FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama's Sept. 10 speech on Syria
Washington Post-18 minutes ago
President Obama delivered the following remarks making the case for a military strike against the Syrian government on Sept. 10, 2013, at the ...
FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on Syria
Video:
During his address Tuesday night, President Obama said he is asking
Congress to postpone a vote on military intervention in Syria as he
explores diplomatic options with allies.
Where Congress stands on Syria
“I'm going to support the president's call for action and I believe my colleagues should.”
Rep. John Boehner (R) - Ohio
“I voted yes in the committee but I have concerns about action, right now we need to deal with #Syria via diplomacy if possible.”
Sen. Ben Cardin (D) - Md.
“I don't see how just firing a round of cruise missiles against someone who is really a war criminal makes us stronger.”
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D) - Texas
“I agree with Secretary Kerry that the world cannot let such a heinous attack pass without a meaningful response, and I hope the international community will take appropriate action.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) - Calif.
“I cannot vote to go into Syria. Not with trying to represent what the district wants. And look at the financial aspect of it — we're going to spend billions of dollars.”
Rep. Stephen Fincher (R) - Tenn.
“My constituents are skeptical and reluctant to be drawn into this conflict - something that my vote will reflect.”
Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R) - Pa.
“Over the last several days,
I've studied the resolution passed by the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and I am concerned that its scope is too broad."
Sen. Al Franken (D) - Minn.
“I believe that a military strike against Syria at this time is the wrong course of action."
Sen. Joe Manchin (D) - W.Va.
“I cannot support the
resolution . . . because it is too broad, the effects of a strike are
too unpredictable, and because I believe we must give diplomatic measures . . . a chance to work."
Sen. Ed Markey (D) - Mass.
“...Ultimately, I’ve concluded that being credible on Syria requires presenting a credible response, and having a credible strategy.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) - Ky.
“The idea that we would—once again—deploy forces while they are financially strapped weighs heavily on many members, including me, who would otherwise vote in favor of a strike.”
Rep. Buck McKeon (R) - Calif.
“I don't know what the final
resolution will look like so it's modest to keep your mind open and
hear what people have to say but… I have very, very deep concerns."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) - Vt.
More on this story:
Obama takes Syria case to the public
With little guarantee that diplomacy would prevail, Obama argued that the nation must be prepared to strike Syria.
Four takeaways from President Obama’s Syria speech
There really wasn’t much definitive the president could say about the future of U.S. action in the region. And, he didn’t.
Full transcript: Obama’s speech
Obama made the case for a military strike against the Syrian government Tuesday at the White House.
Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the oppressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America’s worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement, but I have resisted calls for military action because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk.
On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American G.I.s were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded.
We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
No comments:
Post a Comment