TONIGHT. 4:30 IN THE MORNING MOSCOW TIME.
THANK YOU. HERE IN STUDIO WITH US IN NEW
YORK, THE TOP DEMOCRAT ON THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE,
CONGRESSMAN ADAM SCHIFF OF CALIFORNIA.
GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE TONIGHT. >> IT'S GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.
>> WE NEVER KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WITHIN YOUR REMIT OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE THE SUBJECT OR DISCUSSION
TONIGHT. OBVIOUSLY IT'S THIS NEWS THAT
THE UNITED STATES HAS LAUNCHED NEARLY 60 TOMAHAWK CRUISE
MISSILES, APPARENTLY FROM SHIPS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN, TARGETING
A SYRIAN AIR BASE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THAT COUNTRY.
LET ME FIRST GET YOUR REACTION, FIND OUT HOW MUCH YOU KNOW ABOUT
THIS. >> WELL, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE NOT LONG I THINK
AFTER THE MISSILES WERE ON THEIR WAY AND HE HAS CLEARED ME TO
SHARE THIS. IT WAS I THINK CLOSE TO 70
MISSILES FIRED FROM SHIP AT A SINGLE TARGET.
THAT TARGET WAS THE AIRFIELD WHERE IT'S BELIEVED THAT THE
CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK ORIGINATED FROM.
IT IS, I THINK, AT THE PRESENT NOT THE INTENTION TO HAVE MORE
THAN THIS SINGLE STRIKE, BUT, OF COURSE, THE ADMINISTRATION IS
RESERVING THEIR OPTIONS DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE REGIME
RESPONDS AGAINST OUR TROOPS OR TAKES ANY OTHER ACTION AGAINST
THE U.S. TARGETS OR ALLIES. BUT IT WAS OUR BEST INTELLIGENCE
PER THE DIRECTOR THAT THIS IS WHERE THE ATTACK, THE CHEMICAL
WEAPONS ATTACK ORIGINATED FROM AND THAT WAS THE RESPONSE.
>> WHEN YOU SAY THIS IS WHERE THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK
ORIGINATED FROM, MEANING THAT SYRIAN AIRCRAFT THAT DROPPED
MUNITIONS THAT APPEAR TO BE
CHEMICAL WEAPONS MUNITIONS ON TUESDAY, THAT'S WHERE THEY TOOK
OFF FROM SP. >> THE FIELD AND FACILITIES
INVOLVED IN CREATING THE CHEMICAL MUNITIONS THAT WOULD GO
ON THAT AIRCRAFT. THIS, OF COURSE, ISN'T THE FIRST
CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK BY THE REGIME AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE
CONCERNS THAT I HAVE ABOUT THE ACTION TONIGHT, I CERTAINLY
THINK IT WAS ON THE RANGE OF MILITARY OPTIONS ONE OF THE MORE
LIMITED OPTIONS. IT DIDN'T UTILIZE AIRCRAFT.
THERE WASN'T THE RISK OF LOSS OF LIFE OF OUR PILOTS.
THEY ALSO EVIDENTLY DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO VET THE
SITE TO MAKE SURE THERE WOULDN'T BE HUMAN CASUALTIES, WOULDN'T BE
RUSSIAN CASUALTIES, BUT IT IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY ABRUPT CHANGE
OF COURSE BY THE ADMINISTRATION FROM JUST A FEW DAYS AGO WHEN
THEY SAID BASICALLY IT'S UP TO THE SYRIAN PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHO
WILL REMAIN THE LEADER OF SYRIA, AS IF THE RUSSIANS, THE
IRANIANS, HEZBOLLAH, WEREN'T INVOLVED, AND, OF COURSE, THIS
WASN'T THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN THOSE TERRIBLE IMAGES, BUT IT
WAS THE FIRST TIME WE GOT A SENSE THAT THE PRESIDENT
RECOGNIZED THE GRAVITY OF HIS OFFICE BECAUSE THOSE WERE VERY
MUCH THE SAME KIND OF PHOTOS PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS CONFRONTED
WITH AND OF COURSE, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD A VERY DIFFERENT
REACTION WHEN HE WASN'T THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF, NOW HE IS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I WOULD CERTAINLY STRONGLY CAUTION THE
ADMINISTRATION NOT TO MAKE THIS A MILITARY EFFORT TO CHANGE THE
REGIME. NOW, I FULLY CONCUR THAT THE
REGIME HAS TO GO, BECAUSE AS LONG AS ASSAD IS THERE, THAT
FIGHTING IS GOING TO GO ON, THAT TERRIBLE WAR IS GOING TO GO ON,
BUT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED VIA THE AIR
AT A STANDOFF LOCATION. AT MOST WE CAN HOPE THAT THIS
WILL DETER THE REGIME FROM USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAIN.
THAT IS PROBABLY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING YOU COULD HOPE
FOR AS WELL AS A DETERRENT TO OTHER REGIMES IN THE FUTURE BY
USING CHEMICAL WEAPONS, BUT THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF ISSUES
TO BE RESOLVED AND ONE OF THEM FOR THE CONGRESS IS ALL OF THIS
IS BEING DONE, NOT JUST THE ATTACK TODAY, BUT THE PRESENCE
OF OUR TROOPS THERE, ALL OF THIS IS BEING DONE WITHOUT ANY
CONGRESSIONAL VOTE, ANY CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND
CONGRESS REALLY NEEDS TO DEAL WITH THIS.
>> WAS THIS STRIKE LEGAL? >> WELL, I DID ASK THE DIRECTOR
THAT QUESTION. WHAT'S THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS?
WHAT'S THE U.S. LEGAL BASIS AND WHAT'S THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL
BASIS? THAT WAS OUT OF HIS LANE AS I
THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE, THAT'S REALLY NOT DIRECTLY
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DNI. BUT THAT'S A QUESTION CONGRESS
NEEDS TO ASK. I THINK WE ALREADY KNOW THE
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IN TERMS OF U.S. LAW AND THAT IS NONE OF
WHAT WE'RE DOING IN SYRIA IS AUTHORIZED AND THIS IS AN ISSUE
I TOOK WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
I INTRODUCED THE AUMF THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE USE OF FORCE
AGAINST ISIS IN AL QAEDA. I'M GOING TO BE REINTRODUCING
THAT AFTER THE RECESS. EVEN THAT AUTHORIZATION, EVEN
THE ARGUMENT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION USED THAT THE
PRE-EXISTING AUTHO AUTHORIZATIOE BROAD ENOUGH TO GO AFTER ISIS IN
SYRIA, THAT RATIONALE DOESN'T HOLD UP.
EVEN IF IT DID, IT WOULDN'T EXTEND TO ATTACKS LIKE THIS ONE
ON THE REGIME. >> IF THE ADMINISTRATION SEES
THIS AS A STANDALONE, ONE-OFF STRIKE, THAT THIS ISN'T THE
FIRST IN AN ESCALATING MILITARY CAMPAIGN, YOU SEEM TO INDICATE
THAT WAS THE GIST OF THE MESSAGE TONIGHT THAT YOU GOT FROM THE
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.
DOES THAT EFFECT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LEGAL?
DOES A ONE-OFF STRIKE REQUIRE A DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF
AUTHORIZATION FROM ESCALATING CAMPAIGN?
>> NO, THE CONGRESS SHOULD STILL
BE INVOLVED IN THE AUTHORIZATION EVEN OF A SINGLE ATTACK OF THIS
MAGNITUDE. THERE MAY BE A LEGAL RATIONALE
THAT THE WHITE HOUSE OFFERS THAT, WELL, THESE CHEMICAL
WEAPONS WERE A THREAT TO OUR OWN TROOPS, THEY COULD HAVE BEEN
USED AGAINST OUR TROOPS. THAT'S A TOUGH ARGUMENT TO MAKE
I THINK HERE. THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S THE
CHALLENGE OF MAKING THE ARGUMENT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOR THE
INTERVENTION. THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION WAS SIMILARLY WRESTLING WITH.
BUT IT'S REALLY CLEAR, I THINK WHAT THE CONGRESSIONAL
OBLIGATION IS HERE, AND THAT IS WE STILL NEED TO HAVE A VOTE ON
WHETHER WE SHOULD BE USING MILITARY FORCE AT ALL IN SYRIA.
AND UNFORTUNATELY OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, THERE'S BEEN THIS
TERRIBLE CONFLUENCE OF INTEREST BETWEEN THEN THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION WHICH DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO DEVOTE THE POLITICAL
PLUSSING TO GETTING THAT THROUGH THE CONGRESS, AND A CONGRESS
THAT DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.
A FEW OF US HAVE BEEN TRYING, TIM KAINE, MYSELF AND A HANDFUL
OF OTHERS, BUT WE'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO GENERATE SUFFICIENT
POLITICAL WILL TO ACTUALLY FORCE A VOTE ON THIS.
>> CONGRESSMAN, LET ME ASK YOU TO GO BACK TO THE INITIAL POINT
THAT YOU RAISED WHICH IS THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS THAT LED
TO THIS. OBVIOUSLY, THIS DOES REPRESENT A
MAJOR SHIFT IN COURSE BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
NOT JUST TO ESCALATE TO MILITARY FORCE, BUT TO STRIKE AGAINST THE
SYRIAN REGIME AT ALL. AS YOU MENTIONED LAST WEEK, THE
SECRETARY OF STATE WAS SAYING A WEEK AGO TODAY THE SECRETARY OF
STATE WAS SAYING IT'S UP TO THE SYRIAN PEOPLE WHETHER OR NOT
ASSAD MUST GO. WE ALSO HAD THE U.N. AMBASSADOR
NIKKI HALEY SAYING LAST WEEK THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT
LOOKING TO BRING ABOUT REGIME CHANGE.
THE PRESIDENT, HIMSELF, FACED WITH PREVIOUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS
ATTACKS BY BASHAR AL ASSAD HAD SAID THERE SHOULD BE NO
INVASION, SHOULD BE NO U.S. MILITARY FORCE IN RESPONSE.
THERE HAS BEEN A 180-DEGREE TURN THAT HAS -- THAT WAS NOT
SIGNALED FOR VERY LONG, THAT CAME ABOUT VERY, VERY RAPIDLY.
WHAT IS YOUR PERCEPTION OF WHY THAT HAPPENED, WHAT ARE YOUR
CONCERNS ABOUT THAT? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THIS ATTACK
ON TUESDAY WAS JUST SO EGREGIOUS THAT IT WAS WORTH THROWING OUT
THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS STRATEGY AND INVENTING A NEW ONE ON THE SPOT?
>> WELL, I HAVE A COUPLE REACTIONS.
THE FIRST IS, IN THAT FOOTAGE WE SAW SO OFTEN OF THOSE
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THOSE KIDS THAT WERE SUFFOCATING, YOU ALSO
HAD -- I DON'T KNOW AS A PHYSICIAN OR A PARENT WHO WAS
SAYING NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
HOW CAN THE WORLD ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN?
NO ONE IS DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.
THAT TO ME IS THE MOST POWERFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST STANDING STILL,
DOING NOTHING. THAT GENTLEMAN I THINK MADE THE
MOST POWERFUL AND ELOQUENT ARGUMENT THAT SOMETHING HAS TO
BE DONE AND WE HAVE THIS OFTEN PARALYSIS IN THE UNITED NATIONS
WHICH IS REALLY THE BODY THAT OUGHT TO AUTHORIZE ACTION
AGAINST PEOPLE WHO ARE GASSING THEIR OWN CITIZENS.
BUT WITH A RUSSIAN VETO, WITH THE CHINESE VETO OR INACTION,
GETTING THAT DONE HAS BEEN IMPOSSIBLE.
BUT WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT? DOES THE WORLD JUST SIT STILL
AND LET PEOPLE BE GASSED? I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT
THE ADMINISTRATION IS CONFRONTING.
THIS ADMINISTRATION AND THE LAST ADMINISTRATION.
WHAT CONCE CONCERNS ME ABOUT TH 24, 48 HOURS, IS THIS ATTACK, AS
AWFUL AS IT WAS, IT WASN'T THE FIRST.
IT'S ONE OF SEVERAL BY THE REGIME, AND IT DOES CONCERN ME
THAT WE NOT HAVE AN IMPULSIVE ADMINISTRATION THAT IS READY TO
COMPLETELY CHANGE DIRECTION, THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY THINKING
THROUGH WHAT ARE ALL THE CONSEQUENCES HERE?
WHAT I WOULD HAVE ARGUED BEFORE TODAY IS WE USE COERCIVE
DIPLOMACY WITH RUSSIA. THEY MADE THIS BARGAIN.
THEY BROKERED THIS BARGAIN. ASSAD WOULD GET RID OF HIS
CHEMICAL WEAPONS. HE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T.
AND USE COERCIVE PRESSURE, BUILD PRESSURE TO USE FORCE IF RUSSIA
DOESN'T GET THEIR CLIENT UNDER CONTROL AND PUT AN END TO THIS.
AND THE MARSHALING OF THAT COALITION WOULD HAVE PUT A LOT
OF PRESSURE ON RUSSIA. THAT'S ALL IN THE REARVIEW
MIRROR AT THIS POINT. YOU KNOW, IT DOES, I THINK, SEND
THE MESSAGE TO OTHER PLACES LIKE NORTH KOREA THAT THIS
ADMINISTRATION IS NOT UNWILLING TO USE FORCE, AND, YOU KNOW,
THAT MAY HAVE A SALUTARY IMPACT IN OTHER PLACES BUT I DO WORRY
THAT THIS PRESIDENT WHO NOW HAS THIS RESPONSIBILITY OF OFFICE
NOT ACT IMPULSIVELY, THAT THESE THINGS REALLY NEED TO BE THOUGHT
THROUGH. IF WE'RE LUCKY, THERE WON'T HAVE
BEEN CIVILIAN CASUALTIES AND IF WE'RE LUCKIER STILL, THERE WON'T
HAVE BEEN RUSSIAN CASUALTIES, BUT EVEN THESE SINGLE STRIKES
CAN HAVE A DANGER OF GETTING AWAY FROM THEIR ORIGINAL
PURPOSE. >> LET ALONE TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE KNOCK-ON CONSEQUENCES WILL BE IN TERMS OF
WAY ALL THE MULTI VARIATE ACTORS RESPOND.
ONE OF THE THINGS YOU HOPE HAS BEEN GAMED OUT IN ADVANCE.
ADAM SCHIFF, THANK YOU FOR HELPING US UNDERSTAND THIS
TONIGHT. APPRECIATE IT, SIR.
I WILL ASK YOU IF WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT
TONIGHT, AND WE'RE ADVISED THAT WE MAY HEAR FROM THE PRESIDENT
TONIGHT, CAN WE ASK YOU BACK IN TERMS OF RESPONDING TO WHAT THE
PRESIDENT SAYS? >>
For more infomation >> Buster's Mal Heart - Trailer #2 (2017) SUBTITULADO CC - Duration: 2:40. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét