Here is the video of President Obama’s speech on his intended actions in response to the chemical attack in Syria.

This is posted on the White House blog as President Obama’s Decision on Syria. There you can find a transcript. There is also a page for submitting questions and comments.

I have commented on YouTube and I have sent comments directly to the White House with various parts from the comments below.

President Obama, are you listening or are you just talking?

Do you realize that you are not the one to judge whether you have made a strong case for what you want to do? The people whose agreement you seek are the ones to make the judgement. You have to listen to them before you can conclude how well you have done?

What if the Syrian government did not launch the attacks, but it was the rebels who accidentally exposed the chemicals that were supplied to them by Saudi Arabia? What is your reaction to Syrian rebels admitting to their part in this attack?

Are you willing to take action on this chemical weapon attack even if you punish the wrong people? Will this confirm to the world that the US is too dangerous to have the military might that it does? Will attacking Syria just prove to Iran that they better get nuclear weapons to protect against a future attack from us?

What if Assad says, “I see your attack and I raise you one. Now here is a real chemical attack.” Are you going to stop at your initial pin prick and just say “Oops, that didn’t work?” Or are you going to escalate? Is there a third option? Could you try that third option before you drop bombs and cause another chemical attack?

Do you realize that diplomacy involving the interested parties means that you listen to their issues, try to understand them, and try to resolve them as well as expecting the same treatment from the other parties on your issues? Pressuring others to just accept your point of view is not a good faith effort at using a diplomatic approach.

The videos of the attack victims are consistent with certain nerve agents, but not with others. Don’t you think you ought to wait for the UN inspectors’ report to see if the blood tests show the use of the nerve agent is consistent with the videos and consistent with the types of agents that Syria has?

If it turns out that your actions are to cover the blunder of the CIA in letting Saudi Arabia provide chemical weapons to the rebels, have you not learned that the cover up gets you into more trouble than admitting to the original offense? The original offense may not be impeachable, but a cover-up is impeachable.

What if there is a whistle blower that comes out and exposes what really happen despite all your attempts to intimidate all whistle blowers?

The laws of this country have strict requirements for trying and convicting people to guard against the erroneous conviction of the wrong people on less than reliable evidence. As a lawyer and Constitutional scholar, don’t you think that bombing people who have not bombed you and are not threatening to bomb you ought to require just as much caution?

The Real News Network has the video The Most Sought After Chess Piece with Larry Wilkerson the former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell.  Here is just the beginning of the wise advice from Wilkerson.

DESVARIEUX: So, Larry, it sounds like there’s no smoking gun here. UN inspectors, they’re still in Syria currently. But the Obama administration seems to be pushing forward, saying that they are blaming Assad for this chemical attack. Why would the Obama administration come out with such aggressive language towards Assad and this strike if there’s no smoking gun? What wouldn’t they just wait for the UN inspectors to have hard evidence before proceeding?

WILKERSON: That’s an excellent question. And if I hadn’t lived through this sort of operation with three other presidents, I’d have difficulty answering that question.

As it is, I would say that probably they got too far forward in the foxhole, too aggressive. The president probably acted on an NSA intercept or something like that and made some conclusions he probably shouldn’t have made. And now they’re trying to walk it back a little bit.

I just heard that the inspectors have been asked through the Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general, to not go to the area because we claim the area is contaminated by conventional munitions that Assad has continued to use. That’s preposterous, because if it was a neurotoxic agent, we wouldn’t necessarily have to find things on the ground. It would be nice if we did, but what we’re going to do is take blood samples and so forth of the alleged victims and see if they have indeed been affected by some sort of chemical agent, in this case VX or sarin or a facsimile thereof.

So this really looks bad right now. It looks a lot like what I went through in 2003 in preparing Colin Powell for his now infamous presentation at United Nations in February of that year, where we said Saddam had an active nuclear program, had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons, had major contacts with al-Qaeda and an active nuclear program, all of which we now know was patently false.

Here is the video:

You have to wonder why the President is so dead set against listening to reason. I have proposed one reason, that Obama is trying to cover his ass over a CIA action that went wrong. Does anyone ever learn from history that the cover-up can get you in more trouble than the original crime? Can you think of any other, less idiotic reasons?

The New York Times has the article Experts Fear U.S. Plan to Strike Syria Overlooks Risks.

“Our biggest problem is ignorance; we’re pretty ignorant about Syria,” said Ryan C. Crocker, a former ambassador to Syria and Lebanon, who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University.
.
.
.
In outlining its tentative plans, the Obama administration has left many questions unanswered. Diplomats familiar with Mr. Assad say there is no way to know how he would respond, and they question what the United States would do if he chose to order a chemical strike or other major retaliation against civilians.

That would leave the United States to choose between a loss of credibility and a more expansive — and unpopular — conflict, they said. “So he continues on in defiance — maybe he even launches another chemical attack to put a stick in our eye — and then what?” Mr. Crocker said. “Because once you start down this road, it’s pretty hard to get off it and maintain political credibility.”

I am so confused.  Here I am agreeing with the Dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University.  Moreover, this article is being published by the Iraq warmongers at The New York Times.

It’s enough to make my head spin if it were not for the fact that I am standing still and the other people are doing the flipping and flopping.

The BBC has the story and video Russia’s Vladimir Putin challenges US on Syria claims.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has challenged the US to present to the UN evidence that Syria attacked rebels with chemical weapons near Damascus.

Speaking to journalists in the Russian far-eastern city of Vladivostok, Mr Putin urged Mr Obama – as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate – to think about future victims in Syria before using force.

He said it was ridiculous to suggest the Syrian government was to blame for the attack.

“Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions,” he said.

“In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense.”

“So I’m convinced that is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict.”

He said that the US failure to present evidence to the international community was “simply disrespectful”.

“If there is evidence it should be shown. If it is not shown, then there isn’t any,” he said.

Some of Obama’s critics call him a communist.  At least if he were Russian, he could sound reasonable, like Putin on this issue.  Who’s of thought that to an American the Russian logic would sound more logical than the American logic?