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?