming a day after officials denied reports that the 95yearold had already been discharged. A statement saying that his team of doctors convinced that he will receive the same level of intensive care at his home that he has been receiving for the last couple of months in the pretoria hospital. Back to your calls and comments on the president seeking congressional authorization with regard to syria and this statement from the House Democratic leader, nancy pelosi of california. President obama is right that the debate and authorization by congress for action will make our country and the response in syria stronger. President assad was wrong to gas the Syrian People, killing more than 1,400 people, including 400 children. It is a pillar of americas security that we must stop the use and the proliferation of chemical, biological and Nuclear Weapons. That statement from the democratic leader in the house and the former speaker, nancy pelosi. Linda is joining us from arkansas, democrats line. Good morning. Caller good morning. Im calling to say that i oppose any involvement in syria. I think the president is right to seek congressional approval. I think that generally he is doing a good job. I dont want to see a repeat of what happened with the in the bush term with iraq and sending our soldiers over to die for something that did not even exist. I believe that necessarily it could have been the rebels that gassed these people. I dont necessarily believe that it was assad. We dont know that. And i believe the rebels, a lot of them would do anything to get us involved in this war, to give them the upper edge over the current administration. I dont want to see america engaged in another involvement overseas. The president said we would do nationbuilding and i believe that that is the utmost important thing. Bring our boys home and our men men and women home from iraq and over in the middle east. Now, i am tired of all of this and i think a lot of this is propaganda to get the u. S. Involved. I Hope Congress im glad its before congress, as i said, and i think president obamas doing generally a good job. I dont agree with everything he does. However, i think i really believe that we have we should pause and question where this chemical attack came from. These people are ruthless over there, and once we if we eliminate assad for them, theyre not going to be our friends. We will have been used. Hezbollah and all of those other militant groups over there care nothing for democracy. They want to oppress their own people, as we see them have seen that done for years and daily. Host linda, thanks for the call from arkansas. Jordan has this point of view on our twitter page. The risk of waging war is unthinkably responsible and the u. S. Will be getting voflgd i in a religious war. One voice aformer house member senator blunt of missouri. Roy blunt said, after weeks of claiming that he could and would make this decision on his own, the president s aannouncement today marks an astonishing change of course. While congressional approval is the best course of action and the right thing to do, it would have been simpler and easier if he could have done it earlier. He could have done so if he had asked congress to get that approval. That statement from senator roy blunt of missouri. By the way, as the hearings unfold, if they happen this week in the senate, and, of course, next week in the house and the senate, along with any expected debate and vote in those two chambers, live coverage here on cspan, also on cspan2. And, of course, any time on cspan radio. And check it out at cspan. Org. Last call on all of this is michael from le high acres, florida, republican line. Good morning. Caller hi, good morning, steve. How are you doing . Host fine, thank you. Caller im not a first believer in the nut job conspiracy that the rebels gassed them. But i do believe that the United States iunitedstates does not b. Theres no benefit. These are the same people that were jumping, dancing around, celebrating in the streets during the 9 11. You know, what happened there with many dead americans. We dont belong involved in this. Host okay. Thanks for the call. One other headline from the pittsburgh postgazette. Obama asking congress for an okay on syrian action. Well continue with more of this koncoming up in just a moment. Nick gillespie of reason. Com and reason tv to talk about whats next in syria. Reaction from the libertarian point of view and also what it means for republicans in the house and the senate. And later, gordon adams from American University, professor of international studies, will be joining us. Much of the morning focused on the president s announcement yesterday and what it means moving ahead. Of course, that issue dominating the sunday morning programs as well. The cspan radio studios on what we can expect on those shows. Nancy, good morning. Good morning. On todays sunday talk show, syria is the main focus and you can hear rebroadcast of the programs on cspan radio beginning at 12 00 noon eastern with nbcs meet the press. Todays guests include new jersenewjersey senator bob men. And on this week, retired general james cartright. Then at 2 00, its fo fox nes sunday with jack reed of rhode island, republican senator james inhofe of oklahoma, and congressman peter king, chairman of the House Select Committee on intelligence. Cnns state of the union followed at 3 00. Candy crowley talks with democratic representative elliott engle, House Armed Service member, republican representative scott ridule and chris murphy, a senate Foreign Relations member. Then its democratic senator tim kaine. The sunday network tv talk shows on cspan radio are broad to you as a Public Service by the networks and cspan. Again, rebroadcasts of the shows begin at 12 00 noon eastern with nbcs meet the press, this week at 1 00. At 2, fox news sunday. 3 00, cnns state of the union, and finally at 4 00, face the nation from cbs. Listen on cspan radio. Across the country on x. M. Satellite radio channel 119. Or listen online at cspanradio. Org. One of the most fun times i had, it was 2006 and it really looked like the democrats were going to take back the house and it was looking pretty bad for republicans. And Vice President cheneys office called and wanted to know if rothenberg and i could come over and have breakfast with him. So we went over to the Vice President s residence and had breakfast with him. I had met him before but i didnt know him. First of all, it was unbelievable how much he knew about individual i mean, he had been to so many of these districts over the years as one of the Republican Leaders of the house and this and that. But basically he was sort of asking us how bad is this . And we were saying, yeah, its its pretty bad. But thats kind of fun when you get to do that or talk to the various caucuses on both sides and, you know, you kind of get a glimpse of the inside and the players. With more than 30 years as a political analyst, charlie cook has uncovered the trends while tracking every congressional race since 1984. See the rest of this q a interview tonight at 8 00 on cspan. Its how these people endure and prevail in the very rough world of politics. Historians Richard Norton smith and edith mayo preview cspans season two of first ladies influence. Looks at their private lives and roles. Monday night at 9 00 eastern on cspan, cspan radio and cspan. Org. Host Nick Gillespie is the editor and chief of reason. Com and reason tv. Good morning. Thanks very much for being with us. Guest thanks for having me. Host this is one photograph from the Washington Post outside the white house, as the president was making his decision to call on congress for any authorization of force in syria. You can see the animated debate back and forth. No war in syria. Supporters of the war in syria. Give us a sense from your perspective whats happening in this country, whats the debate all about . Guest you know, i think there are at least two d debates and theres the one large debate about whether we should be involving ourselves in another middle east conflict based on chemical weapons. Thats a huge debate and its important and its also overwhelming. Theres another debate which is probably more in the long term is more important, which has to do with whether or not the president of the United States is actually bound by the constitution to seek approval from congress when he wants to use military force unless somebody is actually attacking us directly or is about to. And i think that thats great, that this is something obviously obama didnt want to do but in seeking going to congress for authorization, theres a couple Hundred House members have asked and a bunch of senators have, you know, loudly called for, i think thats a major step forward in terms of actually restoring Something Like the constitutional separation of powers and balance of powers between people. So were in the middle of two debates. The one on syria, if you know, if the president listens to the will of the people, were not doing anything in syria. But more important, at least he is talking to congress hes getting kind of legitimacy from congress. Host michael len of politico was calling this one of the must reads on sunday morning. Its the frontpage story from the New York Times. Theres a similar piece by scott wilson in the Washington Post but this one by mark landler. And i just want to share with you part of what he reports this morning. The president s aides were quote stunned at what they heard when they called the white house chief of staff, susan rice and others into the oval office for what ended up being a twohour debate, the president announcing his decision to white house staffers that he was going to seek congressional approval. And then there is this one part of the story that says that he made the decision in part because of what happened in Great Britain but also he wanted to make sure that congress would get in when he really made need something in terms of approval for military action with iran or elsewhere in the next three years of his administration. Guest right. This also puts to lie the idea that an Administration Official in the l. A. Times last week was quoted as saying, you know what, this is an action which is not supposed to you know, topple assad. It is not a preemptive strike. It is a post you know, a post event, saying its supposed to discipline him. And, you know, this puts the lie to that, which is that obama, you know, he was saying his people were saying, you know, were going to hit just enough, were going to throw a couple missiles or whatever, no boots on the ground, no anything, were just going to show make a point and get out. In fact, you cant do that and thats an idiotic way to think about engagement. When you you know, when you shoot one missile, you have to be ready for a lot more. So its i think an acceptance on the part or an acknowledgment on the part of obama that he was kind of blowing smoke when he was saying we can do a Surgical Strike that will prove a point and then we can get on with, you know, with never talking about syria again. Host two headlines first from the New York Times, the sloarg march to military action in syria is front page and then theres this from the denver sunday post, an aboutface on syria. Is it an aboutface . Guest yeah, i think so. In terms of obama, and he did this in libya, he has done this in various legal documents, including, you know, his secret legal interpretations of constitutional law regarding a kill list, that he doesnt really have to talk to anybody about this outside of the executive branch on who he decides to put on a secret kill list or not. There has been a a considerable and continuing kind of contempt for any limitation on executive power under under obama and he was saying that about syria, i dont need to go to congress. I dont need anybodys approval to do this because im the president. So i do think its an aboutface. Whether or not its a savvy political move, which is what most of the papers seem to be kind of interested in, is less interesting to me simplely because this does restore a measure of constitutional checks and balances into the war making apparatus. And lord knows we immediate it after need it aftera dozen year. The 21st century in the United States has been one of crummy economic policies, overregulation by republicans and democrats, massive new entitlements, and a warfare state, which is pretty much unprecedented. And i dont know that weve been at constant war for a dozen years and we are looking at more Going Forward. Its good that we are finally Getting Congress and the president into the act of saying, okay, you know, how are we going to govern our Foreign Policy . Host our conversation with nick gill lessee of reason. Com and reason tv. Hes the coauthor of the book the declaration of independence. How libertarian politics can fix whats wrong with america. He earned his undergraduate degree from Rutgers University and masters from temple and a doctorate if buffalo. Guest if i can point out, all three of them lost their opening Football Games so everything is back to normal in the world. Host [laughter] let me share with you that old axiom, where you stand depends on where you sit. This is senator joe biden, as he was running for president in 2007, on msnbcs hardball wih how do you stand on that now . Yes, i do. I want to stand by that comment i made. The reason i made the comment was as a warning. The reason i made i dont say those things lightly, chris. Youve known me for a long tame. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I chief separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something i know. So i got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that im going to deliver to the whole United States senate pointing out the president has no Constitutional Authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 Million People unless were attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, i would move to impeach him. The house obviously has to do that but i would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that and i dont say it lightly i dont say it lightly i say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what was adding up to be what looked like to the rest of the world what we were about to do, would be the most disastrous thing that could be done at this moment in our history that i can think of. Host november 2007 on msnbc, senator joe biden. Guest and senator obama also made similar arguments about how the president cannot act unilaterally except under very specific and constrained circumstances. So again, im glad you know, im glad to see that the Obama Administration is finally acting in accordance with constitutional law and i dont think they should get a lot of credit for that. I think that should be the status quo. Its also good to see congress flexing its muscles. I mean, back with the libya engagement, where obama unilaterally joined nato, a force where we led from behind in bombing libya, which has not worked out well for the United States, obviously, when you think about the Current Situation in libya. It took people like rand paul, the libertarian republican senator from kentucky, to insist on retroactively at least having a vote on whether or not we should be in libya or not. And that went nowhere in congress. So were also seeing congress i think getting a little bit of a backbone to say hey, you know what . We really need to do more than kind of sit ask watch on the sidelines. Host check out the web site at reason. Com. Our conversation with Nick Gillespie. And theres this from cindy who tweets in, what is constitutional with the president s war powers act . The president can act in limited circumstances without congressional vote by notifying congress. The war powers act, which dates back to 18 1973. And congress has not fully authorized war, if im not mistaken, since 1942. Guest thats correct. And there are questions about the constitutionality of the war powers act that has never been fully vetted through the Supreme Court process, but theres no question that even urn the war r powers act that attacking syria or libya, its a pretty dicey case. Youre supposed to be you know, again, these are under limited circumstances. The president simply does not have the right to willynilly start dispatching troops that are going to entail ongoing and long commitments, especially when its not about something directly related to national defense. Host deborah joining us from hampton, virginia. Good morning. Caller good morning. I just want to call in defense of the president s decision to seek congressional approval. But i think initially, i think the idea was that it would be limited and that would have made any action that he did take limited in its scope to be, you know, legal. So i just wanted to call and say that. Guest well, its also interesting because some observers have said, you know, obama, in terms of talking about a very limited, targeted strike, you know, they always love to use the term surgical as if bombing, even with todays technology, is somehow superprecise. But critics have been saying obamas trying to get a little bit pregnant here. Once you start lobbing missiles, once you start attacking a country, you have to have a contingency plan. If nothing else, the past dozen years of failed and muddled american operations in afghanistan and iraq, not to mention libya, shows if you you cannot go to war without a fully thoughtthrough exitwithdrawal plan, various contingency plans, otherwise you get stuck in a big mess. And this is part of the problem i think with those with the syrian adventure, so far the way its been talked about. Its going to be so limited. Its not it really is here. I mean, and obamas supporters were talking about this, were really doing this to save his credibility because he had made a redline comment a year ago and then when the first evidence supposedly that the u. S. Government says is totally certain that weapons were used, he didnt do anything earlier in the year. So, you know, i mean, its a very uncomfortable idea, this certainly from a libertarian perspective, but i think its from any american perspective. If were shooting missiles into syria in order to preserve the president s credibility, thats his problem and he has no right, moral or otherwise, to drag the rest of america into, you know, a credibility problem of his own choosing. Host let me share with you a couple emails. This is from greg who lives in alexandria, virginia. He begins by saying i know this will not make it on the air. But they are so thank you. The potus has skillful crafted a nowin for the congress. If they do not vote to support him, the republicans will be viewed as weak on defense. If they volt t vote to support e president on aggressive action against syria and it goes wrong, they will get the blame during the upcoming election. Well played. And theres this from bill whos joining us from twin lakes, michigan. His email my president s decision to have Congress Make the go nogo decision was brilliant since he decision he made was going to be wrong. And if Congress Votes no go the president has nothing to be embarrassed about. The embarrassment will be with theirs and the american majority. Guest yeah, again, you know, this is i find it a little bit its understandable but i find it a bit disturbing that were already more talking about this in terms of how its going to play politically domestically, although and its important to understand in an american context, i think in any governments in any nations context, Foreign Policy is really more about domestic policy. The fact of the matter is, is that if Congress Votes down the idea that we can you know, we should attack or engage syria militarily, i dont think thats a loss for congress. People are tired of war. 80 of americans dont think that we have a reason to attack syria or we should get involved. And, you know, im hoping that what you will see is that particularly in the republican party, you will see the insurgent and ascendant libertarian wing which is saying, you know, what weve been doing for the past 13 years in the 21st century has not worked well. A major part of that is failed Foreign Policy that was started under bush and the republicans and has continued under obama and the democrats. So im hoping that we see them really flex their muscle and make their case for why a stronger america is precisely one that does not start getting involved in civil wars overseas, which could lead to major, major confrontations and regional conflicts. Host mike says, syria is no threat to the u. S. National security. Lets see how it plays out in debates. The president has not made the case. John is joining us from kansas city, republican line, with Nick Gillespie of reason television. Good morning. Caller good morning. And i will say mr. Gillespies spot on. Im conservative. This is only an attack plan which has options for bad and worse for the world. The attack will not deter, neutralize, suppress or destroy the enemy capability. It is just going to provoke a larger response in the middle east region and the victims of that response will be the United States and israel. Ive written or ive drafted a letter to my congressmen and said, i recommend against this particular course of action. This is not good lawmaking. Guest i think its always great to hear people talking about writing to their congressmen or congress critters, as the caller put it, because that is i mean, were supposed to have a representative democracy. There are limits on that because we have certain rights that should never be taken away from people. I mean, thats the premise of the constitution and of limited government. But in cases like this, i think its great that people are voicing their opinions, even if i dont agree with it directly to the representatives. Host mike joining us, good morning, from boulder, colorado, democrats line. Caller good morning. In listening to the president s rose garden speech, it seems that sort of his underlying reason for recommending to Congress Action in syria is that the Chemical Warfare treaty, which im really not that familiar with, obligates us to engage. And, nick, i was wondering if you are familiar with the treaty and whether or not in fact language of the treaty does obligate the u. S. In fact to engage . Guest well, there are a number of conventions, including the geneva conventions and other treaties, that the u. S. Is party to which generally, if im correct, syria is not, always that you know, we can put that aside for the minute. It is not clear that or, lets put it this way. The United States, which it recently came out just last week through various kinds of things coming from wiki leaks and Edward Snowden and other sources, the u. S. Helped supply poison gas or stiewd b or stoodn Saddam Hussein used poison gas against his own people and against iranians during the war between iraq and iran. Were not obligated. We can go and lobby various international organizations, and this is also part of the problem. The American People i think are tired of lots of stuff. One of them are the empty words and empty promises that gesture towards ideals and principles that are more important than politics. You know, the fact of the matter is, is that when george bush couldnt get a Real Coalition of the willing and so he just said, oh, well, screw the u. N. , after making a gesture towards them, people on the left generally were aghast at that and they said, you need to have the world behind you. Now its people on the right saying, you know, the fact that obama cant get Great Britain or many of our allies to join him, or much less the arab countries surrounding syria and the arab league, is a sign that this is not something thats worth pursuing. You know, i think what were seeing in obamas second term more broadly than this issue is people finally understanding we had eight years of a republican president who said one thing and did something very different. Were five years into a democratic president who makes a lot of claims and grand commitments to constitutional limitations and the rule of law and all of this type of stuff, decentralizing power, and, in fact, is acting in the exact opposite. And i think people are you know, people are finally tired of, oh, yeah, im going to be the most transparent president in the world but im going to do all of that in secret. Host i want to go back to the political aspect. This is the headline from politico, pointing out the white house has had a full week laying out a plan for war that was brought to halt with the president s announcement yesterday. And politico puts it this way. The president is staking his syria strategy and maybe more on an unlikely ally, congress. Facing public imaf lens and a on capitol hill, the president makining a decision yesterday, candidate obama campaigned in 2008 against the wars in iraq and afghanistan. A flip side, a losing vote could weaken the president ahead of debates on some key domestic issues, including the budget, debt ceiling. The president s halfcour presi. And it could embolden syria, iran and other u unfriendly nations. Guest and certainly russia. Theres already a chill between russia and the u. S. And putin is very interested in playing macho head games with everyone is already emboldened. Theres a lot to that. And i do think if obama, if this does not go his way, will weaken his presidency. And even if it does, he will have been shown to really have to reign in his immediate impulses and beerial tendenciesl tendencies. The other thing thats interesting to me, where will the antiwar democrats be . The resolution you know, over the latter years of the Bush Administration, there were a lot of critics of of a really promiscuous and ultimately ineffective and ineffectual Foreign Policy that was waged by the republicans under george bush. Im hoping to see that the democrats do not fall into a lockstep party line on this issue, because i think anybody who takes seriously americas responsibilities in the world and engagements in the world cannot go along with this kind of syria plan, where were just going to go in and, you know, lob a few shells and then get out and say, you know, weve done our duty here. Its messed up. And weve seen already democratic congressman i heard zo loftgren of california, a highranking member on the Foreign Affairs committee, saying like, you know, i want a congressional vote but then she wouldnt say which way shes going to vote. Theres going to be a lot of arm turning on the democrats who are generally antiwar to go along with the president. And their credibility will really be tested by this. Because if you have a lot of congresspeople who were against war under bush and now are in favor of it under obama, people are not stupid. You know, and our leaders really do think we are. And people are going to remember that type of stuff and theyre going to be punishing republicans and democrats who say they vote for principles but are always just political in the crassest sense of the word. Host i dont know if you had a chance to see the poll out last week. 79 of those surveyed saying that before we act in syria, congress should have a voice. Guest absolutely. Thats absolutely true. And its about the same in terms of people saying, you know, should we be involved . Because, i mean, you know, just on the face of it, the only argument that the Obama Administration and other people, including people like john mccain and Lindsey Graham and kind of the war hawks, the angry bird faction of the republican party, can make is the use of chemical weapons changes the equation. And were not even going to wait to make sure that chemical weapons were used. Were not even going to make sure to know who used them. Weve got to go in no matter what. And, you know, that is an argument to call back to the the earlier caller, that needs to be proven. Its not clear why chemical weapons in this day and age should be considered a class of weapons that cannot, you know, ever you know, ever or must trigger a redline response. Over 100,000 people have died in the syrian civil war. Were looking at 1,400 or something, you know, about 1 or 2 of the casualties from chemical weapons. Its an odd moral calculation where youre saying certainly a certain type of weapon was used to kill people, that triggers an international response. Host senator john mccain and secretary of state john kerry among the guests on the sunday morning programs. We welcome our listeners at cspan radio. Heard coast to coast on x. M. Channel 119. Nick gillespie is our guest. Hes the editor in chief of reason. Com and reason tv. And a couple of emails, this is from peter who says, obama punted. He could still take action without congressional approval. Where was the moral high ground when 100,000 syrians had been gassed . Now he is taking action because last week 1,467 people were gassed. Saddam hussein gassed thousands of kurds in north iraq. C. J. Has this from florida. We have an amateur in the white house who doesnt know what hes doing. Two years ago he said that aassad must go. He did nothing. On a smaller scale, assad used chemical weapons earlier and obama did nothing. Guest well, i mean, the second letter is more accurate. Its not 100,000 people who were gassed. Thats over 100,000 that have been killed in the syrian civil war. You know, without just, you know, calling names in the white house, whatnot, i mean, i do think we are you know, were a dozen, 13 years into the 21st century and america has not had a True National discussion on Foreign Policy and our role in a postcold war era, even though the soviet union dissolved in 1991. This is a long overdue strategy. We cannot exist, were not an empire like rome was, were not an empire like england was in the 19th century and early 20th century. But the fact of the matter is, is that if the United States is going to start getting involved in every countrys internal affairs, we you know, we should just give up now because that is thats a road to ruin. No no country can really be a republic at home if its if its starting to get involved in every countrys internal disputes everywhere, which is not to say there isnt a role for human relief agencies or humane relief humanitarian relief all around the globe for the United States in certain circumstances. But, i mean, if were getting involved in syria, if were getting involved in libya, if were getting involved in places that do not present clear and present threats to the United States, were you know, were not long for this world. Host another new development, this is from the Associated Press based on a frontpage story of the staterun syrian newspaper, as president assad calling it quote the start of historic american retreat. Guest yeah, well, this is theyre going to play it that way. And it is you know, again, i mean you know, this is a you know, if you write on the blogs as i do and at reason. Com and reason tv, i also have a columnist for the daily beast at the dailybeast. Com. But if you blog, one of the basic rules is you dont punch down. If the United States is such a sensitive nation that, you know, under bill clinton it was worried about raul cedras and haiti making sharp remarks about, you know, the devil to the north or somebody like hugo chavez. And if were worried about what assads personal opinion is of the United States as a superpower, were looking in the wrong direction. We do not understand our role in the world, i think. Host but is the president damned either way. He would be criticized for not Getting Congressional approval. Now hes being criticized for delaying this. Guest yes. One of the things is we cant look at these things in isolation and say okay, this decision is good or bad, this decision is good or bad. This is a long chain of problems and obama inherited the mantle and the majesty and the authority of the white house. And, you know, part of the problem, he even as a senator was arguing against the types of things he was doing as a president and that matters and that informs things. And i think that he, by declaring a red line, he clearly did that as a kind of adlib, nobody in the administration, nobody in the foreign in Foreign Policy or or in the Defense Department could have advised him to do that, where you basically make an ultimatum, unless youre absolutely ready to back it up. And we clearly were not. So if if obama is damned either way, its his own damn fault. Host die reason joining us from virginia beach, virginia. Independent line with Nick Gillespie. Good morning. Caller good morning, steve. Yes, general wesley clark did a talk on the project on the american century. This is a neocon jewish group. And their goal, the talk, he said this he had a talk with rumsfeld and he said to overthrow seven countries in five years. Iraq, libya, syria, iran, venezuela, and north korea and the sudan. I think obama is stuck because when it came to syria, it took him more than two years, and it doesnt look like theyre going to be able to over overthrow syria that easy. So obama has pushed the panic button and he has he has to do something because this group, this jewish neocon group, they have a lot of pressure on obama. Host thanks for the call. Let me follow up on his point and share with you the comment by bill crystal, who joined a number of other socalled neoc neocons to the president in a letter urging action with regard in syria. And today bill crystal, the editor of the weekly standard, writes on those of us who believe that the u. S. Must act and must act decisively in syria and beyond have a twofold task. We need to persuade the countryy and congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of thors. Force. And we need to persuade the administration to take strong and Decisive Action. Both may be difficult. But as churchill once wrote, difficulties mastered are difficulties well won. Guest im friendly with bill crystal. Hes no winston churchill. He has zero wins in his column. When i think of the Foreign Policy mastery which comes out of the weekly standard, which was an instrumental mouthpiece for the Bush Administration and before that they were calling for intervention throughout the balkans. I mean, they have never in their short existence, they have never met a war that they didnt like. He reminds me of a baseball manager like gene malk, the legendary baseball manager who had a career average winning percentage that was under. 500 yet he kept getting hired by the next team. Bill crystal has no you know, for all of his plaudits and things like that, he has no credibility on Foreign Policy. Every decision that he has pushed and urged on america, including before 9 11, to start getting really antagonistic militarily with china, has been wrong. And its about time that we stop paying that much attention to a kind of perspective on military action that coming out of the weekly standard. Host Charles Krauthammer saying that the president and white house, its amateur hour with this announcement yesterday. Gs guest yoguest you know, ime what Charles Krauthammer can point to saying look, i should we should go into iraq and afghanistan and thats a great thing. You know, war people who are interested in going to war are always in favor of war. What they and then they always criticize when war doesnt go well. The fact of the matter is, is we need a better understanding of what went wrong in iraq in two ways. One was clearly the Actual Administration of the occupation was completely disastrous and that was truly amateur hour under the Bush Administration. But then also the conception of actually even going into iraq and going into afghanistan in a way where we went with the pottery barn kind of method, that if we broke it, we had to rebuild it. These are people who im afraid simply, you know, pundits every once in awhile should be held accountable for their past recommendations and these guys have a track record that is godawful. Host a political question on the twitter page asking, how much of what we are seeing now in the middle east is linked to the failed agenda of Hillary Clinton . Guest thats a fair question. Hillary clinton, as youll recall in the 2008 primaries, the democratic primaries, it was largely between her and barack obama after a short period of time, and other people were shaken out of the mix, she was the prowar candidate. Obama, who never really was antiwar but he was seen and allowed himself to be seen as the antiwar candidate. Hillary clinton, like bill clinton, very interested in massive projection of American Force throughout the world using weapons, using dispatching troops and whatnot. I think this will be a serious issue for Hillary Clinton if she runs in 2016. At least some of the leading republican candidates for the president ial nomination first and foremost among them rand paul has staked out a very different position towards Foreign Policy which is sometimes mischaracterized as being isolationist. In fact, in a speech that he gave at the heritage foundation, of all places, he laid out a strategy for engagement with trouble spots in the world that included cultural engagement, economic engagement, at times military engagement but was much more about figuring out a different way than just kind of going into countries and bombing them into the 21st century, which has not worked at all. Host in terms of what we can expect this week and next week, let me share with you this statement by the Senate Democratic leader, harry reid. He sent this out late yesterday. I believe the uses of military force against syria is both justified and necessary. The senate will engage in this critical debate right away, pointing out that the primary jurisdiction over this issue lies with the senate Foreign Relations committee. Ive spoken to chairman menendez, also spoken to chairman feinstein and levin and they will convene both classified and unclassified briefings for senators throughout the next week, over which the Obama Administration will make key National Security officials available. Guest thats great. So well look forward to, you know, James Clapper coming and giving, you know, or Keith Alexander in giving the least untruthful truths that they can in front of our, you know, senate committees. Again, you know, as a small l libertarian, im not a republican, im not a democrat. I do like to see politicians actually adhere to some kind of principle rather than partisan advantage. But harry reid is you know, he must be in the Witness Protection Program as Senate Majority leader. This is a guy who has not managed additio it took him r five years to get the senate to actually pass a budget. I dont think he has a lot of credibility when hes, you know, snapping people into action very much. Host more from the president yesterday as he talked about the International Community and whats next in syria, calling on congressional approval before any military action and also the role or lack thereof of the u. S. [video clip] im confident in the case our government has made without waiting for u. N. Inspectors. Im comfortable Going Forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that so far has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to congress and undoubtedly they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal. Even as the Prime Minister supported taking action. Host Nick Gillespie, the president tried to thread the medal in both domestically and with regard to Foreign Policy, but this question, at least 1, 1,400 people according to the secretary of state were gassed by chemical weapons. If we dont have an obligation to react to this, who would . Guest again, i mean, i think there are you know, there are things that the International Community can do. And first and foremost, this is a host but theyre not doing. Guest i understand. But then it is a tragedy, it is something that is not to be, you know, applauded in any way, shape, or form, but we need to get past the idea that the United States is somehow responsible for every crime that happens in the world or that we need to intervene in every civil war, particularly in regions where things are get very complicated very quickly, where we have a lot of allies and we have a lot of enemies that will come out of this in a different way. The idea that using chemical weapons on, you know, 1. 5 of the total casualties in a civil war triggers american involvement independent of getting anybody else in the World Community onboard to make a statement about a particular type of weapon used within solely within the borders of a foreign country, that strikes me as problematic. And we can we can say, oh, my god, you know, we would never want this to happen to our kids. This is something qualitatively differently different than just shooting those kids in the back of the head or shooting innocent civilians in the back of the head. But the fact is, is we have to move past a kind of you know, a categorization of chemical weapons that stems from world war i. I mean, its time that we think differently about how we are going to interface with the world. Host joes that had point, praising your comments this morning. Youve blown their mind. Good job. Guest i think joe probably had a late night last night and didnt get a lot of sleep. Host good morning, pat is joining us from michigan. Republican line. Caller hi. I feel that the politicalization of the the politicians, maybe they shouldnt be called politicians but are servants in washington, has made us very unsafe and im very concerned that its kind of like nero fiddling while rome burned. What do you suggest would be a reasonable fix to that . Should they come home to their districts, live here and go to washington and visit and do, you know, their business a little bit so theyre not so available to everybodys ear but their constituents . And do you have any solutions so that i might feel safer in in our environment now, in the worlds environment, and, you know, what theyre doing regarding Foreign Policy . Host thank you, patricia. Guest maybe this is somewhat glib, but i understand that were going to be opening up some beds in guantanamo bay. Maybe congress could start convening in camp xray instead of washington, d. C. More to the point, and i dont think that theres a reason for us to feel less safe than we d did, you know, five years ago or whatnot, the fact of the matter is, is that most Foreign Policy issues have to do with with you dont have to be a huge advocate of the idea of blowback, but american Foreign Policy is an issue that needs to be it needs to be decided more. The world is not coming to you know, the world is not coming to bomb america, you know, just for bombing america and whatnot. We need to rethink things. I think in terms of changing the dynamics in congress and i think its important not to separate Foreign Policy and domestic policy, but what is a positive thing is that more and more americans this is part of the book that i cowrote with my colleague, matt we will. Welch, since 1970, fewer and pure people identify as either republican or democrat. We have a plurality of people who consider themselves independent. Voters need to shake themselves free of easy tribal aaffiliation with one party or the other where their votes get taken for granted. And i think its always a good sign when you see candidates being primaried in their own districts, including, and thats happening again here, where several high you know, wellknown senators are being primaried, either by Tea Party Candidates or other people. Thats always a good sign. Host there is this from gary who says, it is not our problem. Lets get that into peoples heads. Time for america to look forward and fix our own problems. Enough is enough. And senator rand paul says, the war in syria has no clear National Security connection to the u. S. And victory by either side will not necessarily bring into power people friendly to the u. S. Guest well, yeah, i mean, this is another issue. And i agree with rand paul and his statement there. Particularly the idea that, you know, just a couple weeks ago we were talking everybody was talking in washington about oh, well, we dont really know who the insurgents are, who the rebels are. Theres a strong sense that they have been pervaded by al qaeda elements or other types of people. We have seen in egypt, we have seen in libya, we have seen in other arab spring countries that the regime that comes up is not necessarily friendly to the United States. I dont think thats the mark of a legitimate regime, that they are pliant to american interests. But neither should we feel somehow responsible for bringing change to every aspect of the globe through military power. You know, and this is you know, i mean, its hard to disentangle this from the iraq adventure, misadventure. Had we tried to engage the arab world more broadly and the middle east, including places like iran, differently before we invaded iraq, i think wed be looking at a very different middle east now. We made a huge mistake, in my estimation, by deemphasizing democratic reform elements in iran before we invaded iraq, which was widely reported at the time. I mean, you know, iran was the administration there was getting a huge amount of Popular Uprising against it. We could have aided that in ways that would have been much more transformative of the islamic middle east than going in and kind of going into iraq and having a totally muddled and ultimately unsuccessful occupation. Host our conversation with Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of reason. Com. I want to share with you just a moment what john mccain said last week on the fox news channel. Joe wanted to follow up on your earlier comment. He was praising your work this morning. Thanks for taking my comment. Yes, its been a short night. Its 5 30 a. M. Here. Thanks very much. Carl is our last call, though, from chicago, democrats line. Good morning. Caller yes, good morning. How are you doing,. Stevesteve in goodmorning, n. I sat here and ive listened to you, you know, very patiently. First off, i wanted to say to you, i disagree. President obama is probably one of the most prudent and deliberative president s weve had in quite some time. Yesterday i listened to most of the criticism of of his press conference not press conference but his statement yesterday about syria, and most of the criticism seemed to fall in the category of, well, people are not liking the process. Well, he didnt do it a year ago, he didnt do this, just basically the process. What i want to pose to you, nick, is this, and this is a very gets to the very bottomline question. Morally as humans, can we say that, well, its an immoral act to use things such as chemical, biological, and Nuclear Weapons on other human beings . And if we have an opportunity to not that we can do it every time but is it possible for someone to, well, to respond to that, are you telling me that thats wrong . Host well get a response. Thank you, carl. Guest no. And this is an interesting question and i think its a its a meaningful one and it also extends to things like genocide. And genocide, you know, overwhelmingly when its perpetrated is actually not done through kind of hightech weapons, its we saw that in rwanda not too long ago. I do think that there is an outpouring of feeling in that there are ways that the world can act to constrain horrible acts. I do not personally think that the use of chemical weapons is qualitatively different than the use of conventional weapons. So in that case, i dont think so. And i also think thats true of nuclear war as well. I mean, we need to think about, you know, what are the goals that were trying to get at . Its about living in peace and toleration. It doesnt mean everybody gets along perfectly but that we get along as peacefully as possible. And that does not necessarily mean going in every time. Chemical weapons are suspected of being used. And and in very unclear situations. I think its much more to the point that the United States as a uni power, as the largest superpower in the world or possibly the only superpower, we need to be engaging the world and creating a more humanitarian world first and foremost through trade and diplomacy. And i would love to see the United States open itself up to refugees from countries. You know, the best way that you can destroy tyrants is by bleeding their country not of not through flesh wounds but by letting more and more people escape there and come to the United States. Host let me get your reaction i said earlier from senator john mccain who appeared on the fox news channel. This is. Lachinathis is as week in ad. But to your earlier point, just who are these rebels, who are we fighting against and who potentially could take over if president assad is toppled. [video clip] the opponents of taking any action in syria, despite the fact 100,000 people have been massacred, a million children refugees, are saying that if we help the syrian free army, that that will be helping al qaeda. That is a lie. That is not true. We have a viable Free Syrian Army commanded by generals. They are operating on their own. They are still a majority. And to say that it would be al qaeda influenced is not true. And we can get and i found out today that not one weapon has gone to the Free Syrian Army from the United States. It has from some other countries in the region but not from the United States. Thats shameful. Host your reaction. Guess guess i thinguest i thins wrong. I dont think theres any way we can guarantee the force we want, the faction we want will be ascendant and triumphant in a post attack on syria. And, you know, this is a guy who went to syria very quickly and posed with a bunch of people who were widely reported to have been, you know, Freedom Fighters in syria who had attacked, you know, nonviolent religious pilgrims in iraq. So i dont think that john mccain and i you know, this is hard to say because, you know, im not antiamerican and im not antigovernment per se, but we are left now where were dealing with people like john mccain, were dealing with people left over from the Bush Administration, barack obama, who has who has lied an and dissembled to the country time and time again, were supposed to trust these people in d. C. Even though they have time and again either been wrong or withheld information from us. And they only get forced into it when Something Like Edward Snowden happens or Something Like wiki leaks happens. And, you know, so the credibility of the government is not you know, its at record lows. We havent seen this kind of pushback against belief in the government really since the end of the vietnam era and sort of the nixon kind of m miasthma ovr the body politic. These guys need to work harder to win trust before they expect anybody to take anything on faith from washington. In a way, its a deplorable development but a welcome one once they recognize that their credibility is shot not because people in america are self selfabsorbed but because were actually intelligent and tired of kind of being lied and dissembled to. Host the book is called the declaration of independence how libertarian politics can fix america. Go to reason. Com or check him out as it is editor in chief of reason tv. Thanks very much for being with us. Guest thanks very much. Always a pleasure. Host you can continue to share your comments on our facebook page, facebook. Com cspan. Heres what some of you are saying. Tom says congress should not authorize this. I agree with the comments that the arab league of nations should handle this. Joseph says, if the g. O. P. Votes against the dumbest progressive idea ever in the history of all time, you will make them look weak. Okay, call me weak if thats how you feel. And pat walker, my question is, if were unwilling to move forward on this, what are we going to do when iran finally detonates a nuke . Again, more of your comments online at facebook. Up next, gordon adams is going to be joining us. Hes now a professor at American University. Hes also a former staffer with the National Security agency and advisor to president clinton. And later amy smithson will join us as we look at exactly are chemical weapons and the impact they have on the middle east and elsewhere around the world, as the washington journal continues. It is sunday morning, september the 1st. Were back in a moment. There were no focus groups and data in the building of that ipad. It was all in here. What will this future bring . The discussion on the digital revolution is one of our featured programs labor day on cspan. Just before 12 30, mike mccurry and frank farenkoff discuss the future of president ial debailts. Then at 1 30, a history and look ahead at the next digital revolution. And at 3 45, from the International Festival of arts and ideas, a look at race in america 2050. There are several types of bullying that the left loves to engage in. Their favorite is racial bullying. They love it. The reason for that is that the lefts philosophy is based almost solely and completely at this point on the idea that they stand up for victimized groups. Everything they do is to stand up on behalf of some victimized minority. Blacks, jews, gays, women. It doesnt matter. If youre a minority, theyre standing up for you. What that means is that if we oppose their policies, by necessity, the logic is, we hate blacks, gays, jews and women. And that is sort of the philosophy that they trot out. The editor at large at brightbart. Com, ben shapiro, will take calls and comments for three hours live starting at 12 00 noon eastern. And civil rights leader, congressman john lewis, will be octobers guest. Biographer kitty kelly. And on january 5, radio talk show host mark levin. And book tvs book club returns in september with mark lebiowi lebiowicz book this town. Host we welcome gordon adams, a professor at the American University here in washington, d. C. , the school of International Service, and spent five years in the Clinton White house as the associate budget director for National Security. Thanks very much for being with us. Guest thank you for having me. Host headline from the l. A. Atimes, the president seeking a vote on a syrian strike. And this morning, president assad calling this a historic american retreat. Guest i would expect nothing less from president assad. And i expect, frankly, a lot from president obama. I actually think this was a very good decision. I think the president found himself alone in the consideration of launching an attack, alone internationally in terms of the u. N. Security council being meaningless here and nato not supporting it, the arab league not supporting it. And he found himself alone domestically because there was a can calcacophony of noise aboutt the world should do under the circumstances, to take a step back to see if the nation is behind me first before i do this was i think a fairly clever move. Host you understand washington. The Senate Democratic leader announcing there will be hearings this week led by the chairman of the senate Foreign Relations committee. Votes after september 9 in both the house and senate. What do you expect the debate to focus on . Guest i expect the debate to be across the booshed. Board. Wheal really interestinboard. Whats really interesting is that neither the congress nor the American People are unified on the views. 80 of the American People say we shouldnt mess ourselves in a syrian civil war. The congress, both parties are divided. Fairly strong libertarian rightwing caucus in the republicans who are reluctant to throw American Military power around in the middle east. A strong set of advocates like Lindsey Graham and john mccain, who link up with neo conservatives that want to go in and do more than the president s proposing doing. And democrats equally divided between people who want to support the president and the people who are very reluctant to have us yet again engaging in a Major Military action in the middle east. Host senator roy blunt called this an ston irk change of astof course. And ed royce, the chair of the house committee. He said the administrations syria policy has been incoherent and there are many unanswered questions. So i welcome the president s decision to seek congressional authorization for any use of military force and look forward to a vigorous debate on this critical issue. Any proposed u. S. Military response to the Syrian Regimes use of chemical weapons demands a thorough and deliberate consideration. Gfrom the chair of the house Foreign Affairs committee. Guest yes. And were going to hear more of that kind of thing. Some folks are quite deliberative and want to talk about it very seriously. I think for the president , this is a very smart political calculus. Some have described it as a statement about his weakness, about his inability to lead. We have a lot of reasons for wanting to undermine the president on this. But i think, frankly, what the president has said is i take it to the congress. If the Congress Supports me, my hand in doing this is strengthened. If the Congress Defeats it, the congress owns responsibility for their not being an american response. So i think hes calling congressional bluff on this and well see where it comes out. But its not a stupid decision. Host heres along those lines what the president said and what he told is going to tell members of congress. [video clip] heres my question for every member of congress and every member of the global community. What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price . Whats the purpose of the International System that we built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, that has been agreed to by the government of 98 of the worlds people, and approved overwhelmingly by the congress of the United States, is not enforced . Make no mistake, this has implications beyond Chemical Warfare. If we wont enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental International Rules . To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms . To terrorists who would spread biological weapons . To armies who carry out genocide . Host and yet the president also seemed to indicate that even if congress doesnt go along with this vote, he would still act. Guest its not clear whether he would or would not. My sense is if Congress Said no, the president is not going to carry this out unilaterally. I think thats, you know, the most likely response. President s have over time decided either to seek congressional support or not to seek congressional support and move ahead. In fact, even this president , the libyan case, refused to go to the congress and simply allowed the United States to participate in the libyan exercise. So hes going to use his judgment but my guess is if Congress Says no, the president s not going to go. Host the bbc reporting that the delay could embolden syrian president assad. Could it . Guest absolutely. Do you think anything would not embolden syrian president assad . The bottom line here and this is really the real problem with this decision is that president assad is going to do what president assad is going to do. And the american ability to influence his thinking is quite limited here. The president has chosen to emphasize one piece of policy thats very important to him, which is nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. So this is something hes worried about with biological weapons, something hes worried about a lot with respect to Nuclear Weapons and now chemical weapons. This has been a light motif of his presidency since the very start. So in this case, the vector of decision for him, i believe, is in the area of nonproliferation. We must not let this red line be crossed. We must do something. The downside is that from president assads point of view, he is going to do what he is going to do to hang on to power, whether that means a limited attack by the United States or a civil war in his own country or using chemical weapons against his people, what we have to understand in this situation is the american ability to impact events in this region is minim minimal. These events in the region, including the civil war in syr syria, are being driven by events and and groups and religious fractions and national and regional political conflic conflicts, that the United States is not the master of. We will not shape this. The biggest downside of an attack by the United States in the middle of this is the uncertainty of the outcome in the region in terms of politics of the region. Assad is not i think going to be particularly deterred one way or another. Host our guess is gordon adams, who is a professor of the school of International Service at American University here in washington, d. C. Spent five years at the Clinton White house. Is a graduate of stanford university. Earned his masters and doctorate degree from columbia university. And the author or coauthor of a number of books, including the Iron Triangle the politics of defense contracting. And Mission Creep the militarization of u. S. Foreign policy. Craig is joining us from east brookfield, massachusetts, independent line. Good morning. Caller good morning. How are you . Id like to go back to 9 11 and and look at when that happened, how how hurt we were, how surprised and floored by the by the military power that was that was brought against us with such little effort and how we all came together, the president asked for prayers, people came together. We seem to be united on her how we wanted to take on this enemy together and how little by little, slowly how it became one party against another and then it became, when are we going to get out, how are we going to how are we going to fight this war . You know, we need a date. And then it just became political theater and a way for each party to hurt the other, especially the democrats to hurt the republicans. Host thanks for the call. Guest that points basically to my fundamental belief here which is that the politics and conflicts that are happening in the middle Eastern Region are conflicts in which the United States has relatively little capacity to have an impact. We would not be in any position to send troops back into iraq in order to stop whats going on in iraq. Our invasion and rather sloppy implementation of postinvasion occupation and reconstruction operations has left that particular country exposed to severe ethnic and religious conflicts that have become murderous and political. Our capacity to influence those outcomes now is quite limited. It is the same kind of ethnic and religious conflict thats going on in syria today. Our ability, our voice is quite limited. And the real downside, the real risk of launching an attack by Cruise Missiles, for example, into the region is that at this point, over 70 or 80 years of history, american policy in the middle Eastern Region has allied itself with forces that are now losing the battle in the battle of history. And so our ability to have an impact in the region is almost counterproductive. Any American Military action in this region today is going to increase the level of antiamericanism in the region. Theres almost no exception to that across the region, whether its egypt, syria, saudi arabia or iraq. No matter what country youre in today, launching a military action by the United States is simply a repetition of 70 or 80 years worth of history that now is on losing side of history in that region. We dont know where history is going to go. We dont know what the outcome is going to be of these massive religious, ethnic and sectarian conflicts but our ability to channel them or shape them is extraordinarily limited. Host a couple of headlines courtesy of the newseum. The president turns to congress on the issue of syria. The denver sunday post has this headline, an aboutface on syria. The president says he asking for congress to vote on the action. The Atlanta Journal constitution asks congress to get a say on the syrian question. And one other headline from the boston sunday globe, obama seeks congressional approval for an okay on syria. This is from one of our viewers saying, face it, the president played the cards he was dealt with correctly. This ultimately will be decided by the donothing congress. Guest i dont know if it will be decided bo by the donothing congress. And in it instance, i dont know if the president will do nothing. What the president has done is opened an opportunity for congress to have a say. Its not the first time that a president has asked congress for this kind of authorization. The president bush asked president bush one asked for it with respect to gulf war one. President george w. Bush asked for it with respect to gulf war two. Its also not unusual for a president not to ask for permission. Ronald reagan didnt ask for permission when he went into grenada. President obama didnt ask for permission when he went into libya. President s have always had an imif ambivalent relationship with the congress when it comes to asking for their authorization on go to war. And although we have Congressional Authority to declare war, we havent used it since the second world war. So virtually every military action weve had has been without a declaration of war. At that point, the powers and authorities are ambivalent and ambiguous. Some president s ask. Some president s dont ask. And in this case, the same president does both things doesnt ask one time, does ask another time. What it tells us is decisions about going to war and, in fact, about much of Foreign Policy, are political decisions. They have domestic consequences. You cant do them without having domestic support. And in this case, its not clear that the president will have domestic support. Host gordon adams, who worked in the Clinton White house, now professor at American University here in washington. Freddie from oakland, california. Good morning. Caller good morning. Ive been watching the show a whole lot, maybe like ten years, and one thing i have not notic noticed, the American People have been truly dumbed down. We have a lot of sympathy for israel. Im not hearing anything much about israel. If people would stop and do their history, we would look and see that the people thats running israel came from poland and russia. Theyre not the indigenous israelites. So israel have everything to gain. We theyre not threatening us. Theyre probably threatening israel because israels taking their property, their land and trying to run the middle east. Lets look back. Lets have some segments on who the true jews are. They own your judicial system, your financial system, your news media and Everything Else. Theyre 1 of our population but theyre running the world. And were not waking up to them. Host your point is what . Caller my point is that this is all behind israel and taking over the middle east. Host well get a response. Guest yeah, i dont agree with you for a minute about who owns what with respect to the media, finance system or any of that. I just think thats a myth. But whats the interesting question tucked into what youre saying is theres been a lot of silence from israel about its view on whats happening here. And i think that silence from the from the Israeli Government reflects an ambivalence that is understandable. From the israeli point of view, having security around its borders is an important benefit. Egypt is uncertain. Jordan frequently troubled now, with a lot of Syrian Refugees. Lebanon on its northern border. Hezbollah, influence rising, rocket attacks into israel. And syria has been a, if you will, a an island of stability in israels regional relationship with assad in the presidency. So from one point of view, the israelis might be happier to have assad stay there and have syria be stable but were past that point. From the other point of view, for the israelis, assad leaving in syria at least opens the door to an iranian loss in the region because assads been an ally of iran. If that were to happen from the israeli point of view, the uncertainty about the political outcome in syria might be youth weigheoutweighed by the new reg. So im kind of not surprised that the israelis have been quiet and putting on their gas masks. Host a couple of developments courtesy of the Associated Press. This morning, the israeli Prime Minister, benjamin netanyahu, has told his cabinet that his country quote is ready for any possible scenario. At the United Nations in new york, the secretarygeneral expected to be briefed by the head of the Chemical Weapons Team on exactly what they saw. In egypt, the Arab League Foreign minister scheduled to hold an emergency session in cairo to discuss the developments in syria. And with this Photograph Courtesy of the New York Times, the aircraft carrier, the abraham lin link lincoln ine ararian sea. There are five destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean sea armed with dozens of tomahawk Cruise Missiles. They continue to stand by. And from france, the french president saying he will wait for the French Parliament and u. S. Congress to consider possible military action. On all of these fronts, your thoughts. Guest what were hearing and what were seeing here is a disbursal of point of view and an uncertainty about direction and an uncertainty about implications of this kind of a strike. The israeli position is very consistent with what i was saying. Were ready for anything. Were not taking an opinion on this. In the United Nations, the president clearly does not have the support of the Security Council. Caller i said, i wish the spaceman would come down and say they are coming back to take over this planet. Time in therst planets history that humanity might unite and not kill each other. Since man became part of this planet, hes been attacking each other. Host thanks for the call. I would love for you to take some concern into the region. I read that over the next 20, 30 years were going to see a lot of dust in the air in this region before the dust settles. The brits, americans, japanese, chinese will be Holding Hands in the circle around this region for a while, because the conflicts in the region are by and large indigenous to the region. The countries that have historically played a role in so inegion have all done ways that helped create dictatorial regimes, very difficult politics, arbitrary borderlines between nations, tribes and groups and ethnicities and religions. We have a cultural challenge that is internal to this region now. A political challenge internal to this region. The capacity under which the russians, the americans can come , shape in this language events, our capacity is quite limited. A military intrusion that might be done for the best of all could bounceons back, blowback, and be seen in the region as yet another launch of American Military power in the islamic world. There is a serious downside in terms of our ability to relate to this region of the world. Host secretary of state john kerry is making the rounds, appearing on face the nation and state of the union. Vote by congress is not expected, and that americas overall security is at stake. I always worry when president s and administrations think their credibility is at stake. Credibility is very hard to measure. Thewe more credible in region by launching a military attack, or less credible because we launched a military attack . With whom are we more credible . Measuring credibility is always dicey. Photographs. Seen secretary of state kerry icating that there in chemical weapons were used. Deny thatody would what we saw on the internet and youtube was devastatingly horrible, and a criminal act likely to have been executed by the president of syria and his military forces. I have no doubt that is true. Himself innt got some trouble with this response, where he drew a red line. That put him in a box. The minute Bashar Alassad use these weapons, he was forced into the box where he had to act or not act. That raised the issue for him of his credibility. Weapons of mass destruction are a high priority for this president. He put himself in a box when he drew the line. Now Bashar Alassad has called his bluff. We are in the bluffing end of the game. What we have to think about is, what are the longterm implications of a military strike . Are they likely to be positive . Will they change the situation . They likely to diminish american credibility internationally because they struck militarily . And from some peoples point of view, and effectively. You have tens of thousands of these refugees, hundreds of thousands across the border in jordan and turkey and egypt and elsewhere. Guest you have a massive outflow of population. We saw that in iraq. It pushed millions of iraqis out, waiting to see how events would unfold. Any major civil war, use of siloed military force leads you to a massive refugee population. In turkey, a major influx of kurds refugees has destabilizing effects in turkey. In jordan, a relatively impoverished government is trying to cope with not only a large palestinian they asked brock, but now with a major syrian diaspora, but now with a major syrian disapora. This is a miserable situation, and its miserable outside the borders of syria itself. The real challenge the administration faces is, how do you create an International Understanding . How do you facilitate National Negotiation and syria that leads to an end to the violence . A relatively limited and point strike is not likely to weigh much in the balance in terms of seeking that solution. Host many of you weighing in on our facebook page. Obama pulled a bill clinton political move, says israel tamang. From our twitter page, there is this comment. Stewarts joining us from Great Britain. Good morning. I had to go back to what your current spokesman is saying about obama being in a box. I have been watching what is happening in British Parliament all this week. Do you think that obama is going into this expecting hes going to lose, and is getting himself on the hook that he doesnt want to be on . Despite the complexity of everything you have been describing, this has become a simple political problem for obama, and his way of dealing with it is, if i go to the house i know i could not get them to agree because they against almost anything i want . Guest very good question. You could describe this as a winwin or windraw for the president. To view a president s decision about Foreign Policy in the congress as just being a politician does not quite understand the nature of Foreign Policy or politics. All president s are politicians. Policy isl of foreign actually domestic politics. Hesident obama has faced has faced a Fractious Congress for the entirety of his presidency, including a substantial minority who would like to see him impeached our out of office or out of office. Is a president who has been besieged by a donothing congress. He has done clever jujitsu politically, saying to congress, put up or shut up. Host trevor from new york city. Talking about these calls from the u. K. Dont you think the turnaround by president obama and asking for congressional approval is simply because dave cameron lifted the said, take my advice and have the peoples input before doing anything . Guest absolutely. I was not inside the white house doubler to liberations deliberations, but i have no doubt that the vote in the house of commons was very influential , tohe president s decision a decision to ask the congress to provide him with that authority. Is very much alone in this decision. The un Security Council, nato, the arab league is not with him. Only the french internationally said they would support a unilateral strike. Domestically, he was alone. He had not build Political Support for this decision. The vote in the commons was critical. The president s decision was heavily influenced by that vote, and the need to find some support, someone who would have his back on his decision. Host henry chu reporting from london that the president s decision to seek congressional approval could bring another vote in the house of commons. Guest it is likely. I understand that they will come back next week and revisit this. Now they want to see what the house of representatives and senate do. Is a headline that made a lot of news last week, the reporting of bart gelman, the release of what is called the black budget, details of war in cyberspace. Is writing about this inside the Washington Post. He says, one conclusion that emerges from the revelation of thatecret black budget is the u. S. Does not have many secrets anymore. Guest the Washington Post probably had a lot of discussions about this. The details here are the kind of thing that people would have celebrated to have 10 or 15 or 20 years ago. They are now out there in the public. What is really interesting is the amount of damage that this has done to the u. S. Is extraordinarily minimal. You have not heard people screaming about it. Has the rightus point. , with anternet age generation of people who dont ,elieve secrets are important we are living in a totally different age from the mental thoughts of those who are responsible for the Security System in the u. S. Government. They dont know how to deal with the reality that these are all becoming wellknown facts. Host he concludes with this point. The beneficiaries and in no secrets world will be relatively open societies. Guest the issue here is not at snowden ed snowden. The issue is having that debate about how open a society we are, about what the government can do, what they can look at, how broadly they can intrude, and what the limitations, rules, and controls need to be on this information. We have over classified stuff for decades. We are declassifying by stealth as we go along with people who are whistleblowers. It will be a very important debate over the next year or two what the constraints are of the. Atriot act and pfizer court we are watching a big change happen. Host deborah joining us on the independent line from florida. Adams, professor at the school of International Service. Caller good morning. When theike to know u. S. Became the kgb of the world. Why do we need to take on all the problems of the middle east when there is no way we can resolve their religious issues . A 640 billion question. Over the 30 or 40 years i have spent in the National Security establishment, weve always had a rhetoric internally and even with the public dominated by the view that we were the indispensable nation, the one country that everyone relied on to bring order out of chaos, maintain stability, prevent anarchy around the world. It has been a miss to us for a long time, but we have global capabilities. The u. S. Has a global military. We can fly and deploy everywhere, sale everywhere. We have bases everywhere. Intelligence of a kind that no other country finds imaginable. For all of that capability, we cannot shape events in every region of the world. Making choices is what being president is all about. This is one of the areas where the president is struggling with a choice and limited ability to affect the outcome of events that are historic in the middle east and beyond our control. Host a followup from mike, who sent us an email. Why is nobody talking about building a wartimes kreis war crimes case against the Syrian Regime members . That i have no doubts people are working on what it would like to bring war crimes cases against Bashar Alassad. We have done it with historic cases of war crimes in the balkans, africa. I have no doubt that the International Criminal court and administration are taking a look at it. Host patrick, good morning, on our democrats line. We have aagree that donothing congress. I think they will do nothing with regard to any kind of action towards syria. I think that is a big mistake. We have to show that we are the leaders of the free world. We stand up for societies that need our help. Something should be done. That obama exercises the war crimes thing and does something anyway. We need to do something. Guest it is a good question. They may surprise you in congress. There are a lot of people who would like to support the president. You can bet theres going to be aboutggle on the hill this resolution. My guess is that at the end of the day they probably pass something. It could be that it doesnt work. President s have tried this. It squeaked through the senate in terms of gulf war one. In the end, the hill will probably see its way to some kind of an answer. The bigger question for leadership is, leadership involves choice making, weighing interests, and restraint. The hardest thing for the American People to put up with is restraint in the white house. Backnstinct is to strike and do it now, do something. Restraintlear where is the better choice. Us. thank you for joining professor at American University and veteran of the Clinton White house. Some news on this sunday morning, the passing of sir david france. His work, his interviews available on our website at www. Cspan. Org. Frostusa today, david dies. He won fame around the world for his interview with president nixon. A heartost died of attack yesterday. He was on board the Queen Elizabeth cruise ship, where he was due to give a speech. The Cruise Company saying the vessel had left southampton yesterday morning for a 10 day cruise in the mediterranean. Hisd cameron quick to send condolences to david frost and his family. My heart goes out to the frost family. He could be and certainly was with me a fierce interviewer and friend. When we come back, we turn our attention to the issue of chemical weapons and what kind of impact they have around the world. What are some of the chemical weapons used . Will be joining us from the center for nonproliferation studies grad. A look at some of the other sunday programs first. Syria dominating the discussions. Good morning, nancy. The focus of the sunday shows is syria. You can hear rebroadcasts of the programs beginning at noon eastern time with meet the press. Include secretary of state john kerry, who appears on all of the shows today. Bob menendez, chairman of the Foreign Relations committee and Republican Committee member senator rand paul. Kerryweek with secretary and james cartwright. Valley noster, dean of the John Hopkins School of advanced international studies. Democratic senator jack reed of rhode island, and congressman peter king. Followste of the union. An appearance with secretary , scottnd eliot angle murphy, members of the senate Foreign Relations committee. At 4 00 p. M. , face the nation saxby chambliss. On sunday Network Tv Shows cspan radio are brought to you as a Public Service by the networks and cspan. Noonadcasts begin at eastern with an bcs meet the press. Fox news sunday, and facethe union, the nation on cbs. Xmten across the country on satellite radio channel 119. Download our free app for your smart phone or listen online at www. Cspan. Org. We picture june cleaver with a vacuum cleaner or in the kitchen, frying bacon for breakfast. That image does obscure one of the most important trends in the 1950s, which was american womens Labor Force Participation increased. American women workers not only did not go home after world war ii, but they increasingly entered the labor market across the 1950s. A history of women in the workplace in the years following world war ii. Of american days history tv this labor day weekend. Is a seniorithson fellow at the center for nonproliferation studies. Thank you for being with us. I want to talk about the history and use of chemical weapons. Secretary of state john kerry on the sunday morning programs, use. Rming the guest it is a nerve agent. It was discovered in the world , along with other agents. If i had a jar, theoretically, a million lethal doses could sit inside that jar. It is breathed into the respiratory system or it gets onto the skin. It is a very small quantity needed to kill a human. Host who produces this . Wast in this case, it probably the Syrian Government. The history of the Chemical Weapons Program at first they leaned on outside assistance. They probably got handmedown weapons from the 1970s from egypt in the 1970s from egypt. Chemical weapons, most likely from iran and russia. They have a capability at this point not only to produce nerve agents, but the world war i agents called mustard gas. I know you are familiar with the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. This agreement that prohibits the development, of chemical weapons by states parties. What is the teeth behind this . 188 countriesre that are members of this treaty. Syria is not. But it is a member of the geneva protocol am a which dates from protocol, which dates from world war i. Comesher teeth is that it with a very complex and effective system of inspections. Thisu are a party to treaty, not only are your military facilities open to , but your commercial Chemical Industry is open to inspection. These inspections have been taking place since 1997 around the world. Literally hundreds of inspections have taken place. The other part of this treaty that is equal for all countries are that it requires any country that has chemical weapons to to have theirnd destruction supervised. Russia and the u. S. Are among a handful of countries that declared chemical weapons productionsnd facilities. Destructionions process is still ongoing because we had such a huge stockpile. Host 189 countries signed this agreement. Can you explain the fact that they did not ratify it . Guest the security politics are complicated, in part because of isreals presumed Nuclear Weapons israels presumed Nuclear Weapons program. A number of arab countries did sign the treaty and ratify and join the agreement. Egypt still holds out, as does syria. Aey are presumed to have Chemical Weapons Convention, and they acquired that thinking they could offset egypts nuclear excuse me, israels nuclear capability. Host how does that play out, for israels role . The security aspects of this chemical weapons are no match for Nuclear Weapons. It is something of an awkward situation. It would ideally be part of a weapons of mass destruction discussion. Haveolitics in the area countries like egypt and others that are balking at coming to the table because of israels nuclear arsenal. Byt in the announcement john kerry, 1400 deaths as a result of the weapons here is what he said friday at the state department. [video clip] instead of being tucked safely at their beds at home, we saw a rose of children rowsw of rows of children lying sidebyside. All of them dead from assads parents andded by grandparents who suffered the same fate. The u. S. Government now knows 1429 syrians were killed and this attack, including at least 426 children in this attack, including at least 426 children. Even the First Responders who try to save them became victims themselves. We saw them gasping for air, terrified that their own lives were in danger. Indiscriminate, of chemicale horror weapons. This is what assad did to his own people. Host secretary kerry last week. This is a list of Chemical Attacks. This courtesy of npr. Guest lets separate those two examples you gave us. The one in japan was an attack which had used sarin in a previous incident, trying to kill judges. They ended up killing seven people and sending several dozens to the hospital. Attack in the tokyo subway system is the best known of those horrendous acts. There was panic in tokyo. People flooded the hospitals. Not that many were seriously injured, but there were a lot of people who were scared by the attack. Its one thing to have a terrorist group get a hold of and use these weapons. The attack you referred to in the second example with iraq, the physicians for human rights send a team in four years later and they were taking samples at the site which were later analyzed by britains top Chemical Biological defense facility. They were able to conclusively prove that not only was mustard gas used in the attacks, but also nerve agents. ,ost our guest is amy smithson senior fellow at the center for nonproliferation studies. Of thea graduate university of North Carolina and georgetown university. She earned her doctorate at George Washington university. Previously with the center for strategic and international studies. Our phone lines are open. You can send us an email or join us on facebook or send us a tweet. Liz is joining us from new york city on the independent line. Is, is thereestion wmds . Ture mark for could we determine who actually did it . Assad didsuming that it. It could have been the cia. And, a comment. Guest one of the things that told me this was likely to have been attacked by the Assad Government is the timing of the attack. That hashe government been in the business of chemical weapons since the 1970s. When you get into the chemical weapons area, you train in military and chemical doctrine. The best time to attack is in the wee hours of the morning. Winds areme when the the lowest and the temperatures are the coolest, and that is what makes poison gas hang over the target. It sits over there. In the middle of the day, the wind would blow it away. Where theyituation had simultaneous rocket attacks on multiple targets. That is another hallmark of a military action. The rebels dont have that sophisticated of a capability. This is waddling and quacking like a duck. Host why would it he have to and it . Done it . This happened at a time when the inspectors were in downtown damascus. What better time, if you were seeking to demoralize your opponent, than to attack their families while they are sleeping . When you see the interviews of Syrian Refugees and syrians still inside the country, they are petrified that Chemical Warfare will be used again. Assad succeeded beyond his wildest imagination in terms of scaring the opposition. Deterrence, there is something i have been advocating since the outset of civil conflict in syria. Masks and provide gas nerve agent antidotes and other defensive equipment to the hospitals in syria, and to the syrian civilians, and to Syrian Opposition fighters. s troops already have this equipment and capability. About who hasoubt done it, you need to level the with defenses. That takes away the very advantage of using chemical weapons in the first place. If the syrian civilians have gas masks, if they are taught about how to decontaminate they know how to do this, from the videos from the other night. They are stripping people down and washing them with water. For those who may doubt this is an effective thing to do, do prior to the 19 91 gulf war, when israel was worried that would lobsein israeli scuds on cities, they equipped their entire civilian populace with gas masks. The Chemical Weapons Convention obligates its members to provide this very type of assistance. The International Community and our own congress may be struggling with what should be done about this, but this is truly the nobrainer thing to do, to take the military advantage of using chemical weapons away. Putin,nd yet vladimir who will be with the president summit,k at the g20 called the idea that president assad would use chemical weapons is, in his own words, Utter Nonsense. Im not sure that russias hands are entirely clean. In the 1990s, the people who were in charge of russias Chemical Weapons Program were providing Technical Assistance in chemical weapons to the russians. This is documented in state secrets. Why would i believe the author . He was inside russias Chemical Weapons Program for 26 years. He is also the man who blew the whistle on russias ultrasecret program, which is the next generation of Chemical Warfare agents. The world, including western agents knew nothing about it until he blew the whistle. He is a very authoritative person to tell the tale the russia provided. Comment, gas masks will not help much against mustard gas or sarin. This is protection of the respiratory system. Its not a perfect solution, but its difficult to expect civilians to wear the protective garb that the military has every day for the next however long this conflict lasts. Lets not make perfect the enemy of the good. Lets provide gas masks, with clear instructions and illustrations in arabic. Lets provide instructions about the importance of the camera nation. Literally, if you have to jump in a fountain in the circumstances. Achievedbly will have the happy medium of what can be anticipated in this type of environment, where there is a very real threat that chemical weapons will be used again. Ago, nearly 90 years before world war ii, there was the geneva protocol signed in 1925 that prohibits the use of asphyxiating him a poisonous or other gases. We saw much of that in world war ii with the holocaust. Cycllonycle and be to attempt was used to entirely eliminate a religious group. Was is something that motivated by the widespread use of chemical weapons during world war i. Chemical weapons were introduced with Industrial Chemicals on the battlefield in 1915, when germany used chlorine. The allies retaliated. Both sides were lobbing Industrial Chemicals, and till germany oneupped and introduced mustard gas. It sears the lungs, burns the skin. Diedat conflict, 90,000 from chemical weapons. A million were injured from chemical weapons. The people who dont take this seriously should look at the historical record of that conflict. ,ost our guest is amy smithson senior fellow at the center for nonproliferation studies. Can join in on the conversation on our twitter page. Michael from butler, pennsylvania on our republican line. Amy, i agree with you totally. What i would like to see is someone connect the dots. I am 100 convinced that the evidence is there that assad inherited Saddam Husseins program. Two days before the second gulf war, two magic trains went to syria syria from the program. This to me gets to the heart of the whole issue. We have two options. Respond, not respond. What frightens me the caller went this way earlier, but ive heard several people mention this this belief that maybe the cia is doing this, theres no logic i can find where that makes any sense at all. How would you recommend that the administration respond to this fear on the ground that bad actors in our own government are behind this . I think there are certain americans who distrust their government. But there are certain atrocities that i cant believe anyone would undertake. In this case, common sense points anyone who is looking at those dots uart talking about connecting will realize this is a chemical you are talking about connecting will realize this is a chemical assad did not need handmedowns from iraq. He already had chemical weapons at the time of the 2003 war. He has his own chemical weapons production capability. A few production sites, as well as research and development sites. It first leaned on outside assistance, but no longer needs assad has his own reasons he has gradually escalated the level of conventional violence. For the past several months, hes been testing the waters with smaller chemical weapons. He flagrantly cross the line on the night of the 21st. The rebels dont have the motivation that he does rea. I thought it was possible the rebels might have released an industrial toxic to michael to point the finger of suspicion at assad. The death toll exceeds anything that i think the rebels could logically be expected to have done here on the 21st. In terms of sheer, ruthless atrocity, it doesnt make sense. Comment to your earlier point. Guest this is true. In the iraniraq war, there were 100,000 iranians injured by chemical weapons. 20,000 were killed. Stillf those who survived suffer the after effects of exposure not only from mustard gas, but to nerve agents. Drawhing i would like to your viewers attention to is not to count out the inspectors in this case, the people who just left iraq. The secretarygeneral has been very clear in saying that their job is not to say who did this. During 12 reviews inspections by the secretarygeneral, there have been a number of occasions where they have been able to rule out the use of chemical weapons. In iraq, they specifically said the iraqis used chemical weapons during the 1980s conflict against iran. Host you can continue the conversation at facebook. Com cspan. Here are a couple of points. We are joined from plymouth, england. Caller good morning. I think that the u. S. And its Close Friends like the u. K. And nato have got to be more cautious in their approach to the middle east in general, and perhaps the wider International Community. I think we have come up against the real constraints of what can be achieved. Actions mayoned make things worse. Of the options are terribly attractive, with the exception of providing Chemical Defenses. If you bomb the chemical sites, you risk releasing toxic gases over nearby civilian populations. This is one of the reasons why the Obama Administration rule that out as too risky. Creating a nofly zone, that leaves assad with the Delivery Systems we used on the evening of the 21st, rockets and missiles. Bombing other sites, that leaves assad with his chemical weapons. There are not that many attractive options militarily. Aftermath of a conflict as we have seen and iraq and afghanistan, it can be more difficult to resolve the aftermath than the war itself. Host there is this from one of our viewers, saying what about aboutcent information prince bandar . Guest they are a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, saudi arabia. I keep my ear close to the ground on those matters. I never heard a whisper from the hague that there has been saudiabout studies cooperation about inspectors coming down there. Im not going to provide a whisper in the wind. Any idea how long syria has had chemical weapons . Guest they have been at this for quite a while. Countries need Technical Assistance when they start on this road, but they have had plenty of that. They can stand on their own now. If that is the case, why hasnt the u. S. And the u. N. Try to stop them in 40 years . Guest it is a difficult thing to do, especially if a country has a sophisticated Chemical Industry. The Building Blocks for the agents are Industrial Chemicals that have legitimate purposes. Belong tountries that the treaty declare the production of those chemicals in significant quantities. Those are the industry facilities that are subject to investigation to make sure those agents are not being diverted or produced onsite for anything anything other than a legitimate reason. The Chemical Weapons Convention sets of a number of barriers. Group was started during the mid1980s. The major chemical supplier countries realize that iran and iraq were selectively shopping for chemical weapons precursors. Denied and export from one country, an export from one country, they went to another. Theirtarted to coordinate export controls. The Australia Group has over 40 members. These are all the major supplier countries. Syria has long been on the dont sell to list. Frank is joining us from orlando, florida. Caller good morning. The Mainstream Media is the only news we get here. If you do any research, theres other points of view on this of who created these attacks, but nobody will even bring it up. Its like it doesnt exist. Any kind of discussion should have both sides, shouldnt it . Theyiraq invaded iran, bought their chemical weapons from us. What makes us so high and mighty on all of this . M tip shellsuraniu and everything in iraq and caused the cancer to our soldiers, i just dont get it. Guest frank, you do have a point. Some Chemical Companies did funnel chemical weapons during theinto iraq 1980s. They funneled over 650 metric tons of chemical weapons precursors into that conflict. But in that case, the companies were violating u. S. Law. And thesee of syria recent events, initially with a smaller scale incidents, i too have an open mind because it was difficult to tell whether it might have been a conventional bomb the landed next to an Industrial Facility and ruptured a tank and released something that had these effects. Chemicals canrial have the types of effects we are seeing in the videos. Foaming atbreathing, the mouth, convulsions and the like. It was difficult to tell whether the Assad Government was testing the waters, or the rebels might have been doing something. In this last attack, it carried so many hallmarks of a military trained to use chemical weapons. Thats not something that a coordinated group of rebels with pipe bombs have as an ability to do at this point, much less look at the motivation. Use your common sense here and it will tell you what happened. Host a comment on our facebook page. Is america going to get involved every time some psycho dictator kills his own people . Guest i would like to see this norm up he upheld. I think we put ourselves in jeopardy around the world, so its important to uphold the Chemical Weapons Convention at geneva protocol to have some type of punitive measure against the Assad Government. If it is providing senses , these are decisions that can come in the days ahead. The International Community ought to be able to agree on the lowest common denominator that can save lives. That is putting Chemical Defense into the equation. Mail an e guest i dont forget about those things, nor has assad. Two days ago, there were reports that he bombed a school with napalm. What errors the u. S. Made in the past should not handicapped our decisionmaking now. Clear aboute pretty the importance of upholding International Laws that prohibit atrocities that occurred in the past and that are unfolding in front of our eyes, literally as we speak. Host that is what one of our viewers says. Good morning, dan. Independent line. Iraqr you brought up how may have obtained some chemical weapons back in the 1980s and 1990s. Specifically, you said the 1990s. Companies from the u. S. Supplied ingredients that could be used to make, which was against international law. I have a couple of questions. I would like you to hit this one first. How many of those companies were prosecuted for that illegal action . Guest i would like to give you a reference for this so that you can read for yourself. Website, ae cnf study by Jonathan Tucker about trafficking chemical precursors into the 1980s iraniraq war. There were two masterminds that were funneling chemical precursors. One into iran, one into iraq. One of them was a dutch national. For 17sentenced to jail years. The two american companies, i believe theyre both out of business now. Andof them was in baltimore another was in charleston, North Carolina. They funneled over 650,000 metric tons. Host our guest is a senior fellow at the center for nonproliferation studies. Amy smithson, thank you for joining us. We will continue the conversation tomorrow morning on washington journal. Jeremy mayer will be joining us. Hes a professor at George Mason University with background on the war powers act. And the president of sciu. That is all tomorrow morning on washington journal. Coming up next. Thank you for joining us on this labor day weekend. We hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. Have a great weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] today on cspan, newsmakers with tom donohue. Then remarks from richard trumka. Deliversnet napolitano her farewell address