Obama Will Address the Nation About Syria on Tuesday. So, What Will He Say?

The 6 points Obama will make to the American people next week.

President Obama addressed the Syrian crisis during a news conference at the G-20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.
National Journal
Matt Vasilogambros
Sept. 6, 2013, 6:37 a.m.

As a grow­ing num­ber of law­makers speak out against mil­it­ary ac­tion in Syr­ia, Pres­id­ent Obama will ad­dress the na­tion on Tues­day to lay out his ar­gu­ments for strik­ing the As­sad re­gime over its chem­ic­al-weapons use.

While Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry and oth­er ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials have at­temp­ted to con­vince mem­bers of Con­gress in the last week that the ap­pro­pri­ate course of ac­tion is to give the pres­id­ent the au­thor­ity to use lim­ited air­strikes. But Obama has faced cri­ti­cism not only from Re­pub­lic­ans but also from mem­bers of his own Demo­crat­ic Party who face a war-weary pub­lic back home.

Now, Obama is tak­ing his case straight to those con­stitu­ents. Speak­ing to re­port­ers on Fri­day, the pres­id­ent hin­ted at the ar­gu­ments he will make in his ad­dress from the White House next week.

“The kind of world we live in and our abil­ity to de­ter this kind of out­rageous be­ha­vi­or is go­ing to de­pend on the de­cisions that we make in the days ahead,” Obama said in a press con­fer­ence at the G-20 sum­mit in St. Peters­burg.

What are those ar­gu­ments?

This is not just about Syr­ia. It’s about in­ter­na­tion­al norms.

The As­sad’s re­gime brazen use of chem­ic­al weapons isn’t just a Syr­i­an tragedy. It’s a threat to glob­al peace and se­cur­ity.

The chem­ic­al-weapons at­tack was so hor­rif­ic it de­serves a strong re­sponse.

You know, over 1,400 people were gassed. Over 400 of them were chil­dren. This is not something we have fab­ric­ated. This is not something we are look­ing or us­ing as an ex­cuse for mil­it­ary ac­tion.

Obama has spent his pres­id­ency try­ing to end the wars in Afgh­anistan and Ir­aq, but mil­it­ary ac­tion is needed some­times.

I was elec­ted to end wars, not start them. I’ve spent the last four and a half years do­ing everything I can to re­duce our re­li­ance on mil­it­ary power as a means of meet­ing our in­ter­na­tion­al ob­lig­a­tions and pro­tect­ing the Amer­ic­an people. But what I also know, there are times where we have to make hard choices if we are go­ing to stand up for the things we care about, and I be­lieve that this is one of those times.

We can­not go through a broken United Na­tions.

It is my view, and a view that was shared by a num­ber of people in the room, that giv­en Se­cur­ity Coun­cil para­lys­is on this is­sue, if we are ser­i­ous about up­hold­ing a ban on chem­ic­al-weapons use, then an in­ter­na­tion­al re­sponse is re­quired and that will not come through Se­cur­ity Coun­cil ac­tion.

Some ar­gue that a re­sponse would be too little, too late. He dis­agrees.

We may not solve the whole prob­lem, but this par­tic­u­lar prob­lem of us­ing chem­ic­al weapons on chil­dren, this one we might have an im­pact on and that is worth act­ing on. That is im­port­ant to us.

Mil­it­ary in­ter­ven­tion in oth­er na­tions has been un­pop­u­lar throughout his­tory, but it was the right thing to do.

When Lon­don was get­ting bombed, it was pro­foundly un­pop­u­lar, both in Con­gress and around the coun­try, to help the Brit­ish. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do. It just means people are strug­gling with jobs and bills to pay and they don’t want their sons or daugh­ters put in en­tan­gle­ments far away are dan­ger­ous and dif­fer­ent. To bring the ana­logy closer to home, the in­ter­ven­tion in Kosovo, very un­pop­u­lar, but, ul­ti­mately I think it was the right thing to do and the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity should be glad that it came to­geth­er to do it. When people say that it is a ter­rible stain on all of us, that hun­dreds of thou­sands of people were slaughtered in Rwanda, ima­gine if Rwanda was go­ing on right now and we asked should we in­ter­vene in Rwanda? I think it’s fair to say it prob­ably wouldn’t hold real well.

What We're Following See More »
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
1 days ago

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.