Obama Walks The Line and Delivers a Masterful Speech on Syria

[Tx4obama]

Obama Walks The Line and Delivers a Masterful Speech on Syria

The president began by giving background on the civil war in Syria, and what the US government has done. Interestingly, Obama pointed out how he has resisted the calls for military action. Obama talked about Assad’s use of chemical weapons and called the images, “sickening.” The president said that, “The civilized world has spent over a century trying to ban them.” The president laid out the evidence that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack on August 21.

While making the case for strikes on Syria, Obama pointed out that he has spent four and half years trying to end war. The president directly answered several questions that have dominating the public debate on Syria. He promised that he will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. He said that he would not pursue open-ended strategy like in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said that he would not engage in a prolonged bombing campaign like in Kosovo. The president said that the Assad regime does not have the capacity to threaten the US military. The president also said that Assad has no interest in escalation with the United States.

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

The president laid the groundwork for a justification for military strikes, but he clearly explained the limits of such strikes. He also made the case for international intervention, but mostly, this speech was guided by the president’s desire for a diplomatic solution. It was a brilliant balancing act.

Obama delivered, and delivered big tonight. The president may have been talking the talk on a military strike, but that was only to set the stage for diplomacy. Dictators like Assad aren’t going to engage in diplomacy unless they feel it is their only choice.

The president’s speech tonight was a masterful display of how the Commander in Chief can use his powers effectively without taking the nation to war.

Full article here: http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/10/obama-walks-line-delivers-masterful-speech-syria.html

[Bjorn Against]

1. It was an awful speech that focused on bombing right after a diplomatic breakthrough

If he truly wanted diplomacy he would not have spent most his speech advocating bombings. This speech could seriously harm the diplomatic efforts that had been happening, this speech was seriously bad. I hope Congress won't postpone as long as Obama wants them to and votes this piece of shit resolution down.

[Tx4obama]

2. I disagree. Might not hurt for you to listen to the WHOLE speech again...

... and listen to all the 'diplomacy' parts and 'humanity' parts.

[Bjorn Against]

3. I heard the diplomacy parts, they should have been the entire speech

Advocating bombing in the midst of diplomacy is not diplomacy even if you put some nice sounding words about diplomatic efforts in your speech.

[Tx4obama]

4. Come on - get real. Syria and Russia also will hear the speech. Obama can't come out and ...

... say: Okay, all is good now. We promise will not use 'use of force'.

It doesn't work that way.

Have to keep pressure on Syria in order to get Russia to make Syria do the right thing.

Surely you know that

[Bjorn Against]

5. No, he does not have to keep thretening war.

This country does not want the war he is pushing and there is nothing forcing him to continue to push it.

[Tx4obama]

6. There already IS a war - it's called The Syrian Civil War.

Obama is not threatening 'war' - it would be an 'intervention' - similar to the intervention in Libya but without the no-fly-zone.

I think it is ridiculous that folks keep calling a US intervention war.

When we intervened in Libya NO ONE said that The USA was at 'war' with Libya.

[Bjorn Against]

7. Actually many of us did call it war in Libya, bombing another country is war

We do not need to interfere with Syria's civil war, it would only inflame the situation to do so.

Those who try to claim dropping bombs on another nation is not an act of war just look foolish.

[sigmasix]

10. those that claim gas attacks are okay

those that claim dictators who gas their population should not be subject to international cooperation on a surgical miltary strike to stop the gas attacks probably shouldn't attempt to represent themselves as informed or rational.

[Cha]

8. Yeah, the speech wasn't just for those on DU..

it was for Russia and Syria, too.

Jeff Simon @jjsimonWP

Scott Pelley w/ line of the night: "Like the presidential seal, President Obama had an olive branch in one hand and arrows in the other."3:29 PM - 10 Sep 2013

57 Retweets 13 favorites Reply

http://theobamadiary.com/2013/09/10/president-obama-addresses-the-nation-on-syria/#comments

[Cha]

9. And, here it is..

"Obama delivered, and delivered big tonight. The president may have been talking the talk on a military strike, but that was only to set the stage for diplomacy. Dictators like Assad aren’t going to engage in diplomacy unless they feel it is their only choice.

The president’s speech tonight was a masterful display of how the Commander in Chief can use his powers effectively without taking the nation to war."

[quadrature]

11. Obama delivered a great speech

but we already know that
George Bush is a piece of shit.

the 'news' in his speech,
that diplomacy will continue...
?!@#$%^&?......
he should have sent out a tweet.

[WooWooWoo]

12. it was a great speech

because he tabled the military authorization vote in congress - which means he effectively takes the stick out of his hand, puts it in his back pocket and replaces it with a carrot.

The only people who don't find this a positive development [as well as an exercise in caution and prudence in the face of once-in-a-generation tensions] are people who think the US has no moral authority to intervene in Syria at all and blame Obama for even considering military action.

And those are people who will never find a use for the military short of a "Red Dawn" scenario. Even if the "use" amounts to nothing more than a show of force.

Those people are pacifists, not big-D Democrats. Not a bad thing, not something to be ashamed of - just noteworthy because it absolves them from having a credible opinion in a debate amongst people legitimately torn on the issue. Kind of like Bill Kristol in reverse, who never met a military action he didn't like.