This transcript is automatically generated
Senator nice to see -- Thank you -- -- right chemical weapons -- being used by the president in Syria a probability.
A certainty of one.
I think it's extreme probability like -- -- what the British foreign office said quote.
We have limited but persuasive information.
From various sources showing chemical weapon used in Syria including.
-- So British say they have persuasive evidence the -- of the French say the same that.
An Israeli intelligence says the same and I'm told that are the majority of our intelligence capabilities.
As you know -- different agencies believe that there's a very strong likelihood.
That they have it could I just make one point.
But that's beside the point.
-- two years ago we -- intervene on behalf of the people are struggling for freedom.
But they say -- the president said that this was a red light.
The use of chemical weapons that gave Bashar shot a green light a massacre to rape -- torture.
To to commit it's fire scud missiles on his own people in populated areas is -- shameful chapter in American history and I hope that.
This new revelation of chemical weapons we'll move the president to do what he should have done two years ago.
From the statement this coming -- -- White House I'm not sure they will.
Let us -- -- my question number one why do you think the president didn't do something a couple of years now and number two.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- But if you look carefully at the statements by the White House they are quickly caving in saying well but we need to have more information eccentric idea.
-- sounds like the British didn't sounds like the Israelis don't.
And the fact is that it should it surprise.
That -- Russia or shop our side would be using chemical weapons.
He will use anything that he couldn't get his hands on in order to stay in power -- so no one should be surprise.
What would be the reason to do something humanitarian preemption.
National security which one is it.
What brush aside is doing is a desperate effort to hang on to power and what we should do is what we should have been doing long time ago.
No American boots on the ground let's.
Carve out a safe area a no fly zone where they can train and equip organize their -- been guys is they had in Libya.
And then make sure that the weapons go to the right people set up a government.
And try to reduce.
And eventually eliminate this incredibly.
Influx of jihadist from all over the Arab world and other parts of the world.
I've talked to a couple of countries that are allies of ours where people are going into.
Syria and counter that otherwise we're going to have a complicated mess on our hands for years to come.
You have asked that we armed the rebels.
Pop how we -- -- currently doing that now I think well I think a lot lot of people are suspicious that we have been covertly arming them rebels in Syria.
Is that not true.
And no we're not -- weapons coming in from other countries from our -- any weapons from.
We are having some.
Trying but not succeeding.
In channeling some of those weapons to the right people channeling -- other countries.
Other countries are sending weapons.
We have people on the ground supposedly.
That are channeling hopefully to the right people they're not succeeding in doing that because the Q hi this are getting weapons in ample supply.
It's the absence of American leadership it's absent why should they pay attention to the Americans that are fighting.
Russian -- we're not helping them.
Woman in a refugee camp said to me should send -- receive these children to these children.
They're gonna take revenge on those people who failed to help we're raising a generation of people who hate America because.
We wouldn't have helped them.
But the fact is that if we give them get them the no fly zone placed organize train and equip that's the best way to keep it from.
Coming to these jihadist and to rely on Russia I mean how many times do we have to hear that story.
Well why am -- if the president said this is the Red Line this is a game changer if there chemical weapons Ariza he would do something now as a -- out there wasn't conclusive proof unless he changed its mind right.
Right but you've got to.
Carefully look at the statement that's made and there are saying that they need further corroboration.
And authentication they've got to be sure they've got to look at the evidence.
Well -- British saying we have limited but persuasive.
Why would the present -- put the brakes on and be more cautious.
Why is the president refuse to help these people for over two year -- Well one of the things are -- said that if we intervene.
Jihadist -- -- them.
By -- aside might escalate the Iranians might get involved might destabilize skewered -- and -- guess what.
All of those things that they said would happen if we intervene have happened because we didn't hear me.
Senate thank you sir thank you -- dot.