0 teleconference where some of the president's top national security aides will be briefing key lawmakers about exactly what intelligence they have to justify a potential attack, jon. jon: i know there have been complaints from capitol hill about a lack of consultation on all of this but that is really not just the republicans. it is coming from both sides, right? >> reporter: that's right. we've seen democratic lawmakers like jerry nadler from new york, very liberal member, senior member of the house judiciary committee, that this would go against the u.s. constitution if the president movings forward with military action without explicit authorization by the u.s. congress. john boehner, republican speaker of house sent a letter to the president last night he needs to explain this at very least, if not authorization at least explain it to the american people. boehner writing it is essential you provide a clear unambiguous explanation how military action which is means, not a policy will secure u.s. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy in the middle east and in the pentagon are focused on one thing right now. they are watching the debate in the british parliament. that debate and the potential for it to delay the timeline for a military strike against syria with the u.s.'s main ally, the u.k., now looking like it would not be in a position to help in the coming days, that has people very concerned here in the pentagon. the uss trafalgar is a submarine likely to be used by the british if there were a strike on syrian sites. again a lot of watch, watching and waiting right now here at the pentagon. >> yeah, i bet there is. there is also word that russian warships are moving into the mediterranean. what do we know about that and reaction from the pentagon? >> reporter: there are two russian destroyers moving into the mediterranean. they are often positioned in the mediterranean. less concern here in the pentagon about those russian warships. in fact they were somewhat expected. they expected the russians would do that. don't forget russians also have them in fact this is worth doing even if he can prove that case. jon: he talked about a shot across the bow. is that sufficient if we're going to take military action, is that the kind of thing we want to do? >> well i think again you want to make sure you're accomplishing something that is worth it and possible to accomplish. here i would say there are lots of threats to american strategic interests. those are not really going to be addressed by a shot across the bow. things like foreign fighters, things like the jihaddist prince, spillover in the region, those are things all as a result of conflict. until the conflict ends they will not go away regardless of the kind of punitive action. so i think the question here is, is this the right objective to have and can we frankly even deter assad from using chemical weapons or anyone else using chemical weapons as long as this conflict grinds on? jon: there seems to be more question about the fact whether it was his side that used the chemical weapons. >> in many way, jon, that question is sort of beside the point. the fact that chemical weapons are used in way in this conflict demonstrates how dangerous to the conflict is to american interests and american allies in the region. again the argument we need to somehow punish assad for using chemical weapons, that should be our objective as opposed to addressing much wider strategic threats to our interest the conflict poses has gotten the president into this corner he is in. jon: colonel ralph peters was on fox this morning and made essentially the point that 100,000 people died by conventional arms, bullets and bombs and so forth, why the press all of a sudden to retaliate against the syrian regime for using poison gas that killed a thousand people? >> well i think that's a legitimate point. this conflict has had not only a huge humanitarian toll which you referenced, jon, but again major threats to our interests and our allies interests. the case now being made is a slightly odd one. we shouldn't try to end the conflict. we shouldn't try to resolve the conflict or threats our interest. we should police the conflict if the way that it is waged. i think that is a hard argument to sell to the publics in the u.s. and u.k. who are already quite skeptical of this. keep in mind they're skeptical in part because of relentless criticism of the iraq war intelligence which president and this administration helped fuel. jon: michael singh, formerly with the national security council. michael, thank you. >> thank you. >> well the president has been telling americans the new health care law will give them affordable medical care but there are questions now about how one state plans to spend the money intended to get obamacare up and running. and across the country today, getting lunch may not be as easy as swinging up to the drive-through. some fast food workers are going out on strike. we'll tell you why. so then the little tiny chipmunks go all the way up...