Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
NOW.
ARE YOU ON BOARD AT LEAST WITH
THE UNITED STATES SUPPLYING ARMS
TO THE REBELS?
>> WELL, I'M NOT IN PART BECAUSE
I STILL DON'T THINK WE HAVE A
GOOD HAND ON WHO THE REBELS ARE.
AGAGENERAL DEMPSEY SAID TODAY I
OPEN SESSION THE REBEL GROUPS
ARE NOT READY TO LEAVE TODAY
BECAUSE IN PART AL QAEDA
INFILTRATED BIG PARTS OF THE
OPPOSIT
OPPOSITION A LIE YENLS.
I THINK WE'LL BE ARMING SOME
PEOPLE WHO HAVE VERY DISTINCT
INTERESTS FROM THOSE OF THE
UNITED STATES.
THAT'S AL QAEDA.
SO I THINK THERE IS STILL SO
MANY QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED HERE.
I THINK THE PRESIDENT WILL GET
HIS VOTE TOMORROW.
I THINK THE FOREIGN RELATIONS
COMMITTEE WILL VOTE IN APPROVAL
PROBABLY BY A WIDE MARGIN OF THE
RESOLUTION.
I MAY NOT GO WITH THE MAJORITY.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH FOR JOINING
US.
>> THANKS, WOLF.
>>> LET'S BRING IN TWO
CONGRESSMAN FROM OPPOSITE SIDES
OF THE ISLE.
ADAM SHIFT, HE SAYS THE CURRENT
PROPOSAL IS TOO BROAD.
PETER KING IS THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE COUNTERTERRORISM AND
INTELLIGENCE SUBCOMMITTEE IN THE
HOUSE HE SAYS THE PRESIDENT HAS
THE AUTHORITY TO ACT EVEN IF
CONGRESS VOTES NOW.
FIRST OF ALL, CONGRESSMAN KING,
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS DRAFT
RESOLUTION THAT THE SENATE
FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE HAS
COME UP WITH GIVING THE
PRESIDENT THE AUTHORITY TO
STRIKE IN A LIMITED WAY OVER THE
NEXT 60 DAYS WITH AN OPTION OF
ADDING ANOTHER 30 DAYS, IF
NECESSARY?
>> YEAH, OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE TO
LOOK AT IT MORE CAREFULLY BUT
BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN AND
HEARD TONIGHT, I WOULD VOTE FOR
IT.
I SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT TAKING
ACTION.
I'M SIMILAR TO JOHN McCAIN IF WE
TAKE ACTION, IT HAS TO BE
MEANINGFUL A, OTHERWISE A
COSMETIC APPEAL BUT SERVED NO
LONG-TERM PURPOSE.
SO I WOULD SUPPORT A STRONG
ATTEMPT TO DEGRADE THE WEAPONS
CAPACITY OF BOTH CHEMICAL
WEAPONS AND THE DELIVERY SYSTEMS
OF SYRIA.
>> CONGRESSMAN SHIFT, THE
LEVERL --
MILITARY TARGETS IN SYRIA.
WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THIS
RESOLUTION?
>> WELL, I THINK THE SENATE
LANGUAGE IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
I'LL HAVE TO LOOK FURTHER AND
ONE ISSUE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS
THEY SAY NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE
RESOLUTION MADE THAT ABUNT
DENTALLY CLEAR UNLESS WE HAVE TO
RESCUE SOMEONE.
I THINK NO ONE WANTS TO SEE US
TURN THIS INTO A BOOTS ON THE
GROUND SITUATION OR FURTHER
ENTANGLE US IN THE CIVIL WAR.
IT'S MOVEMENT IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
THE OTHER ISSUE, I THINK, WOLF,
CAN WE PUT TOGETHER A COALITION
TO ENFORCE THIS INTERNATIONAL
NORM?
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THE UNITED
STATES NOT BE SCENE AS ACTING