admitting it yet the white house is waffling on this is the u.s. obligated to intervene and what does that entail? well it is a nightmare scenario from this white house. they have done everything they can to avoid consequential involvement in syria last two years and we ve all seen that. he issued a red line. he did that obviously so that assad would not escalate the war. it appears that he has. and a nightmare for the white house is there is not overwhelming evidence of thousands of people in the street, obviously manifesting the symptoms of what took place. this is a small scale military operationp that was used. they do have some evidence of it. obviously the white house has admitted that. they are going to be reluctant in my view to take any action. gregg: right. they mainly don t want to be involved. i think they will use the u.n. to investigate it and be very cautious to a fault about doing anything at least in the near term. gregg: this is what one columnist wrote. we ll put
gregg, there was large-scale use of chemical weapons and that is not the case we have here. large-scale use, thousands of people injured, we would go after those sites. gregg: watching all of this unfold and what the u.s. does or doesn t do is iran, the ally and benefactor of syria. so if the u.s. does nothing, is that a green light in some ways for tehran and its nuclear weapons program? well the entire region to include iranians believe that the united states as a matter of policy is pulling back from the middle east. and it is being very passive and disengaged, the evidence, leaving iraq. no action, follow-up in benghazi is another case in point and not intervening on behalf of moderate rebels in syria was the third case in point. now we have the use of chemical weapons and a red line. we ll see what the president does with it. gregg: general jack keane, thanks very much. good seeing you, gregg. gregg: all right. martha? martha: well republican lawmaker looking to overhaul the a
and sending it out to places like california or illinois yeah. martha: liz, thank you. good to see you. same here. gregg: a man carjacked by the boston bombings suspect speaks out for the first time what he is saying about his harrowing night and how he escaped clutches of two terrorist suspects. martha: brand new details on the brother s alleged plan to target new york city with their remaining bombs just days after the boston marathon. attack. new york city congressman peter king joins us next. he told the fbi apparently that he and his brother had intended to drive to new york and designate additional explosives in times square. detonate additional explosives in times squares. we know they had the explosives and they had the capacity to carry out the attacks. [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie
was detained and the other was killed. martha. martha: that man s story is emerging this morning and it is incredible. molly, with regard to the new york potential hit do the authorities think these suspects might have been able to pull it off? reporter: well there are thoughts are despite the immense police presence there and many, many cameras there is no way of telling that it wouldn t have happened. in fact very well might have. despite all of the things that are put in place to prevent something like this with no prior warning there is could have been death and destruction. they have no way of knowing whether it could have been prevented. martha? martha: pressure cooker bomb, the type used in boston and six pipe bombs they had with them no doubt could have done damage had they set them off. molly, thank you very much. we ll see you later. reporter: thank you. gregg: we re learning that 16 hours after investigators began interrogating dzhokhar tsarnaev, the suspect suddenly wen
involved but nonetheless direct intervention by u.s. and nato forces. and then the one that people have been trying to get the obama administration to do to include his own national security team. mrs. clinton, panetta, petraeus and dempsey, all advocated to provide lethal aid to the rebels. that has not been done. that may be done this time. gregg: you said seize the sites. a, do we know the sites, and b, i would assume those sites are protected and thus you re talking about armed combat to seize those sites, american soldiers at risk? yeah, absolutely. that is the least likely option to be used. we could also bomb the sites. the problem with that is, . gregg: you release chemicals. right. and you have collateral damage to civilians. you could do it in a limited sense where you have some assurances there would not be any issues for civilians but you re not going to deal with the whole problem. i do not believe they would do anything with the chemical sites in the near term unless