Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Twelve years after we were attacked by al-Qaeda.
Twelve years after 3000 Americans were killed by al-Qaeda.
President Obama now asks us to be allies with al-Qaeda.
Americans by a large majority want nothing to do with the Syrian civil war.
We fail to see -- national security interest in a war between a leader who -- is his own citizens.
And Islamic rebels who were killing Christians.
Some argue that American credibility is on the line.
That because President Obama drew a red line with chemical weapons.
America must act or lose credibility.
I would argue that America's credibility does not resign -- one man.
If our enemies wish to know if America would defend herself let them look no farther than our response to 9/11.
When attacked we responded with overwhelming force and with the military objective of complete victory over our attackers.
The Reagan doctrine.
Grew out of his experience in the Middle East Reagan's Defense Secretary spelled out a systematic approach to our involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.
The American people must be support it overwhelmingly support.
But most importantly.
Our mission must be to win.
There's no clearly defined mission in Syria.
No clearly defined American interest in fact the Obama administration has specifically stated.
That no military solution exists.
They have said that the war will be unbelievably.
Small and limited.
To meet it sounds like they're pre announcing.
That the military strikes will not -- aside personally or -- regime change.
It is said that America must act to prevent aside from using chemical weapons again.
But is unknown whether attacking side encourages him or discourages him.
It is equally likely that aside could feel cornered and resort to chemical weapons in an expanded fashion.
It's equally likely that the bombing could destabilize the side and he could lose control the chemical weapons.
The Obama administration has indicated that it would take 75000.
Ground troops to secure the weapons.
And that they're prepared to do just that despite the resolutions admonition against ground troops.
The question must be ask -- -- US bombing campaign make it more or less likely that a son loses control the chemical weapons.
The same question can be asked of a series of bad outcomes.
Would -- US bombing campaign make it more or less likely that it's not attacks Israel with chemical weapons.
What do bombing campaign make it more or less likely that refugees stream into Jordan.
Just the threat of bombing has increased the flow of refugees.
Would a bombing campaign in Syria make the region more or less stable.
Would it make it more or less likely that Iran or Russia becomes more involved.
Just about any bad outcome you can imagine.
Is made more likely by US involvement in the Syrian civil war.
In the past 24 hours Russia has offered to broker a deal with Syria to have their chemical weapons put under international control.
Diplomacy is sincere would be a welcome resolution the Syrian foreign minister is indicated an interest in the proposal.
Can we trust the participants in this plan.
Diplomacy is always a mixture of trust distrust -- watchful us.
We should not be nineties and we should have a solid plan and safeguards in place as part of any solution.
As Reagan put it we must trust but verify.
Some will say that only the threat of force brought Russia and Syria to the negotiating table.
In fact though Russia has been negotiating with the US for over a year to find a resolution to the Syrian civil war.
The possibility of a diplomatic solution is a good thing that we must proceed with caution on the details but one thing's for certain.
The chance for diplomacy would not have occurred without strong voices against an immediate bombing campaign.
If we had simply gone to war last week.
Or the week before as many advocated we wouldn't be looking at a possible solution today.
The voices of those in congress and the overwhelming number of Americans who stood up in -- slow down.
Allow this possible solution to take shape.
Will diplomacy win today.
No one could tell for certain.
But on a broader issue it is an important day though in the sense that a president recognized.
His constitutional duty.
And came to seek congressional authority for the war.
If the vote occurs I will vote no and encourage my colleagues to vote no as well.
The president has not made a compelling case that American interests are at risk and Syria.
The threshold for war should be a significant one.
The president maintains that he still has the power to initiate war this is untrue.
The constitution gave the power to declare -- -- congress.
James Madison road.
That the constitution's.
What history demonstrates.
That the executive is the branch most prone to war.
Therefore the constitution with studied care.
-- the power to declare war in the legislature.
This is no small question.
I see the vote on whether to go to war and very personal terms.
I will not vote to send my son your son or anyone's daughter to war -- -- a compelling American interest is present.
I'm not convinced that we have a compelling interest in the Syrian civil war.
May god help us make the wise decision here and avoid an unnecessary war.
Filter by section