Face the Nation transcripts September 8, 2013: McDonough, Rogers, Amash, Cummings

(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on September 8, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, Reps. Mike Rogers, Elijah Cummings, and Justin Amash, CBS News' Clarissa Ward and Elizabeth Palmer, and a panel with David Ignatius, David Sanger, Bob Woodward, Danielle Pletka, and Bill Kristol. Plus, CBS News' Charlie Rose previews his interview with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

SCHIEFFER: Today on Face the Nation, breaking news -- CBS News man Charlie Rose has just interviewed Syrian President Bashar al- Assad. We'll have a report. And we'll get reaction from White House chief of staff Dennis McDonough only on Face the Nation.

ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington, Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer.

SCHIEFFER: And good morning, again, Charlie Rose, as we just reported, has interviewed Bashar al-Assad in Syria. He is in Beirut this morning now. Well, Charlie let's get right to it, what did he tell you?

CHARLIE ROSE, CBS NEWS: Well, he denied that he had anything to do with the attack. He denied that he knew, in fact, that there was a chemical attack, notwithstanding what has been said, and notwithstanding the videotape. He said there's not evidence yet to make a conclusive judgment. He would not say, even though I read him the lead paragraph of The New York Times today, and the story about their chemical weapons supply. And he said I can't confirm or deny that we have chemical weapons. He did, however, say that in fact if we do have them -- and I'm not going to say yes or no -- they're in centralized control, so no one else has access to them. He suggested, as he has before, that perhaps the rebels had something to do with it. He made some references to Aleppo. The most important thing as he basically says is that there has no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people. There is no evidence of that. And if, in fact the evidence has evidence, then they should show that evidence and make their case. I then obviously repeated the fact that Secretary Kerry is in the process of making the case. And that, in fact, that information is being shown to members of congress, as they begin to come back to Washington and consider an authorization for the president to make a military strike. He said that he did not necessarily know whether or not there was going to be a strike, obviously. That they were prepared as they could be for a strike. He said there would be -- suggested there would be, among people that are aligned with him, some kind of retaliation if a strike was made, that that would be what would be -- but he would not talk about any kind of the nature of the response. He had a message to the American people that it had not been a good experience for them to get involved in the Middle East in wars and conflict in the Middle East, that the result had not been good, and that they should not get involved, and that they should communicate through their congress and through their leadership in Washington not to authorize a strike.

SCHIEFFER: Well Charlie, did he seem resigned to the fact that the United States is probably going to attack? Or did he predict that congress wouldn't approve this? Did you get any kind of sense of what he thinks is going to happen next?

ROSE: Bob, that was the very first question I asked: do you expect an attack? He said, I don't know. He said we're prepared as best we can. He did not say that he assumed that there would be an attack in Syria because of the chemical weapons. I also pursued the question of whether there was anything that he was prepared to do to stop the attack, for example, to give up chemical weapons, if that would stop the attack. I also raised the question with him that did he fear that if there was an attack it would degrade his own military and therefore make it more likely that it might tip the balance. He's very, very concerned about that as an issue. He talked about his father, and the lessons he had learned from his father, that war was ruthless, and that (inaudible) his father went all out to destroy, at that time, the Muslim Brotherhood. So he was calm. He knew the situation he was in. In fact, Damascus seemed relatively calm, the places that I was today. But there's a clear sense they are closely watching what is happening in Washington. I think the reason they did this interview today -- we've been trying for a long time, but did it today because they're watching what happens in Washington.

SCHIEFFER: The interview will air in its entirety Monday night on the Charlie Rose Show on PBS. Excerpts of the interview will air for the first time on CBS this morning tomorrow with more on subsequent CBS News broadcast. Back here in Washington, we turn now to the White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. I'll just start, what is your reaction to what you just heard?

MCDONOUGH: Well, I think that the most important thing is what Charlie said at the end, which is he said that Assad is clearly watching -- closely watching what is happening in Washington. You know Bob, I spent the last couple of weeks talking to dozens of members of congress. To a person, they do not rebut or deny or negate the intelligence. So, that tells us that we all believe that on August 21st, he used chemical weapons against his own people in what is the largest chemical weapons attack in nearly three decades. So the question then for congress, and it's square on the table this week, is should there be consequences for somebody who has used these terrible weapons to gas and to kill more than a thousand people, including hundreds of children, and what should those consequences be? The answer to this question is be closely followed, as Charlie said, in Damascus but also in Tehran and among Lebanese Hezbollah and others. So it's important that congress be a full partner in this effort and that they pass this resolution so that we can send a clear and very convincing message to someone who clearly is not understanding his requirements to the international community.

SCHIEFFER: What you're saying is that he is just a liar?

MCDONOUGH: What I'm saying is that he clearly is misleading. He -- it does appear to me to be a lie. Every indication we have is that he -- and every member of congress I've spoken to accepts the intelligence that they carried out this attack. And so what we need now is to communicate very clearly what is expected of him. And what is expected of him is to live up to the prohibition now, almost a hundred years old, against using these dastardly weapons to gas women and children.

SCHIEFFER: He said at one point in the interview if the United States has the evidence, show the evidence.

MCDONOUGH: Well, you know, you've seen these terrible videos, Bob, and others have seen these terrible videos. And I hope every member of congress...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that's evidence enough?

MCDONOUGH: I'm saying that I hope every member of congress looks at those videos before they make up his or her mind how to vote on this resolution. Because to hold him to accountable for this terrible action we need congress to vote yes for that resolution.

SCHIEFFER: The president is going to talk to the American people on Tuesday night. What can he say that he hasn't already said?

MCDONOUGH: Well, I think it's most important that people hear directly from him. I think he's been saying this. And we want to make sure that the whole country is able to hear him, because undertaking an action using force, even targeted and limited force, no boots on ground, contained effort, even use of force of that nature is consequential, and so the president wants to make sure the whole country hears him. And what he'll tell the country is this is targeted, which is targeted, limited consequential force. He'll also tell the country what this is not. This is not Iraq. This is not Afghanistan. This is not an extended air campaign like in Libya. This is a targeted effort. And it's reasonable and absolutely understandable for the American people after the last 11, 12 years we've been through to be asking tough questions, and we intend to answer them.

SCHIEFFER: You say that the people who see the evidence, no one rebuts the evidence, if you've shown them. Yet, there are a lot of people in both parties, as you well know, who are very much opposed to this. Why do you think that is? Is it politics? Is it they don't think it's effective? Because I have to tell you they think you're losing support with every passing day. There's another indication every day that somebody else comes out against giving the president this authority.

MCDONOUGH: Yeah, well you know, we think it's too early to jump to conclusions about who's where, because frankly members have been in their states and in their districts and have not had a chance to see all that we are ready to brief them on. Those who have seen it are very compelled, as I've said to you. Now the question becomes then, why is it that there's such opposition? I think it's understandable, Bob, which is that we have been through 11 or 12 years of tremendous sacrifice. And we are learning our lessons from that. And the president has learned our lessons from that, that's why we're talking about here is targeted, limited operations with a very narrow objectives. We're not talking about overturning a government or occupation. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan. We're talking about very consequential action to reinforce a prohibition against these weapons. You know, it's important think here, Bob...

SCHIEFFER: Let me just -- could I just interrupt you. Isn't that what we always hear? That it's going to be a limited -- Vietnam was going to be a limited situation. Iraq was going to be a limited situation. You say it's not Iraq, and I don't disagree with you. But isn't it...

MCDONOUGH: Well, I think that's correct.

SCHIEFFER: ...once you go down the road. Isn't it difficult once you start down these roads , then it's always, well, we need a just little bit more and a little bit more?

MCDONOUGH: It is important to recognize that we need to be disciplined to not allow the mission to creep and not allow ourselves to be pulled into the middle of this. And keeping congress engaged will help ensure that we do that. But, I also want to be clear about -- on Iraq, you know what, the president opposed Iraq, because he knew it was an inchoate mission with unplanned for consequences, unbudgeted for costs. And we saw the result of that. And that's why the president undertook the effort that he did with our military leadership to end that war. So we've learned our lessons from that. And so we have a very targeted narrow mission. And we're asking congress to be a full partner in that to ensure just that.

SCHIEFFER: What happens if you don't get this approval?

MCDONOUGH: Well, look, I'm not going to engage in any hypotheticals here. But here's what I do believe.

SCHIEFFER: Well, what would the impact of that be?

MCDONOUGH: Well, here's what I do believe, right? I do believe that, if Congress wants to hold the Assad regime account -- to account, and if Congress wants to make sure that the Iranians, Hezbollah and others understand that you cannot have greater operating space to pursue weapons of mass destruction like the nuclear program in Iran, then they have to vote yes for this resolution.

SCHIEFFER: But what if -- what if -- the president has drawn a red line; the United States credibility has been put on the line when he does that. What if Congress doesn't give him the authority to go ahead? How will -- how will that play around the world to our friends and allies?

MCDONOUGH: Well, that's -- I think that we are going to make every effort to make sure that Congress -- and this is not an empty exercise, Bob. We are working this very aggressively, having already briefed more than a hundred members to make sure that they have all the information that they need and that they can make this decision. Because if they want to hold Assad to account for carrying out this attack using poison gases, chemical weapons to kill upwards of 400 children, then they have to vote yes on this resolution.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think you will get this?

MCDONOUGH: I have every -- every confidence that we'll be able to get this. Because I know that Congress will want -- having seen those videos, having seen the intelligence which no one rebuts, I believe Congress will be -- will want to support thus resolution. SCHIEFFER: Mr. McDonough, thank you so much for being with us.

MCDONOUGH: Thanks for having me, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: We taped that just a minute ago. And joining us now -- he's been sitting here with me listening -- the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers. He, of course, is a Republican. Mr. McDonough says he thinks Congress will give him, give the president the approval. Do you think so?

ROGERS: Well, I think it's an uphill slog from here. And part of the problem was they started today or last week. They really needed to start two years ago on this process and really haven't done it. So they don't have strong relationships in Congress today -- that's a huge problem for them -- and candidly have done an awful job explaining to the American people what is in our national security, what is the national United States interests in any level of engagement in a place like Syria. None of that...

SCHIEFFER: I would just -- I would just say at this point, that I don't know anybody who thinks, if the vote were held today, that they would get this, that the Congress would go along. Do you disagree with that?

ROGERS: I can't disagree. And the only thing more confusing to me that what their Syria strategy has been the last two years is their strategy to try to get buy-in by the representatives in Congress and the American people. It is a confusing mess up to this point, and that has been, I think, their biggest challenge on what is an incredibly important issue. And this cannot be about Barack Obama. It has to be about what is in the best interests of the United States of America. We have to have that debate and that discussion.

SCHIEFFER: You want this. You want Congress to give him the approval. What exactly do you want them to approve?

ROGERS: Well, first of all, I believe in that -- that great adage of peace through strength. And we have lost that; we've muddled that. And that means that we will suffer the consequences of that in the future. We've -- we have got to get back to that. I don't think we should even debate a very limited -- I mean, the first part of this is not to debate about which missile leaves what ship and hits what target. That is a serious mistake. This is bigger than that. And so when you look at all our national security interests, that first bit being how do we make sure that chemical weapons that have been used -- and by the way, this is a pattern of use over a year. This was not the first time. No intervention caused a greater scale of use, and they're using it to their political and tactical advantage, including killing civilians. They believe that helps them. That's why we got here. So what we need to do is say, listen, why don't we empower the president so that we have the credibility for a negotiated settlement. We should stop talking about limited actions and how this works. And nobody, by the way, is calling for massive military intervention. A, it wouldn't work. It would be bad for our national security interests. But right now, we do not -- we, the United States of America doesn't have the credibility to go to the opposition and say stop shooting; we're going to negotiate with Assad for two weeks on bringing this to a conclusion and getting him out of power. That's one great way we have to protect the chemical and conventional weapons. So what we ought to do, as members of Congress, is have a thorough debate about all of the levels of our national security interests: the first, as we said, chemical weapons and conventional weapons. If that spreads throughout the Levant and gets into Europe, we are going to pay a heavy price. The next level up, Iran. They have been a bad actor here. They're using it as a proxy war. This is beyond a Syrian civil war. It's a proxy way. You have Hezbollah troops fighting on behalf of Assad at Iran's direction. You have the Russians there providing military assistance and, I argue, military hardware and military goods, all of that stirring a pot that says, if we don't find a solution here that means having credibility to find that solution, which may mean military strikes, we are going -- this thing is going to descend even further out of control...

(CROSSTALK)

SCHIEFFER: Do you -- do you think the president hurt his case by saying he wanted to go to the Congress?

ROGERS: Well, I think the way it happened was mystifying to me. So the president announces it on a Saturday, doesn't call Congress back. If you were going to do that, call them back for a serious national security debate -- I think that had to happen -- review the evidence that we had so you could have a quick order of events. Instead, he announced it and then left -- he left the country for a week. And so members were back in their districts without access to the classified information they needed, I think, to come to a good conclusion.

SCHIEFFER: So you think he's actually lost support in the last week?

ROGERS: I think it's very clear he's lost support in the last week. And again, it's difficult to try to make a decision if you don't have access to the classified information. Not everybody could get back at the times that were stipulated for getting those briefings. And again, my frustration is I think that this is an important piece of America's national security moving forward. And it does mean our relationship with Russia. It does mean do we get a nuclear Iran or not? Can we contain North Korea and its efforts? By the way, they have huge chemical and biological stockpiles that make us all very nervous. The decisions we make here will impact those decisions that those countries make on the use of these kinds of weapons. That's why this is so important to the world national security and U.S. national security.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this question. A lot of the members, both Democrats and Republicans, are saying the reaction from their constituents is overwhelmingly against any kind of action here. Are you getting that kind of reaction?

ROGERS: Absolutely. I mean, people in my -- and...

SCHIEFFER: And you're willing to go ahead and support this even though your constituents are against it?

ROGERS: Well, again, these are national security issues. So, as a representative democracy, we need to come here and we need to have this debate. I completely understand why people are skeptical of this. You have a reluctant commander in chief, first of all, who's trying to come to the American people and say, "I'm going to do something, but I'm not going to do a lot." They're not sure exactly what we're trying to do. I mean, that's what American people are hearing. And hearing that, I'm skeptical as well, and I'm frustrated with this president in his steps on Syria and other foreign policy issues that got us to the place that we are today. But the problem is here, if we just make it about us versus -- us being Congress or the American people against -- our frustrations against this president, we miss the big picture about what is in the best interest of U.S. national security interests. Small and effective now saves big and ugly later. So we're either going to pay this price now or we're going to pay a bigger price later. The president hasn't made the case. Again, it's confounding. They're going to send up this week -- think about this. This tells you the relationship with Congress, and it's not great. They're sending up Susan Rice to brief Congress on the year anniversary of Benghazi, and they're trying to win votes. I mean, the credibility gap there is huge. They need to regroup here, think about where they want to go and make this about America's national security, not just how many targets they're going to strike in Syria.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. Chairman, thank you for being with us. And we'll be back and talk to two of our correspondents who have been in Syria.

SCHIEFFER: And we're back with more from Syria. CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer is the only American network reporter who has been allowed to report from Damascus lately. And our foreign correspondent Clarissa Ward is near the Turkish-Syrian border. She spent some time with the rebels inside Syria earlier this week. We'll start with Elizabeth. Elizabeth, what are you hearing this morning?

ELIZABETH PALMER, CBS CORRESPONDENT: You know, Bob, one of the really saddest things about this civil war is that it has silenced the democratic opposition here in the capital. Two years ago when the demonstrations were on, people thought they might be getting a choice between the dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad and something better. Well, that's no longer the case. We have got assassinations, bombings, fighting on the very doorstep of Damascus. People now think they have a choice between Bashar al-Assad and something much worse. And that's certainly what Syrian state media hammers away at them every day there: al Qaida fighters on the outskirts of the city waiting to rush in and kill you all in your beds. So people are really afraid, especially the millions of Christians and Alawites, the minorities here. They think that American military strikes might be the green light for a rebel offensive that would turn the city into a bloodbath. So they're really hoping and -- feeling very fearful and hoping that President Obama will find an alternative to military strikes as a way to responding to those chemical attacks.

SCHIEFFER: Elizabeth, thank you very much. Clarissa Ward is at the Turkish-Syrian border this morning. Clarissa, you were with some of the rebel forces inside Syria this week. What are you hearing this morning?

CLARISSA WARD, CBS FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Bob. Well, the rebels who we traveled inside Syria with told us they want those strikes to happen and they want them to happen soon. Their concern is that the longer the delay, the more time President Assad has to move things around. Now they also told us that they're concerned that if the strikes are not severe enough, they may even have a counterproductive effect. In other words, they may do little to diminish Assad's capacity to kill, but they may anger him enough that he may seek to retaliate against the Syrian people. We asked them in what ways they were planning on trying to capitalize on the strikes if they do happen. They told us that they're planning all sorts of military operations. But the reality is that these rebel forces are still very fragmented and still very disorganized. And there's really no coordination going on between the U.S. military and the rebel groups. So it's unlikely that they're able to plan any major operation, but certainly if those strikes do happen, they will try to go in and take control of any strategic targets that the U.S. hits, such as air fields or military bases. Of course, if Assad's air force is up in the skies again the next day dropping bombs, it's unlikely, Bob, that they'll actually be able to hold on to those targets.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Clarissa Ward, thank you, and be careful. We'll be back in a moment with some personal thoughts.

SCHIEFFER: Put aside how we got from here to there. Put aside that this may have been poorly handled. But here we are. The president of the United States drew a line in the sand, a red line. At this point, that may be the only good reason left for Congress to give him the authority he now asked for to respond to Syria's use of chemical weapons. When the president of the United States says something, the rest of the world, our friends and our enemies, pay attention. If we do not follow through, what impact will that have on North Korea or Iran the next time we warn them of dire consequences if they press on with their nuclear weapons programs? More important, how will it be viewed by our strong allies like Japan? We have treaties that promise we will retaliate if they are attacked by nuclear powers. Will they now question our resolve? I don't like anything about where we are, but in a dangerous world when the United States takes a stand, and then goes back on its word, we're left in an even more dangerous place. Back in a minute.

SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now. But for most of you, we'll be right back.

SCHIEFFER: And welcome back to FACE THE NATION. The subject is still Syria. Michigan Republican Congressman Justin Amash is very much opposed to military strikes. Maryland Democrat Elijah Cummings is still to be convinced, at the least, I should say. Gentlemen, thank you very much for bringing your perspectives to us this morning. Congressman Amash, you have been one of the more vocal opponents from the beginning of any action. Is there anything that the administration or the president could say on Tuesday night that would cause you to say, well, maybe I had better go ahead and support him and vote to give him the -- Congress to give him the authority to go ahead?

AMASH: It's highly doubtful. I've been to the briefings. I've spent a lot of time with my constituents. And there's overwhelming disapproval for this war. I can't think of a reason right now, based on the objectives that the administration has laid out, based on the strategy they -- they've laid out. I can't come up with a reason right now why the United States should support this action.

SCHIEFFER: You -- you said, at one point, anybody who votes for this might as well just clean out their office.

AMASH: Well...

SCHIEFFER: They were going to be defeated the next time around. But I would ask you this...

AMASH: Um-hmm?

SCHIEFFER: -- are there things that you would be willing to put your -- the fact that you're elected on the line and vote against what your constituents want?

AMASH: Oh, absolutely. But in this case, we're talking about war. And I've spent a lot of time in my district. And when we found out the president was going to go to Congress, as he -- as he should do, we decided to hold a series of town halls throughout the district, 11 meetings in two days. I went around, met with my constituents. And what I saw was astonishing, not just disapproval of the war, overwhelming disapproval from Republicans, from Democrats. And when you're dealing with an issue like war, you must take the consideration -- take into consideration what the public thinks. You're asking people to possibly send their loved ones into harm's way and you really have to take that very seriously.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I would point out, the president said they will not be sending troops in. But, Congressman Cummings, let me -- let me ask you, are you finding about the same deal in your district...

CUMMINGS: Oh, no doubt about it.

SCHIEFFER: -- in Baltimore?

CUMMINGS: No doubt about it, Bob. And keep in mind, my district voted 77 percent for the president. I think the president has work to do. But I think he can prob -- possibly get the votes. But he's got to come before the Congress. And I -- and the -- and the nation, by the way. One of the things that I said to the president was, look, when you ask the Congress to be involved, you're also asking about our constituents. And so he's got to show, first of all, that this is -- is in our core national security interests. He's got to -- and why it is. He's got to show that he's -- that if we are going -- if we don't completely degrade Assad's capability, how do we make sure we still deter him from using these chemical weapons? And then he's got to show us that this will not end up in a scenario where we find ourselves in a deeper involvement in a civil war of there in Syria. These are -- these are difficult issues. He's got to -- but and -- but keep in mind, too, Bob, I do believe that this president is being held to a higher standard and other -- with regard to going into -- using force in another nation. And the reason being Iraq. Most of my constituents tell me, look, we've just spent a trillion dollars in Iraq. Our young people died and were injured. And, you know, they don't -- they just don't want to see that again.

SCHIEFFER: What -- what...

CUMMINGS: And then they say for what?

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you what I asked Congressman Amash. Can you see any scenario under which you would go ahead and support the president?

CUMMINGS: I -- it's quite -- it's possible. I think we're going to have to have this -- there are members of the House that are working on a much more limited resolution than the one that is being considered in the Senate. I'm going to take a look at that. I want to support the president. I believe in him. And I believe that if the president, being a president that came in and testi -- and campaigned on taking us out of war, says that, you know, I think we need to do this, you know, I -- I want to make sure I understand what he is seeing and -- and keep in mind, Bob, one of our problems is that we get information in these classified briefings and we've been in the same briefings, where we can't even share the information with our constituents.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, I -- let me ask you, Congressman Amash, you've heard Denis McDonough say that...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Um-hmm.

SCHIEFFER: -- everybody who's seen this evidence, nobody rebuts it. Would you agree with that?

AMASH: I think nobody rebuts the evidence we've been presented at the briefings. But I would also say that the evidence is not as strong as the public statements that the president and his administration have been making. And I've actually urged the administration, in -- in the most recent briefing, for example, to be more forward with the public about what the situation actually is. I think that, uh, there are some things that are being embellished in the public statements and I -- I would ask the administration to be more forward with the public about this, because we all need to have the information. I -- I would also add that the briefings haven't given me comfort. The brief -- briefings have actually made me more skeptical...

SCHIEFFER: Really?

AMASH: -- about the situation.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me ask you both of you this, then, because to me, this is the bottom line. What do you think the fallout will be? What will the impact be? The president has drawn a red line and then the United States is not able to deliver. What does that do to the credibility of the United States?

CUMMINGS: I think it -- I take it hurts to some degree. But at the same time, the question is, is if we go in and we find ourselves mired in a civil war, what does that do? And I think that that's the problem, Bob.

SCHIEFFER: All right.

AMASH: We have a constitutional republic. I think we're at our strongest when the representatives of the people actually represent the people. And I think it -- it sends a message to the rest of the world that we follow the rule of law.

SCHIEFFER: All right, well, I want to thank both of you for coming in this morning...

CUMMINGS: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: -- and adding your perspective. We'll be back in one minute with our panel of analysts. And we've got a bunch of them.

SCHIEFFER: And joining us now for some analysis, the legendary Bob Woodward, who brings us some stunning new details of the fiscal cliff negotiations from last winter coming out in the paperback version of his book, "The Price of Politics." Bob, we'll get to that in a minute. We also want to welcome our good friend, Bill Kristol, of "The Weekly Standard" back to the broadcast. And our go-to guys on foreign policy and all things Washington, our chief Washington -- or the chief Washington correspondent for "The New York Times," David Sanger, and "Washington Post" columnist, David Ignatius. And rounding out this power panel, Danielle Pletka from the American Enterprise Institute. Bill, let me talk to you first. What's going to happen here?

BILL KRISTOL, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": I don't know. I don't know. I've been saying for over -- I support the president. I would -- I would reluctantly vote yes on this. And I think that's the right vote for members of Congress and the right vote for Republicans and conservatives. But I can't say an awful lot of Republicans and conservatives who actually are members of Congress have been calling me up and saying, hey, I agree with you. They're calling up and saying very thoughtful editorial. I'm voting no.

SCHIEFFER: Uh, Bob, would you agree with me that at this point, I don't think the president has the votes? He may get them, but he doesn't have them at this point?

BOB WOODWARD, "WASHINGTON POST": It's pretty clear he does not. But what's interesting, war is in that constitutional gray zone. "The Constitution" makes it very clear it's a shared power between the president, who can employ the force, and the Congress, which would declare war or provide funding. So I think the president is right to go to Congress. I think this is not...

SCHIEFFER: You do?

WOODWARD: Yes. I think this is not something you should do alone. I mean, Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer and was a professor of that. And it -- it's very clear in "The Constitution." And maybe in the end, the argument to the Republicans, who oppose this so far, may be, this is the constitutional right. And you have to face the spectacle of the Congress saying no and the president, who I think has kind of got his feet in cement on this, he's going to strike in some form. And that spectacle could be a catastrophe in the world.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Danielle, let me ask you, I mean I take your point, Bob. But there are also those who say he's just bailing out, that he -- he thought I'll just dump this on the Congress and let them take responsibility for it. Do you think -- what do you think is going to happen, Danielle?

DANIELLE PLETKA, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Well, I think it is going to be very close. I agree with Bob and Bill. I think it's going to be very tight. The biggest problem for the president is, first of all, that sense that you just laid out that, in fact, in Libya, he didn't want to go to the Congress. He didn't hesitate. He didn't have any doubt, even though that was a much more wide-ranging operation. Suddenly, he wants to go to Congress on Syria, having already said that he wants to do this. There's a clear impression that the president doesn't want to own this. And members -- and, you know, I support the president very reluctantly on this one, but I think a lot of members think well, if you don't want to own it, why do we want to own it? No strategy. No clear operation. And yet he's asking them to make a very hard vote.

SCHIEFFER: David, where do you think it is?

DAVID IGNATIUS, "WASHINGTON POST": Like all of the panel, I couldn't predict what the vote will be. There are an awful lot of undecideds. And I -- I have to remind myself that presidents, when they really want something, when they really turn the screws, often get votes that -- that you would have thought they'd lose. We'll have to see. Will Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel say this vote is absolutely critical for the security of Israel. And we just -- we call on our friends in America to -- will we have a daily effort by the president starting tomorrow with his interviews and then rolling into Tuesday, a daily effort to go to Congress and put the pressure on? Those are the kinds of things that can change votes.

SCHIEFFER: David, you have a piece on the front page of The New York Times this morning that says the irony here is the administration sort of looked the other way while Assad was building up this storehouse of chemical weapons?

SANGER: Well, not just this administration, but three administrations before it, both president Bushes, and President Clinton. And there was a fairly robust effort by the Syrians to get around a lot of different sanctions. And they did it quite successfully. They did it in part because we've been focused more on nuclear proliferation, understandably, around the world, and because many of the chemicals that are used to put together this stockpile, you can make a legitimate case are needed for other things, including pharmaceuticals. I think as the president moves towards this vote, he has got a very fundamental choice to make this week. We heard, Bob, from your guests, two very different arguments. You heard Denis McDonough, the chief of staff, make a humanitarian argument saying anybody who is going to vote for this has got to go look at these horrific films of the gas victims. And then you heard Chairman Rogers say this has only got to be decided on a matter of national interest. I think part of the problem that the president has run into so far is he has made part of the humanitarian argument without saying how you differentiate this from all of the other great humanitarian disasters or the killing of 100,000 people over the past two years. And he hasn't really made an argument about where American national interests are.

SCHIEFFER: Well, where are American national interests, Bill?

KRISTOL: I think it's in the American national interest not to let dictators who are backed by Iran get away with using weapons of mass destruction. I think the case is not very hard. I think the moral case and the national interest case come together. It would be nice if someone in the administration just made this case clearly and simply. The trouble is they have this magical belief that putting the president out on a bunch of interviews tomorrow and Tuesday night will help. They could have done much more, I think, to recruit Republicans to make the case. And they are hurt by the fact that this is a president who for four-and-a-half years has been saying the tide of war is receding, I'm getting us out of wars, not into wars. No need to have any residual force in Iraq, we're getting out of Afghanistan. And then for what, a year I think there has been evidence of Assad using chemical weapons in Syria, and he has fought hard to stay out of Syria when John McCain and others said, can't we do something to help the opposition. He can overcome that. He can overcome that. But I think actually he -- if I were advising him, (INAUDIBLE) speech, I think he has to acknowledge this is a turning point, that this isn't just business as usual, that he had made a bet, understandably, perhaps, after Iraq, that we could avoid getting involved, but now he acknowledging that we have to get involved.

WOODWARD: But you are advising him. And so much of this gets down to personal politics. In other words, do you have the contacts and the friends and the associations in Congress? And the president does not. He's isolated not just from the Republicans but too often from the Democratic Party, his own party. A couple of months ago, I was talking to the chairman of one of the Senate committees, a big Obama supporter, a progressive Democrat. And I was saying, you know, where are the contacts? And this is an important senator. And he just pounded his fist and he said, I don't know how you can say that. In the last five years, the president has called me twice. In other words, he does not do the work to make the connections with these people he needs. So when he gets in a pinch like this, he can call up, like lots of presidents, and say, I need you on this.

SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you about your book, because it's just fascinating, and just to kind of give you all an explanation of what's going on here. Bob's book, "The Price of Politics," came out -- this is what, the paperback version coming out now, and you have a new afterword in it, and it has got just a trove of information and details. And the bottom line is it's going to be very difficult for this Congress and this president to agree on much of anything. And I was just stunned by some of the direct quotes. I mean, you know, you've got in there at one point John Boehner telling Harry Reid what he can do to himself. You've got all kinds of other quotes in there. How bad is it, Bob?

WOODWARD: What it shows is -- I mean, Speaker Boehner at one point in these budget negotiations, and these numbers get very tedious, but he'll say, Mr. President, on health care cuts, I want $600 billion, you want $400 billion, let's split the difference. And the president says no, or the president will say to Boehner, look, man, we are $150 billion apart, which is nothing over 10 years, and they can't work it out. I mean, color me baffled that these people who went into politics, which is the business, at least in part of human relations, are practicing human relations.

SCHIEFFER: Do you see any hope that this is going to get any better?

WOODWARD: Well, and this necessity drives lots of things, but they need to spend the time on it. You know, we've all in one way or other been involved in negotiations, and you learn in negotiations in the end, the person on the other side of the table is your best friend, because that's the person who can give you what you need. But they have not got to that point, and they had better on the budget issues, the fiscal issues. But, you know, this spills over on the Syria issue.

SCHIEFFER: And then let's talk about that and get back to that a little bit. Danielle, there's one resolution circulating in the Senate now, Joe Manchin, who says he'd like to give Assad 45 days to sign the chemical weapons ban, and give him 45 days to take it apart, and we'll tell him we won't bomb until he does that. Do you see any kind of future for anything like that or do you think that would help?

PLETKA: Well, you quoted President Assad's interview with Charlie Rose. President Assad isn't owning these chemical attack. But he's also not interested in coming to the table. That's really clear. And that, for us, is the biggest problem on the leverage side, because we have no leverage. We can't get to a diplomatic solution. We can't get to a negotiated solution, because both sides think that they have the ability to win. So for Assad, the smartest thing for him to do is to turn around and say, I'm horrified that there may have been chemical weapons used, I believe they were used by rebels or they were used by rogue soldiers, or whatever he wants to say, and I'm going to put them all out there and I'm going to invite in international inspectors and you can secure them, and then there will never be such accusations again. But, of course, that would impede him from using them again, and it would also mean that he was giving up what has been a key card for him in gaining superiority over the rebels. So I don't see that happening. What this means is it's just a non-stop formula for conflict and death.

SCHIEFFER: David.

IGNATIUS: I thought Congressman Mike Rogers said something really important in your interview with him, Bob, when he said the key to this has to be to empower the president to find a way to a negotiated settlement of this conflict. Nobody thinks that a military victory, you know, whether after a U.S. military intervention or not, is the way out. So the question is, how do get there? I thought Danielle mentioned some ways that you could make progress. But clearly there has to be agreement among a broad community. The president can't do this alone, that that's where we need to go, and then pressure of many different kinds. And one of them I think is supporting the president in the vote before -- coming up with Congress. With many different kinds of pressure, needs to drive this toward negotiation.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, basically what Rogers is saying, he said, look, you should not give people the time and exactly what you're going to do, shouldn't say we're going to attack at 3:30 in the afternoon and we're only going to use X weapon.

IGNATIUS: It's strange prelude to military action.

SCHIEFFER: I mean, the way this thing has been going, I've never seen anything like it.

KRISTOL: It's like a "Save the Date" card for, you know, military action. I mean, it's not the right way to do it. But, you know, just on your question, if I could just interrupt one second, on Senator Manchin, Congressman Nunes in the House talking about this. I'm not for this, I'm for authorizing the use of force and using force, but I think there will be real movement in the next week if it looks like this is certainly go down in the House, and may well go down in the Senate, to substitute some kind of what will end up being an ineffectual but face-saving resolution they could vote for. Because I do think Speaker Boehner, for all that he doesn't get along with the president, has supported the president on this. And I don't think anyone from the leadership of either party wants to have the president lose a vote in Congress to authorize force, which, has that ever happened in recent times? I don't think so.

WOODWARD: I don't think it ever has.

KRISTOL: So I think you will see momentum. You're right, as a reporting matter -- I'm not for this, but as a reporting matter I think the Manchin-Nunes "can't we find a way out of this problem" could pick up steam this week.

WOODWARD: Yes, but I don't see some negotiation solving this. I mean, you have -- I mean, the president has made it very clear, I'm going to attack. And to not attack in some form -- now it might be a pinprick, but the problem here is, what do you achieve? And all of the military experts have said, and David has made the point...

(CROSSTALK)

WOODWARD: But, you know, what -- I mean, this is all former George W. Bush saying, oh, you can't just shoot a bunch of cruise missiles into tents, when he was talking about Afghanistan. And that's true. It doesn't work.

SCHIEFFER: Well, does anybody, though, think that, if the Congress does turn the president down, that he may go ahead and take military action?

SANGER: Oh, I could imagine -- I could imagine that happening, Bob, and particularly if the Senate passes this, and then he decides not to take it to the House because he thinks he'll lose there.

PLETKA: How can he do that?

SANGER: I -- it would be -- it would be a difficult thing to do, but remember, the situation on the ground in Syria is not necessarily going to be static. We're seeing a lot of chemical weapons, we're told, being moved around. You could imagine the situation changing in a way that the president said he had to step in. But I think David got at a very critical point when he talked about what is the pathway, here, to a negotiated settlement or some other move? Because, right now, there is a disconnect between what the president is telling his own base, which is this is limited; it's 48 hours; we'll be in and we'll be out; it's not Iraq, and then what he's got to tell other senators, conservatives who are concerned that there isn't a broader strategy and would really like to see regime change. And for them, he has to say it's consequential. You heard that word from Mr. McDonough today. And he's got to somehow square that circle. You can't make the argument you're going to go in for two days and it will make a big difference, and yet, at the same time, if you describe a concerted campaign to put pressure on, it's going to lose a lot of votes on the left.

SCHIEFFER: You know, I also think you cannot say what Secretary of State Kerry said -- and I say this with respect -- that this is not an act of war. I mean, if the Chinese parked a submarine off Manhattan Island and decided to dump a couple of cruise missiles into there, I think we'd consider that an act of war.

PLETKA: But the problem is that the president has been treating this -- this international authorization question, you know, the notion that, no, this isn't my red line; this is the world's red line, and we would just be going in to enforce the world's red line. The problem is that he views this as an a la carte menu. You know, well, we care about it when it's chemical weapons use but not, you know, April's chemical weapons use, just this chemical weapons use. He's got a real problem. We haven't talked about another problem that we have, which is what -- what are we telling the world here? What are we telling the Syrian people? What are we saying about American credibility? What are we telling the Iranians? That's something we're very worried about.

SCHIEFFER: I think that is, when you come down to it, that's -- that is the bottom line. Well, I want to thank you all for a very enlightening discussion this morning. We could continue all afternoon on that...

(LAUGHTER)

... but we won't. I'll be back in a moment.

SCHIEFFER: Well, that's it for us today. Be sure to tune in to "CBS This Morning" tomorrow for Charlie Rose's interview with Bashar al-Assad, more on the rest of our CBS news platforms as the day develops. The interview will air in its entirety on the "Charlie Rose" show on PBS tomorrow night. We'll see you right here next Sunday on "Face the Nation."