Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

Weekly Address: President Obama – Calling for Limited Military Action in Syria

Tags:

From the White House – Weekly Address

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.

Transcript: Calling for Limited Military Action in Syria

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.  There’s a reason governments representing 98 percent of the world’s 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.

That’s 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 world’s oldest Constitutional democracy, I also know that our country will be stronger if we act together, and our actions will be more effective.  That’s why I asked Members of Congress to debate this issue and vote on authorizing the use of force.

What we’re 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.  That’s why we’re not putting our troops in the middle of somebody else’s war.

But we are the United States of America.  We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we’ve 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.

That’s why we can’t ignore chemical weapons attacks like this one – even if they happen halfway around the world.  And that’s 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.

Bolding added.

~

Editor’s Note: The President’s Weekly Address diary is also the weekend open news thread. Feel free to leave links to other news items in the comment threads.


Categories: Uncategorized.

/ 13 Comments

13 comments

  1. JanF

    Obama, Syria, and Congress: Why Did He Go There?

    A former senior Obama adviser who still works with the White House says, “Look at this. Is there any other explanation, other than he thinks this is what he ought to do?” Meaning that Obama, the former law professor, is paying heed to the constitutional notion that the president shares war-making responsibility with Congress.

    During the 2008 campaign, [Barack Obama] declared, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

    In Libya, Obama did not act in sync with his campaign statement. But in that instance, past and present Obama aides have contended, the president had only two days or so to mount a strike (with European and Arab allies) to prevent a possible slaughter of Libyan civilians. So Obama sidestepped his previously held view, put that particular principle on hold-and took the hit.

    This time around, as Obama has pointed out, he does not have to move quickly to thwart an imminent threat. Consequently, he has had the chance to proceed according to constitutional rules (as he sees them).

    One last chance, perhaps, to reset the imperial presidency that he campaigned against in 2008.

  2. JanF

    Obama Will Address American People On Syria This Tuesday

    President Barack Obama said Friday at a press conference in St. Petersburg that he intends to speak on the situation in Syria on Tuesday from the White House.

    Also from that news conference:

    “Is it possible that Assad doubles down in the face of our action and uses chemical weapons more widely? I suppose anything is possible,” Obama told reporters at a G-20 press conference in St. Petersburg. “But it wouldn’t be wise. I think at that point mobilizing the international community would be easier. Not harder. I think it would be pretty hard for the U.N. Security Council at that point to continue to resist the requirement for action and we would gladly join with an international coalition to make sure that it stops.”

  5. JanF

    Good news for Obamacare

    In the conservative echo chamber, there is little doubt about Obamacare: It’s an unmitigated, costly disaster. In the real world, there is a fascinating, high-stakes question that still needs answering: How well will this restructuring of the health-care industry, workable in theory, operate in reality?

    A new analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation offers the clearest picture yet of how much different sorts of Americans will have to pay for their coverage in the “exchanges” the government is setting up for individual insurance customers. Bottom-line costs will vary, as they do now, depending on where you live, your income, your age and other factors. But, “while premiums will vary significantly across the country,” the report concludes, “they are generally lower than expected.”

    ~~

    The Obama Administration’s Sneaky Plan To Hook Republican States On Obamacare

    With just 25 days left until uninsured Americans can begin signing-up for health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act, Republican lawmakers and Tea Party groups are doing their best to impede the enrollment process.

    But the Obama administration is ignoring the noise coming out of DC.

    Instead, officials at Department of Health and Human Services are trying to leverage reluctant Republican governors who have refused to establish state exchanges or expand their Medicaid programs into accepting a small part of the law, with the hopes that it will put them on the road to full implementation.

  6. JanF

    What We Hear When NPR Refers To ‘Obamacare’

    Hardly a week goes by that I don’t receive a complaint such as this thoughtful one last week from Jon Taylor of Portland, Ore., referring to a spate of recent reports:

       These stories invariably refer to the Affordable Care Act as “Obamacare.” In using this term, I believe NPR is falling into a trap set by the Tea Party, conservatives and the health care industry. Why do you use this term instead of its actual name? No other acts are referred to by NPR by the name of the president in office when the act was passed. This supports, or helps create the notion that the Affordable Care Act is a unique creation of the Obama Administration. This act is originated from the ideas and laws of many parties, and much of it was originally the idea of Republican politicians. By using the Obamacare term NPR helps sustain the position that this is the work of one man/administration and is outside of the norm of American politics.

    The author suggests that it is no longer a “politically charged term”.

    Stuart Seidel, NPR’s managing editor for standards and practice, wrote to me:

       Republicans coined the term “Obamacare” during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, seemingly as a means to generate opposition to the president’s health care initiative. During that time, NPR avoided using the term “Obamacare.” Since passage of the legislation and its enactment into law, the president has said he rather likes the term “Obamacare” and it has gradually come into the vernacular as a shorthand for referring to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I’m confident that NPR listeners and readers understand that whatever its origins, the term “Obamacare” has lost its pedigree as a politically charged term.

    It probably has to do with tone. Does a print article have tone, can it drip scorn? What do you think?

  7. princesspat

    A New Way To Find Health Coverage

    Starting this fall, Washington residents will have a new way to find, compare and enroll in health insurance. It’s called Washington Healthplanfinder, and it gives individuals, families, and small business owners the confidence to choose the plan that best fits their needs and their budget. Washington Healthplanfinder offers:

    Apples-to-apples comparisons of health insurance plans

    Financial help to pay for copays and premiums

    Expert customer support online, by phone, or in-person through a local organization, insurance broker or agent

  8. princesspat

    The Wonk Gap

    On Saturday, Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming delivered the weekly Republican address. He ignored Syria, presumably because his party is deeply conflicted on the issue. (For the record, so am I.) Instead, he demanded repeal of the Affordable Care Act. “The health care law,” he declared, “has proven to be unpopular, unworkable and unaffordable,” and he predicted “sticker shock” in the months ahead.

    ~snip~

    My guess, in other words, was that Mr. Barrasso was inadvertently illustrating the widening “wonk gap” – the G.O.P.’s near-complete lack of expertise on anything substantive. Health care is the most prominent example, but the dumbing down extends across the spectrum, from budget issues to national security to poll analysis. Remember, Mitt Romney and much of his party went into Election Day expecting victory.

    ~snip~

    It’s all kind of funny, in a way. Unfortunately, however, this runaway cult controls the House, which gives it immense destructive power – the power, for example, to wreak havoc on the economy by refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And it’s disturbing to realize that this power rests in the hands of men who, thanks to the wonk gap, quite literally have no idea what they’re doing.

Comments are closed.