General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama makes case for punishing Syria over gas attack
WASHINGTON | Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:53pm EDT
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama vowed on Wednesday that the Syrian government would face "international consequences" for last week's deadly chemical attack, but made clear any military response would be limited to avoid dragging the United States into another war in the Middle East.
Casting the need for action based on U.S. national security interests instead of humanitarian grounds, Obama made his case to a war-weary American public for what is looking like an all-but-certain use of force in Syria, where he has long been reluctant to intervene.
While saying he and allied leaders had not yet made a decision on military strikes against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's loyalists, he left little doubt that the choice was not whether to act but when.
"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out, and if that's so, then there need to be international consequences," Obama told "PBS Newshour" in a televised interview.
There were growing signs, however, that the timeline for launching any military strike on Syria could be complicated not only by the U.N. weapons inspectors' continued presence there but by the Obama administration's efforts to coordinate with international partners and growing demands for consultation with U.S. lawmakers.
On top of that, Britain - a key player in any air assault on Syria - changed its stance on Wednesday, saying the U.N. Security Council should see findings from weapons inspectors before any military action is taken and that the British parliament should vote on the matter twice.
...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130829
As Matt Diaz put it "We have concluded Syria in fact..., and if that's so,..." Is this all but certain? No doubt? Certain doubt?"... "chemical weapons that could threaten us"... Who doe they think they're talking to? Bush/Palin voters?
[hr]
Here's 5 minutes of the PBS segment
KoKo
(84,711 posts)it off to the UN and causing delays.
Thanks for his speech or statement. SOMETHING IS UP....but, not sure how it plays out.
He drew the Red Line..sent Kerry Out...and everyone's ready to GO...YET...GB backs off and sends it to UN and UN says they need much more time to complete inspection and to do the Testing of Results.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)They boxed themselves into something and now they're realizing they better back their way out, at least I hope they're realizing that and not playing us because they weren't expecting such a backlash.
And like you said, Cameron appears to back off and announced it on twitter, of all places. Then says
"Cameron said the resolution would condemn the chemical weapons attack by Assad and authorize necessary measures to protect civilian lives. He also stressed that any intervention in Syria would have to be legal, proportionate and aimed at minimizing further loss of life.
http://rt.com/news/uk-resolution-syria-security-council-099/
They're still playing off old scripts. They don't seem to understand that no from the voters, and the international community, means no. I had to take care of other business today and I'm way behind, just trying to catch up now. Did anything happen at the UN today?
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)about "red lines". That was stupid.
I simply do not see how he can ignore the American people on this. 9% in favor of bombing Syria??? WTF?
If he does go against that many Americans, I wish he would have had the courage to go for single payer.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Whoever came up with that should be fired.
razorman
(1,644 posts)As I recall, it was an off-the-cuff remark during an interview. If I am mistaken, perhaps someone else here can give us the correct info.