TEXT -- Obama addresses nation on Syria, vows to keep pressure on Assad

[News_Editor]

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday delivered the following address to the nation, saying he will pursue diplomatic efforts to remove Syria's chemical weapons but maintaining military pressure on Damascus in case the efforts fail.

"My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here.

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone elseâs civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assadâs government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.

This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.

On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.

Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assadâs chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assadâs military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. Weâve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, itâs also a danger to our security.

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.

If fighting spills beyond Syriaâs borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assadâs ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.

This is not a world we should accept. This is whatâs at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regimeâs use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regimeâs ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

That's my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But Iâm also the President of the worldâs oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops, while sidelining the peopleâs representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.

Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I've spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq. Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want all of us in Washington -- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class.

Itâs no wonder, then, that you're asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I've heard from members of Congress, and that I've read in letters that you've sent to me.

First, many of you have asked, wonât this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are âstill recovering from our involvement in Iraq.â A veteran put it more bluntly: âThis nation is sick and tired of war.â

My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assadâs capabilities.

Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we donât take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, thereâs no point in simply doing a âpinprickâ strike in Syria.

Let me make something clear: The United States military doesnât do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don't think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.

Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We donât dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America.

Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that's so complicated, and where -- as one person wrote to me -- âthose who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?â

Itâs true that some of Assadâs opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, âWe should not be the worldâs policeman.â

I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.

However, over the last few days, weâve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said theyâd join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.

Itâs too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assadâs strongest allies.

I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. Iâm sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. Iâve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. Weâll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action.

Meanwhile, Iâve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.

My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.

And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to Americaâs military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.

Indeed, Iâd ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

Franklin Roosevelt once said, âOur national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.â Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.

America is not the worldâs policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. Thatâs what makes America different. Thatâs what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America."

(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: [email protected].)

[ABCer]

In previous postings on the use of chemicals in Syria I have unequivocally suggested that these facts point to 'rebels' as origin, not to Assad. Simple logic.

Unconfirmed rumors say that detailed chem analysis of chemicals used are not confirming the origin source of these chemicals as Russia - Assad's supplier.

A clean cut provocation from Al-Gaeda and Hasbullah who are mainly the 'rebels'.

Obama's rhetoric is a 'face saving' cheap trick. The simple fact is - on the background of US military successes in previous countries of the region - his hands are shorter facing positions of Russia, China and his own politicians.

There are two very sad factors in Syria's position.

First, - the enormous sufferings of innocent population ( it is always the case).

Second, - even if Assad agrees to place chemical weapons under International control, the practical problems are huge, the time frame will take years, the provocations will continue and we are back to factor one.

Not much change in nearest future, as I cannot see International help coming to Assad in removing the real cause - 'rebels' out of the country.

Very sad!

Please, NOTE: I'm in no way Assad's supporter!

[boomerangutang]

good speech by Obama.

[lannarebirth]

good speech by Obama.

I want to trust Obama but his messages are mixed, provocative, often false and filled with rhetorical claptrap. I do mistrust Putin, but frankly he makes the more compelling argument.

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A Plea for Caution From Russia

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN Published: September 11, 2013

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

More here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?src=twr&_r=2&

Edited September 12, 2013 by lannarebirth

[Chicog]

Second, - even if Assad agrees to place chemical weapons under International control, the practical problems are huge, the time frame will take years, the provocations will continue and we are back to factor one.

What do you mean by "provocations"?

Is that a euphemism for "massacres"?

[ABCer]

Second, - even if Assad agrees to place chemical weapons under International control, the practical problems are huge, the time frame will take years, the provocations will continue and we are back to factor one.

What do you mean by "provocations"?

Is that a euphemism for "massacres"?

Exactly. Since when all these 'revolutionaries' abstained from massacres? Especially when they can put Assad's ass on the line.

As I said, I'm not Assad supporter. But realistically thinking I am worried of the alternative, like in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc.

And I did say and repeat - this chemical attack was a successful provocation. The fact that US refuses to see it or sees it but pretends not to - proves only one obvious thing.

[Chicog]

And I did say and repeat - this chemical attack was a successful provocation. The fact that US refuses to see it or sees it but pretends not to - proves only one obvious thing.

Where did you get this idea that the chemical attack was a successful provocation? All of the intel I've seen says it was Assad's troops that launched it, even discussed it. The US has published an overview of their evidence. Which bit can you explicitly contradict?

And now Russia are buying time by removing these chem weapons from him, basically admitting that he's got them. And they sure haven't denied that he did it.

Are you just letting your view find a home in the opinions of a few tin foil hat wearers?

Or can you offer *any* proof that either contradicts the US/UK/French account, or confirms your story that it was in fact an act perpetrated by the opposition on their own people?

[JoeThePoster]

Note to dictators - shoot, don't gas, and you'll be just fine.

[Chicog]

Note to dictators - shoot, don't gas, and you'll be just fine.

Strange isn't it? He can kill 100,000 men, women and children without much more than some harsh words said against him, but gas 1000-odd and they're all ready to bomb him - because that's "against international law".

Politicians are f***ed up.

[johna]

And I did say and repeat - this chemical attack was a successful provocation. The fact that US refuses to see it or sees it but pretends not to - proves only one obvious thing.

Where did you get this idea that the chemical attack was a successful provocation? All of the intel I've seen says it was Assad's troops that launched it, even discussed it. The US has published an overview of their evidence. Which bit can you explicitly contradict?

And now Russia are buying time by removing these chem weapons from him, basically admitting that he's got them. And they sure haven't denied that he did it.

Are you just letting your view find a home in the opinions of a few tin foil hat wearers?

Or can you offer *any* proof that either contradicts the US/UK/French account, or confirms your story that it was in fact an act perpetrated by the opposition on their own people?

perhaps you could share some of the intel you have saying Assad was responsible for these attacks, all I have seen is the usual outrageous unsupported allegations by the West

[F430murci]

Note to dictators - shoot, don't gas, and you'll be just fine.

Strange isn't it? He can kill 100,000 men, women and children without much more than some harsh words said against him, but gas 1000-odd and they're all ready to bomb him - because that's "against international law".

Politicians are f***ed up.

Exactly, about time someone does something to protect the innocents. Unfortunately, the worlds hands have been tied and Assad has exploited the world's inability to act as a free pass pass to napalm, gas and bomb hospitals, school yards and anywhere else groups of children and civilians are observed.

Dude, look at the pictures and read reports of what it is currently like in Syria. It could not get much worse. How can you compare this to an Iraq scenario as Iraq was not in rubble or full blown civil war when Jr. invaded. Yes, Jr. overreacted and made Iraq a mess after WTC.

Syria, unlike Iraq, would and should be a humanitarian intervention as enough is enough, but UN, UK et al. are paralyzed by and in fear of Putin who cares absolutely zero about the suffering of innocent civilians in another country.

This is more reality that you guys ignore.

-----

ANTAKYA, Turkey Syrian opposition activists tell NBC News that Bashar Assad is getting away with having used chemical weapons to massacre hundreds of civilians, and that giving the regime a pass will only benefit al-Qaeda extremists.

If there is no action, everyone will be desperate. We are already desperate. We are dying. Many will join al-Qaeda. Even the educated will join them, because no one else is helping, a Syrian rebel said.

There is a battle underway within the Syrian revolt -- a war within the war -- between the generally moderate, US-backed Free Syrian Army and Islamic extremist groups.

The Free Syrian Army put its faith in Washington, which promised action, but so far hasnt delivered. The moderates say they have lost hope and face. Islamists, on the other hand, always doubted Washington would act, and instead of attending meetings, they are putting bullets in their guns; and they are sending men.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/11/20438772-jihadis-gain-ground-in-syrian-rebel-movement-as-moderates-grow-desperate?lite

[Chicog]

And I did say and repeat - this chemical attack was a successful provocation. The fact that US refuses to see it or sees it but pretends not to - proves only one obvious thing.

Where did you get this idea that the chemical attack was a successful provocation? All of the intel I've seen says it was Assad's troops that launched it, even discussed it. The US has published an overview of their evidence. Which bit can you explicitly contradict?

And now Russia are buying time by removing these chem weapons from him, basically admitting that he's got them. And they sure haven't denied that he did it.

Are you just letting your view find a home in the opinions of a few tin foil hat wearers?

Or can you offer *any* proof that either contradicts the US/UK/French account, or confirms your story that it was in fact an act perpetrated by the opposition on their own people?

perhaps you could share some of the intel you have saying Assad was responsible for these attacks, all I have seen is the usual outrageous unsupported allegations by the West

The public version of the intel has been posted here many times, look it up yourself. The UN Inspectors report will be released shortly.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Chicog

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Stay on topic.

[snarky66]

Pathetic & incoherent.

And of course he has to throw in a couple of lies. This president has a long history of illegal bombing campaigns.

[ABCer]

Chicoq, please stop trying to be annoying if you can.

Apart from rhetoric naming Assad as a culprit - there is not a shred of evidence.

Russians never made a secret of being a supplier to Assad. The weapons are not being taken away, but put under International control.

Applying 'pressure' to Assad is a good thing. Pity there is no way of doing the same to the 'revolutionary rebels' - Hasbullah and AlQaeda.

Your pitiful lamentations against the idea of 'using them against their own people' is a sign of an idealist far removed from political realities.

Notwithstanding the fact that Syrian population is not 'their own people'. Wouldn't stop them if they were.

Before you ask me to substantiate my statements ask yourself where is the substance in your's, Obama's or UN's.

At least I have my logic. US has only strong desire, not even logic on their side.

Note. Until you have proof, don't start the war, please. And make sure the proof is better than in Saddam's case.

[Pug Power]

And I did say and repeat - this chemical attack was a successful provocation. The fact that US refuses to see it or sees it but pretends not to - proves only one obvious thing.

Where did you get this idea that the chemical attack was a successful provocation? All of the intel I've seen says it was Assad's troops that launched it, even discussed it. The US has published an overview of their evidence. Which bit can you explicitly contradict?

And now Russia are buying time by removing these chem weapons from him, basically admitting that he's got them. And they sure haven't denied that he did it.

Are you just letting your view find a home in the opinions of a few tin foil hat wearers?

Or can you offer *any* proof that either contradicts the US/UK/French account, or confirms your story that it was in fact an act perpetrated by the opposition on their own people?

And on the other hand, can YOU offer any proof that the "Rebels" didn't use chems or are you just letting your view find a home in the opinions of a few propaganda artist and spin doctors.

U.S. MILITARY CONFIRMS REBELS HAD SARIN

However, in a classified document just obtained by WND, the U.S. military confirms that sarin was confiscated earlier this year from members of the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, the most influential of the rebel Islamists fighting in Syria.

The document says sarin from al-Qaida in Iraq made its way into Turkey and that while some was seized, more could have been used in an attack last March on civilians and Syrian military soldiers in Aleppo.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/u-s-military-confirms-rebels-had-sarin/

EXPERT: POISON GAS WAS 'KITCHEN' VARIETY

WASHINGTON – A top terrorism expert says that recent findings on the chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 in a region on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria, was “indeed a self-inflicted attack” by the Syrian opposition to provoke U.S. and military intervention in Syria.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/expert-poison-gas-was-kitchen-variety/

Report: Intelligence on Syrian Chemical Weapons No 'Slam Dunk' Despite Obama

StatementsThe intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/United-States-Syria-Intelligence-Doubts/2013/08/29/id/522837?s=al&promo_code=14AFF-1

Seems to me, people who wear "tin foil" hats come for all walks of life, including "High Level U.S. Intelligence Agencies".

Edited September 14, 2013 by Pug Power

[Chicog]

Chicoq, please stop trying to be annoying if you can.

Apart from rhetoric naming Assad as a culprit - there is not a shred of evidence.

Russians never made a secret of being a supplier to Assad. The weapons are not being taken away, but put under International control.

Applying 'pressure' to Assad is a good thing. Pity there is no way of doing the same to the 'revolutionary rebels' - Hasbullah and AlQaeda.

Your pitiful lamentations against the idea of 'using them against their own people' is a sign of an idealist far removed from political realities.

Notwithstanding the fact that Syrian population is not 'their own people'. Wouldn't stop them if they were.

Before you ask me to substantiate my statements ask yourself where is the substance in your's, Obama's or UN's.

At least I have my logic. US has only strong desire, not even logic on their side.

Note. Until you have proof, don't start the war, please. And make sure the proof is better than in Saddam's case.

Unless you're a member of the intelligence services, you have to rely on the public version to draw a conclusion.

The US have shown little interest in getting involved in this militarily until this attack. They stated that they know where the armaments were launched from and where they went, and that they have sigint that shows Syrian forces discussing the attack.

You can choose to take another view, in this internet world, lots of people claim to have evidence otherwise, but I choose to believe the ones more likely to have eyes in the sky.

The fact that Russia have effectively outed Syria's chemical weapons and offered to neutralise them is to me a tacit admission that they know who did it, too.

In case you haven't noticed this is already a war between the Syrian people (and now drawn in others from Sunni countries, some of them extremist) and the Alawite minority that rules Syria with the help of Iran, Hezbollah and Russia.

I live in the Middle East and trust me I am more than aware of the political realities at stake. If that annoys you, tough sh*t.