Tag: politics

A wide range of options smoke screen:

Obama must choose, must come clean.

All while Syria regroups,

Moves the gas, moves the troops.

He thinks like a threshing machine.

Here is the full transcript of the Presidents remarks:

OBAMA: Well, obviously, I’m – I’m very grateful to have my fellow presidents (of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) here, as well as the vice president.  Before I begin, I want to say a few words about the situation in Syria.  As you’ve seen, today we’ve released our unclassified assessment detailing with high confidence that the Syrian regime carried out a chemical weapons attack that killed well over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.  This follows the horrific images that shocked us all.

This kind of attack is a challenge to the world.  We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale.  This kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well established international norms against the use of chemical weapons by further threatening friends and allies of ours in the region, like Israel and Turkey, and Jordan and it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us.   So, I have said before, and I meant what I said that, the world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons.

Now, I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm.  But as I’ve already said, I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options.      We have consulted with allies.  We’ve consulted with Congress. We’ve been in conversations with all the interested parties, and in no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign.      But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm.

Obama met with his national security team Friday in the White House Situation Room.  White House Photo.

Again, I repeat, we’re not considering any open-ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots on the ground approach.  What we will do is consider options that meet the narrow concern around chemical weapons, understanding that there’s not going to be a solely military solution to the underlying conflict and tragedy that’s taking place in Syria.      And I will continue to consult closely with Congress.  In addition to the release of the unclassified document, we are providing a classified briefing to congressional staff today.  And we’ll offer that same classified briefing to members of Congress as well as our international partners.  And I will continue to provide updates to the American people as we get more information.

[Remarks by the President, and the presidents of Estonia, Luthuania and Latvia are omitted]

QUESTION:  Syria and as long as you focus (inaudible) either the United States or Congress, particularly (inaudible) opportunity.

OBAMA:  We are still in the planning processes.  And, obviously, consultations with Congress, as well as the international community are very important.  And, you know, my preference, obviously, would have been that the international community already acted forcefully.      But what we have seen, so far at least, is a incapacity at this point for the Security Council to more forward in the face of a clear violation of international norms.        And, you know, I recognize that all of us here in the United States, in Great Britain and many parts of the world, there’s a certain weariness given Afghanistan.  There’s a certain suspicion of any military action post-Iraq.  And I very much appreciate that.

On the other hand, it’s important for us to recognize that when over 1,000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 percent or 99 percent of humanity says should not be used, even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal that that international norm doesn’t mean much, and that is a danger to our national security.  And obviously if and when we make a decisions to respond, there are a whole host of considerations that I have to take into account too in terms of how effective it is, and given the kinds of options that we’re looking at, that would be very limited, and would not involve a long-term commitment or a major operation, you know, we are confident that we can provide Congress all the information they can get, all the input that they need.  And we’re very mindful of that. And we can have serious conversations with our allies and our friends around the world about this.

But ultimately we don’t want the world to be paralyzed.  And, frankly, you know, part of the challenge that we end up with here is that a lot of people think something should be done, but nobody wants to do it.      And that’s not an unusual situation, and that’s part of what allows, over time, the erosion of these kinds of international prohibitions unless somebody says, “No.  When the world says we’re not gonna use chemical weapons, we mean it.”

And it would be tempting to leave it to others to do it. And I’ve – I think I’ve shown consistently and said consistently my strong preference for multilateral action whenever possible.     But it is not in the national security interest of the United States to ignore clear violations of these kinds of international norms, and the reason is because there are a whole host of international norms that are very important to us.       You know, we have currently rules in place dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.  We have international norms that have been violated by certain countries and the United Nations has put sanctions in place, but if there’s a sense that, over time, nobody’s willing actually to enforce them, then people don’t take them seriously.

So, you know, I am very clear that the world generally is war weary, certainly the United States, is has gone through over a decade of war.  The American people understandably want us to be focused on the business of rebuilding our economy here and putting people back to work, and I assure you nobody ends up being more war weary than me.     But what I also believe is that part of our obligation as a leader in the world is making sure that when you have a regime that is willing to use weapons that are prohibited by international norms on their own people – including children – that they’re held to account.

Contrast this with Sarah Palin, directly from her Facebook page:

LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT

“So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?” – Sarah Palin

* President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.

* We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”

* President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?

* The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians. Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?

* We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one. And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.

* Our Nobel Peace Prize winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.

* Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons.

* As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.

– Sarah Palin

Which one makes more sense?