FOX "Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace" - Transcript: Syria

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Now to the mood in Washington. Joining us from Austin, Texas, is Congressman Michael McCaul who opposes military action against Syria. And here in the studio, Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, who supports the president and is working on a use of force resolution should a vote still come to the House floor.

Congressman McCaul, let's start with you there in Texas. Do you have any hope that this is going to work?

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL, R-TEXAS: Yes, we really have to, I think. As Americans, I think I've said from the beginning, the way to solve this crisis is to the chief objective should be to secure and destroy these chemical weapons.

Not picking sides. Both sides are not good actors. Assad is a dictator who used chemical weapons. Rebel forces have been infiltrated in large part by Al Qaeda factions.

The key threat in the region is the -- are the chemical weapons themselves. And I think this is a step forward, if you will. It will not be easy. I think the devil's in the details.

As Reagan said, trust but verify, but we owe this -- we need to do this because it can't be done without a shot fired and hopefully without any American troops being put on the ground. And so, I'm -- you know, we're going to take a look at this.

I do think that Putin is in a unique position rather than the president to get this done because of his leverage over Assad and over Syria. Putin has now come forward as a leader, and he owns this now. And I believe that that gives us the greatest ability to get this thing done.

ROBERTS: All right. We'll talk more about Putin in just a couple of minutes. But you mentioned Ronald Reagan.

And no question, Congressman Van Hollen, there's going to be a lot of heavy lifting if this is going to be successful.

Let's listen to what Secretary of State Kerry said about that in Geneva yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: In the case of the Assad regime, President Reagan's old adage about trust but verify, that is in need of an update. And we have committed here to a standard that says "verify and verify."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: Verify and verify -- but how do you do that? Because as Greg Palkot showed us, life does go on in Damascus, but there is a war raging in the country. It's difficult to do something like this in peacetime.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, D-MD.: Well, it is difficult, but there are clear benchmarks that you can have and if you don't reach those benchmarks, it will be clear that Assad is not living up to the agreement.

So, I think the path they've set forward, in other words, he has to declare a stockpile within one week. By November, you have inspectors in. By next year, you begin the destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile. Those are all benchmarks that can be verifiable and can be reached.

I do think it's important to point out and emphasize what the president and others have said, that we would not be at this point had it not been for the president's credible threat of a use of force. That's what brought the Russians to the table. That's what brought Assad to the table.

And the president laid out a very clear objective. He said he wanted to deter the future use of chemical weapons in Syria.

We now, in the space of a week, have gone from Assad denying he even had any chemical weapons to admitting them, that he's signing a convention on chemical weapons, that he's allowing international inspectors in there, and ultimately destroying them. Because the president said if you don't do that, we're going to come in and use force. In a limited way, but we're going to use force.

ROBERTS: You also have in a week gone from John Kerry making a credible case for war, to the president saying, no, I want to go to Congress, to John Kerry freelancing a question with what he thought was a rhetorical answer that became a proposal to the president giving a kind of a kitchen sink address on Tuesday. Are you happy with the way the administration kind of rode the horse through this whole thing?

VAN HOLLEN: John, I think there's going to be a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking on that. I look at results. And this result could not be more in line with the president's objective. In fact, we've gone beyond just deterring the future use of chemical weapons to a plan to actually destroy Assad's chemical weapons stockpile, which as Mike said, has been our national security interest in the region to begin with to get rid of those weapons of mass destruction in Syria.

ROBERTS: Congressman McCaul, weapons inspectors will go in at some point while the environment will be somewhat permissive from the Syrian government side of things. There is a war raging so they need protection.

Who is going to protect the weapons inspectors? Has there been any discussion of that? Will we see U.S. troops on the ground as part of this chemical weapons inspection team?

MCCAUL: We don't have all the details of that. I would hope that it would be mostly Russian forces on the ground. I think it's going to be very difficult, as you mentioned, going into a civil war situation, trying to remove and destroy chemical weapons is going to be extremely difficult. And, in addition to fact these rebel forces, who we have been arming, unfortunately, are there, and many are radical types, some jihadists. The opportunity for them to possibly take over some of these chemical weapons as the process goes forward. From a security standpoint, there's going to be a huge concern.

I do want to follow up to just one thing my colleague said. And I don't think this is a time for the White House to be boastful. I would exercise humility here that this threat that secretary called them unbelievably small military intervention won today.

I quite frankly think what won the day here was that Putin looked in his own backyard and realized that these policies that he saw in Egypt and Libya was going to happen in Syria, which could potentially fall to the Muslim Brotherhood and the extremists. And you know what? He decided it was time to step in and try to fix the problem.

When the president walked out of the G-20 Summit with all the international leaders, he only walked away with two that were willing to help him in this military effort, and it was Latvia and France. And so, I would, again, caution this administration to not do a victory lap here.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: I just want to zone in on one thing that he just said there. We hope the Russian troops would do it all. Congressman McCaul, if I could, do you not think we need to have U.S. forces there to verify? If we'd leave this in the hands of tNow to the mood in Washington. Joining us from Austin, Texas, is Congressman Michael McCaul who opposes military action against Syria. And here in the studio, Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, who supports the president and is working on a use of force resolution should a vote still come to the House floor.

Congressman McCaul, let's start with you there in Texas. Do you have any hope that this is going to work?

REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL, R-TEXAS: Yes, we really have to, I think. As Americans, I think I've said from the beginning, the way to solve this crisis is to the chief objective should be to secure and destroy these chemical weapons.

Not picking sides. Both sides are not good actors. Assad is a dictator who used chemical weapons. Rebel forces have been infiltrated in large part by Al Qaeda factions.

The key threat in the region is the -- are the chemical weapons themselves. And I think this is a step forward, if you will. It will not be easy. I think the devil's in the details.

As Reagan said, trust but verify, but we owe this -- we need to do this because it can't be done without a shot fired and hopefully without any American troops being put on the ground. And so, I'm -- you know, we're going to take a look at this.

I do think that Putin is in a unique position rather than the president to get this done because of his leverage over Assad and over Syria. Putin has now come forward as a leader, and he owns this now. And I believe that that gives us the greatest ability to get this thing done.

ROBERTS: All right. We'll talk more about Putin in just a couple of minutes. But you mentioned Ronald Reagan.

And no question, Congressman Van Hollen, there's going to be a lot of heavy lifting if this is going to be successful.

Let's listen to what Secretary of State Kerry said about that in Geneva yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KERRY: In the case of the Assad regime, President Reagan's old adage about trust but verify, that is in need of an update. And we have committed here to a standard that says "verify and verify."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: Verify and verify -- but how do you do that? Because as Greg Palkot showed us, life does go on in Damascus, but there is a war raging in the country. It's difficult to do something like this in peacetime.

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, D-MD.: Well, it is difficult, but there are clear benchmarks that you can have and if you don't reach those benchmarks, it will be clear that Assad is not living up to the agreement.

So, I think the path they've set forward, in other words, he has to declare a stockpile within one week. By November, you have inspectors in. By next year, you begin the destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile. Those are all benchmarks that can be verifiable and can be reached.

I do think it's important to point out and emphasize what the president and others have said, that we would not be at this point had it not been for the president's credible threat of a use of force. That's what brought the Russians to the table. That's what brought Assad to the table.

And the president laid out a very clear objective. He said he wanted to deter the future use of chemical weapons in Syria.

We now, in the space of a week, have gone from Assad denying he even had any chemical weapons to admitting them, that he's signing a convention on chemical weapons, that he's allowing international inspectors in there, and ultimately destroying them. Because the president said if you don't do that, we're going to come in and use force. In a limited way, but we're going to use force.

ROBERTS: You also have in a week gone from John Kerry making a credible case for war, to the president saying, no, I want to go to Congress, to John Kerry freelancing a question with what he thought was a rhetorical answer that became a proposal to the president giving a kind of a kitchen sink address on Tuesday. Are you happy with the way the administration kind of rode the horse through this whole thing?

VAN HOLLEN: John, I think there's going to be a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking on that. I look at results. And this result could not be more in line with the president's objective. In fact, we've gone beyond just deterring the future use of chemical weapons to a plan to actually destroy Assad's chemical weapons stockpile, which as Mike said, has been our national security interest in the region to begin with to get rid of those weapons of mass destruction in Syria.

ROBERTS: Congressman McCaul, weapons inspectors will go in at some point while the environment will be somewhat permissive from the Syrian government side of things. There is a war raging so they need protection.

Who is going to protect the weapons inspectors? Has there been any discussion of that? Will we see U.S. troops on the ground as part of this chemical weapons inspection team?

MCCAUL: We don't have all the details of that. I would hope that it would be mostly Russian forces on the ground. I think it's going to be very difficult, as you mentioned, going into a civil war situation, trying to remove and destroy chemical weapons is going to be extremely difficult. And, in addition to fact these rebel forces, who we have been arming, unfortunately, are there, and many are radical types, some jihadists. The opportunity for them to possibly take over some of these chemical weapons as the process goes forward. From a security standpoint, there's going to be a huge concern.

I do want to follow up to just one thing my colleague said. And I don't think this is a time for the White House to be boastful. I would exercise humility here that this threat that secretary called them unbelievably small military intervention won today.

I quite frankly think what won the day here was that Putin looked in his own backyard and realized that these policies that he saw in Egypt and Libya was going to happen in Syria, which could potentially fall to the Muslim Brotherhood and the extremists. And you know what? He decided it was time to step in and try to fix the problem.

When the president walked out of the G-20 Summit with all the international leaders, he only walked away with two that were willing to help him in this military effort, and it was Latvia and France. And so, I would, again, caution this administration to not do a victory lap here.

(CROSSTALK)

ROBERTS: I just want to zone in on one thing that he just said there. We hope the Russian troops would do it all. Congressman McCaul, if I could, do you not think we need to have U.S. forces there to verify? If we'd leave this in the hands of the Russians and Syrians, are we going to know for sure?

MCCAUL: It will be an international coalition of forces. There's no question. I want this to be not just a Russian solution, but an American solution.

But I'm a little wary about putting Americans in that situation as well. I do know the Russians have, again, the most leverage over Syria and Assad and can be most effective.

ROBERTS: All right.

VAN HOLLEN: We should have international inspectors on the ground, no Americans on the ground. And look, Mike --

ROBERTS: Would you support some U.S. troops being part of --

VAN HOLLEN: No, I don't think U.S. troops should be on the ground.

ROBERTS: At all?

VAN HOLLEN: This should be an international team that's inspecting and holding this accountable.

But look, there's a reason that the Russians went from vetoing every press release at the United Nations for three years, press releases that just mentioned chemical weapons, to getting Assad to get rid of those chemical weapons, at least put a plan in place to do that. The only factor that changed is that the president had the credible threat of force out there.

Putin was sitting there powerless. This is his big ally in the Middle East -- powerless to stop a potential limited U.S. strike. And the answer is that he helped deliver to the president everything that we wanted.

So, it is a good result, as Mike said, finally dealing with those chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, but let's not kid ourselves as to why this happened.

ROBERTS: To hear Rand Paul tell it, it was opposition to the use of force in Congress that brought Russia to the table.

But let me ask you this question, our James Rosen who was with John Kerry over the weekend asked Secretary Kerry if he thought Assad was going to live up to the agreement. Kerry told Rosen, quote, "We're going to have to make him."

But the U.S. has agreed not to put the threat of force in the United Nations resolution. Even France said that was an absolute requirement. So, where's the teeth?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, as you just said, I mean, the Russians, as I just said, the Russians have been blocking action at the Security Council when it comes to use of force. They've been exercising their veto. That hasn't changed in this agreement, but there is a process now set out.

So, what the administration has said is that it reserves the right to move forward, to enforce this in a limited way, with U.S. action. I do believe, John, that now that Syria and Russia have said we're going to agree to this particular destruction of chemical weapons, it's much easier for the president to rally both international and national support behind that goal because the Russians have now put this on the line. The Syrians have put this on the line. We have a clear objective.

If they turn out to violate that, there are other ways we can enforce them.

ROBERTS: And I know that you have a back-up resolution which would allow the use of force in the case this agreement doesn't come to fruition.

Congressman McCaul, do you think there would be the appetite in Congress to pass Congressman Van Hollen's resolution if Assad plays too many games here?

MCCAUL: You know, right now there's not a lot of appetite from the American people. The case has not been made to use force and put American troops on the ground. Having said that, I do believe that you get to the U.N. resolution, and there is an enforcement provision in there. They would have to go back and get an additional resolution that deals with security. Then, I think if Assad is violating those terms, then, you know, that's another issue.

But this is what I've been arguing all along is we should have been going to the international community to help with this issue, not go it alone. The president -- usually you rally the international consensus --

ROBERTS: The president did go to the international community, went to his closest ally, Britain, but they said, thanks, but no thanks.

MCCAUL: Isn't that interesting? And he has no persuasion over, you know, Britain. Britain backed out. The whole thing fell apart. Putin came in and said, you know what? It's in the global best interests to deal with this issue.

And I think, you know, working -- it's an odd scenario. Don't get me wrong here. But I do think that, again, Russia has the greatest leverage over Assad in Syria, and we need to be working with them to do that.

And, you know, to Chris's point, of course it's going to be an international coalition. You know, we don't want American troops on the ground in Syria in a civil war. But in a situation that had no good outcome about two weeks ago, we see actually something that I think could possibly be a good outcome down the road.

ROBERTS: Let me put the final question to Congressman Van Hollen.

Do you believe, as some members of Congress do, that Putin has outfoxed President Obama on all of this?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, if outfoxing means giving the president of the United States everything they asked for and more, maybe that's kind of outfoxing we need because, look -- again, the president had a clear objective: stop Assad from using chemical weapons. In the last six days, we have accomplished that and more.

So, what -- and why? Look, Putin was sitting out there --

ROBERTS: Senator Lindsey Graham believes Putin has put the president in a box.

VAN HOLLEN: That's absurd. Look, Putin was out there. His big ally, Assad, is sitting there, and Putin's powerless to stop a potential military strike from the United States. What kind of message does that send any other allies Russia has around the world?

So, Putin was acting from a position of weakness, and the reality, as Mike said, is he has some leverage over Assad. He did not want to see military action taken. And at the end of the day, he helped deliver exactly what the United States wanted, which is to put an end to Assad's weapons of mass destruction.

ROBERTS: Congressman Chris Van Hollen, thanks so much. We're going to bring you back to talk about the budget.

Congressman McCaul, thank you for joining us as well. Really appreciate it.

MCCAUL: Thanks.he Russians and Syrians, are we going to know for sure?

MCCAUL: It will be an international coalition of forces. There's no question. I want this to be not just a Russian solution, but an American solution.

But I'm a little wary about putting Americans in that situation as well. I do know the Russians have, again, the most leverage over Syria and Assad and can be most effective.

ROBERTS: All right.

VAN HOLLEN: We should have international inspectors on the ground, no Americans on the ground. And look, Mike --

ROBERTS: Would you support some U.S. troops being part of --

VAN HOLLEN: No, I don't think U.S. troops should be on the ground.

ROBERTS: At all?

VAN HOLLEN: This should be an international team that's inspecting and holding this accountable.

But look, there's a reason that the Russians went from vetoing every press release at the United Nations for three years, press releases that just mentioned chemical weapons, to getting Assad to get rid of those chemical weapons, at least put a plan in place to do that. The only factor that changed is that the president had the credible threat of force out there.

Putin was sitting there powerless. This is his big ally in the Middle East -- powerless to stop a potential limited U.S. strike. And the answer is that he helped deliver to the president everything that we wanted.

So, it is a good result, as Mike said, finally dealing with those chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, but let's not kid ourselves as to why this happened.

ROBERTS: To hear Rand Paul tell it, it was opposition to the use of force in Congress that brought Russia to the table.

But let me ask you this question, our James Rosen who was with John Kerry over the weekend asked Secretary Kerry if he thought Assad was going to live up to the agreement. Kerry told Rosen, quote, "We're going to have to make him."

But the U.S. has agreed not to put the threat of force in the United Nations resolution. Even France said that was an absolute requirement. So, where's the teeth?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, as you just said, I mean, the Russians, as I just said, the Russians have been blocking action at the Security Council when it comes to use of force. They've been exercising their veto. That hasn't changed in this agreement, but there is a process now set out.

So, what the administration has said is that it reserves the right to move forward, to enforce this in a limited way, with U.S. action. I do believe, John, that now that Syria and Russia have said we're going to agree to this particular destruction of chemical weapons, it's much easier for the president to rally both international and national support behind that goal because the Russians have now put this on the line. The Syrians have put this on the line. We have a clear objective.

If they turn out to violate that, there are other ways we can enforce them.

ROBERTS: And I know that you have a back-up resolution which would allow the use of force in the case this agreement doesn't come to fruition.

Congressman McCaul, do you think there would be the appetite in Congress to pass Congressman Van Hollen's resolution if Assad plays too many games here?

MCCAUL: You know, right now there's not a lot of appetite from the American people. The case has not been made to use force and put American troops on the ground. Having said that, I do believe that you get to the U.N. resolution, and there is an enforcement provision in there. They would have to go back and get an additional resolution that deals with security. Then, I think if Assad is violating those terms, then, you know, that's another issue.

But this is what I've been arguing all along is we should have been going to the international community to help with this issue, not go it alone. The president -- usually you rally the international consensus --

ROBERTS: The president did go to the international community, went to his closest ally, Britain, but they said, thanks, but no thanks.

MCCAUL: Isn't that interesting? And he has no persuasion over, you know, Britain. Britain backed out. The whole thing fell apart. Putin came in and said, you know what? It's in the global best interests to deal with this issue.

And I think, you know, working -- it's an odd scenario. Don't get me wrong here. But I do think that, again, Russia has the greatest leverage over Assad in Syria, and we need to be working with them to do that.

And, you know, to Chris's point, of course it's going to be an international coalition. You know, we don't want American troops on the ground in Syria in a civil war. But in a situation that had no good outcome about two weeks ago, we see actually something that I think could possibly be a good outcome down the road.

ROBERTS: Let me put the final question to Congressman Van Hollen.

Do you believe, as some members of Congress do, that Putin has outfoxed President Obama on all of this?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, if outfoxing means giving the president of the United States everything they asked for and more, maybe that's kind of outfoxing we need because, look -- again, the president had a clear objective: stop Assad from using chemical weapons. In the last six days, we have accomplished that and more.

So, what -- and why? Look, Putin was sitting out there --

ROBERTS: Senator Lindsey Graham believes Putin has put the president in a box.

VAN HOLLEN: That's absurd. Look, Putin was out there. His big ally, Assad, is sitting there, and Putin's powerless to stop a potential military strike from the United States. What kind of message does that send any other allies Russia has around the world?

So, Putin was acting from a position of weakness, and the reality, as Mike said, is he has some leverage over Assad. He did not want to see military action taken. And at the end of the day, he helped deliver exactly what the United States wanted, which is to put an end to Assad's weapons of mass destruction.

ROBERTS: Congressman Chris Van Hollen, thanks so much. We're going to bring you back to talk about the budget.

Congressman McCaul, thank you for joining us as well. Really appreciate it.

MCCAUL: Thanks.

Source