all boring we had trouble in syria
president of ahmed said that using chemical weapons
was a rather line here's defense secretary chuck hagel
we cannot confirm the origin of these weapons
but we do believe that any use of chemical weapons in syria
would very likely have been originated
with the inside me
as a letter states
the president has made clear that the use of chemical weapons
where the transfer such weapons to terrorist groups
would be an acceptable
unacceptable what does that mean is that the world war
well it's every more facts here
that turns out john kerry our secretary of state is saying that it appears a
chemical weapons were used twice
we believe but is checking or alluded to there were not positive that it was a
side rejeen
and we might be partly saying that because uh... i really want to go to war
for saw president mama sent a letter through his legislative director miguel
rodriguez and says
aren't elders community does assess
woodbury
in degrees of competence
the syrian regime has used chemical weapons
a small-scale syria
specifically the chemical agent
thatcher pagal
professor terry just heard in there he also said use of chemical weapons
violates every convention of warfare
so obvious is a very serious issue present no bomb a
has called it egging changer
name change obviously is very important terminology given that
right now the game we're playing is not going to war
the we might be playing soon
is going to war
he also said the use
or transfer of such weapons in syria
was a red line for the united states those a strong words part of walk back
and also in that letter sent by uh... miguel rodriguez
spin for president obama
because the president takes his issue so seriously
we have an obligation to fully investigate any and
all evidence
of chemical weapons within syria
uh... there we go there's the brakes
so to ask you what you did
then plan on that
so and now it's well julie let's to get wait a minute now first of all it's
about seeing
our initial investigation indicates there is no world series
now when there was a little activity rather whether they didn't have the
weapon
in let me uh...
he was crushing his own people moammar qaddafi was addicted now whose
we had business deals with them
four the rebellion began and he was a dictator for forty some ideas about
going
but he's got a little
and then when he was crushes on people wheel and i was in favor of that
cuz i want to send a message
that you can do this to your own people if you're a brutal dictator now the
problem is
as soon as we sent that message and that's why is unfair to the persian gulf
war i really do believe unprecedented really do i think it's important
and he stick with it
it can work
but the problem is that letter we sent a message
we immediately send a counter message that is directly opposite of that so for
example the prefers persian gulf war we said hey let's say you cannot invade a
sovereign country that did not attack you that's a saddam hussein did he
crossed the border of kuwait
was in kuwait and we had to go to remove that now
we did remove saddam we just
rockaway back to it's original
rulers unfortunately but
the people who of course word runs the country
so that was a good precedent to set
it you can bring stability cousin accent so many things and i kind of a country
accidentally
or maybe a man is coming to class
as you think twice about it
and the whole world really 'cause that was oh worldwide operations
now foresee right after that we destroyed our president
by attacking iraq
under george w bush
iraq didn't attack us
and emily newman nine eleven indian developers of mass destruction
there was no justification whatsoever even if it had to have the army's is
still no justification
frances w_a_m_u_ should we made them
at saddam was no threat to us
and they could never prove that he did not attack us
so that precedent set by george h w bush
was destroyed by george w_ bush now in libya we set the precedent in here
dictator hugo in after on people and mastering them
we're gonna coming actually right i was in favor of that and then bashar assad
does it is syria would go well
on the other hand we're a little tired of all the wars and syria has no oil so
good luck to you folks
now it's not a matter of taking their oil it's much more complicated than that
if there is
a lot of people making money in a certain countries there was a libya
as some people had contracts in the country they want to protect them
some like france did not have a lot of oil contracts in libya and they were
looking forward to getting some keep it real
now france i thought that a great job in libya but that was a very realistic
part of their equation
so now is syria now a lot of people are making money so they liked it
take-it-or-leave-it
now in this case it we send a message that
crossing at red line is unacceptable i would be in favor of it
the problem of course it is
we cross our own red lines
that mount of birth defects info lucia an imposter a are about twenty times the
size
for the birth defects after he or she might not be sake nuclear bombs
we use white phosphorus
and we use depleted uranium
those are tama coles and they happen to be in weapon formed
so
god i wish our government wasn't full of hypocrisy
act because i believe that america could be graded could be a great example and
has been in the past
when we said of the united nations the marshall plan
idea of spreading human rights democracy throughout the world
godly violate our own redlined so often
now finally as serious as officials said the white house letter
was not and automatic trigger for policy decisions
on the use of military force
in other words what they're saying is
we said we'd go to war
but we're not quite so sure
is not just the oil situations not just the financial situation
which are aside didn't cause too much trouble for israel we didn't really like
elmo but we could tolerate him
now the people who are fighting m were not so sure they someone could be good
guys some could be bad guys
who really want to incharge we don't know enhanced no action whatsoever
now in this is a very hard won a predict will we actually start to take military
action like using our air force on clear
should we
roof that's a tough question
if we were going to continue doing
to do the right things go on for if we're not going to be hypocritical that
i would say yes
it's a good example of a good precedent the set
and that is a good redlined have that every time somebody things not pushing a
button
and chemical biological nuclear weapons they think twice
unfortunately all too often we have violated
those same precedence that we said
almost immediately thereafter
so becomes a much harder question
but if he is allowed to use chemical weapons
he's got a helluva lot more of them
annie might start to use them more and more knowing that there are no
consequences
overall
if i was the president
i would think that i would very seriously consider
starting to bring our air power into their knoll troops on the ground
spun irrevocably has with this area
try to take the
you know the good guys according to our definition
obviously we have to be concerned about our own national security in our own
interests is no question about that
but uh...
airpower is incredibly determined of oftentimes or not always
well look at what it did in libya and india the rebels an enormous advantage
given that he seems to have crossed the red line here in syria i would move
probably air power to go against bashar assad
but again that's with the big
if of if we can continue to hold that precedent
and not so be hip so hypocritical
with the rest of our actions