Weekly Address: Calling for Limited Military Action in Syria
Source: White House
In his weekly address, President Obama makes the case for limited and targeted military action to hold the Assad regime accountable for its violation of international norms prohibiting the use of chemical weapons.
Read more: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/06/weekly-address-calling-limited-military-action-syria
jessie04
(1,528 posts)great statesman and humanitarian.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)wisteria
(19,581 posts)People have made up their minds without hearing all the facts.
frylock
(34,825 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Bullsh!t.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)A long list of them now.
here's a link http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/weekly-address
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,650 posts)where the #1 rated local news radio station here plays it at ~6:08 am... assuming they remember not to run an extra series of commercials, afterwhich they then "run out of time" to air it before doing the traffic, weather and sports (am guessing the sat feed of the audio portion goes out at 6 am ET).
The same #1 station used to tape Shrub's weekly address and then air his bullshit, without fail, at a more "realistic" time of 10:00 am on Sat. mornings. But naturally, with this black President, they want to make sure that folks w/o internet access to Whitehouse.gov miss it, so then they can pile on with bogus complaints about how the current President does not communicate with the people the same way that FDR did (which he does but shhhhh... FDR didn't do it weekly but that doesn't count.).
rug
(82,333 posts)Hegemonist horseshit.
Hegemonist horseshit!
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
September 7, 2013
Almost three weeks ago in Syria, more than 1,000 innocent people including hundreds of children were murdered in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. And the United States has presented a powerful case to the world that the Syrian government was responsible for this horrific attack on its own people.
This was not only a direct attack on human dignity; it is a serious threat to our national security. Theres a reason governments representing 98 percent of the worlds people have agreed to ban the use of chemical weapons. Not only because they cause death and destruction in the most indiscriminate and inhumane way possible but because they can also fall into the hands of terrorist groups who wish to do us harm.
Thats why, last weekend, I announced that, as Commander in Chief, I decided that the United States should take military action against the Syrian regime. This is not a decision I made lightly. Deciding to use military force is the most solemn decision we can make as a nation.
As the leader of the worlds oldest Constitutional democracy, I also know that our country will be stronger if we act together, and our actions will be more effective. Thats why I asked Members of Congress to debate this issue and vote on authorizing the use of force.
What were talking about is not an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope designed to deter the Syrian government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so.
I know that the American people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. Thats why were not putting our troops in the middle of somebody elses war.
But we are the United States of America. We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones weve seen out of Syria. Failing to respond to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical weapons could be used again; that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us, and it would send a horrible signal to other nations that there would be no consequences for their use of these weapons. All of which would pose a serious threat to our national security.
Thats why we cant ignore chemical weapons attacks like this one even if they happen halfway around the world. And thats why I call on Members of Congress, from both parties, to come together and stand up for the kind of world we want to live in; the kind of world we want to leave our children and future generations.
Thank you.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/06/weekly-address-calling-limited-military-action-syria
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
First off - Obama's speech is typical lawyer obfuscation/doublespeak.
As a lawyer he knows he is misleading the people, stating "facts" which in fact are not.
We do not have any proof yet that chemical weapons were used, highly suspected, yes, maybe even probable, but not proven.
Then, and ONLY then(proof that chemical weapons were used), one has to discover WHO used them.
Obama is encouraging sending missiles and dropping bombs on gawd knows who . . .
How many is Obama willing to kill?
CC
School Teacher
(71 posts)I don't believe him for a minute. With the powerful forces at play, PNAC, AIPAC and the Neocons, this is not going to end anytime soon. with a "little" strike. This is just a start. I can't believe him anymore. Some Peace Prize! Don't Israel and Saudi Arabia and the CIA have their own armies for this job?
Carolina
(6,960 posts)And welcome to DU
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)I'll suggest the Nobel Committee ask for its peace prize back.
BlueEye
(449 posts)There is no historical precedent for that. Democratic presidents have been just as willing as Republicans to commit the military to foreign interventions. Furthermore, a number of those interventions ended rather poorly. Pacifism is a popular liberal position, but a political party as massive and influential as the Democrats could never practically adopt it into its ruling ideology.
I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. War is terrible, but sometimes it is a necessary extension of diplomacy. I believe that Democratic presidents are *less* motivated by defense industry lobbying in their interventionist pursuits, or at least there is a more genuine element of humanitarianism than with the Republicans, who are blatantly guilty of war profiteering. Take as evidence the fact that all military actions launched by Democrats since the 1990's have been more or less limited in scope, with better outcomes.
Which brings me to my last point. President Obama says this will be limited. What evidence do we have to doubt him on that? Obama's foreign policy is very reminiscent of Clinton's, which was also interventionist. But you can not deny that neither Clinton nor Obama have (to date) started a protracted war like Bush 41 and 43 did.
I voted for President Obama in 2012 knowing full well that Libya might not be the last American intervention we see. The President says it will be limited. I support him on that and I have no reason to doubt it will indeed be limited in nature (using previous actions as well as Clinton as a precedent).
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)I agree with you.
David__77
(23,553 posts)It's highly insulting that it's a war for terrorism is being proposed on the anniversary of 9/11.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)fedsron2us
(2,863 posts)is rather like saying I am only going to make you a little bit pregnant.
Presumably Obama put on those really cool sunglasses he owns so he could not read the briefing from General Martin Dempsey and the Joint Chief Of Staffs outlining what would be required in the terms of military intervention to neutralise all the Chemical weapons facilities in Syria. It is going to require a lot more than a few token missiles and a bit of bombing from the air to achieve that end.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101001802
sendero
(28,552 posts)..... which is talk. Action to back up the talk? Only if it is sticking our already bruised noses into yet another place it does not belong.
Glad to see, I guess, that he can actually get worked up enough to do something for once.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)And, NO!