WATCH ABOVE: U.S. President Barack Obama took to the airwaves Tuesday night to make the case for a military strike in Syria. Eric Sorensen reports.
Barack Obama is putting military action against Syria on hold to see what effect Russia’s diplomatic efforts to avert a strike may have.
Obama addressed the U.S. and the world Tuesday evening in a televised speech that reaffirmed American intelligence showed the Syrian government gassed its own people with sarin and that, if there was no threat of action against Bashar Assad‘s regime for using chemical weapons, it would be a threat to U.S. security.
WATCH: Obama’s address to the U.S. public on Syria
His roughly 15-minute long address was watched from all sides of the debate and was quickly dissected by columnists, pundits, government officials and foreign policy experts.
Global News takes a look at some of the notable comments in Obama’s speech and the reaction to those remarks.
“… Over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs, in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons.”
The world was waiting to see how Obama would react to Tuesday’s diplomatic development and whether or not the Russian plan would be taken with a grain of salt.
But, Politico contributor Shibley Telhami said it appeared to be a “relief” for Obama, in “fighting a losing battle.”
“It has provided what may be a face-saving proposal that allows him to pull back from war while claiming victory,” wrote Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland.
Telhami, like many others, raised the question of Obama’s credibility being put at risk if he took no action after a year of “red line” rhetoric.
He suggests U.S. credibility is not at risk because the Americans don’t have any real credibility in the Arab world. “The problem is not the absence of American will to intervene, but lack of trust in American aims. Intervention will only increase that anger and suspicion.”
New York Times columnist Nick Kristof, who just last week raised eyebrows among his followers by writing about his support for the use of force, explained on Twitter he felt Obama’s speech really didn’t do much to win over American people, but it did give them some perspective about “where he’s coming from.”
Meanwhile, blogger Chris Cillizza, of the Washington Post‘s “The Fix” blog,” said Obama’s address keeps things in a “holding pattern.”
Get breaking National news
“This was a speech Obama had to give not one he wanted to deliver. The reality of the situation — the rising Congressional opposition to a use of force resolution coupled with the uncertainty surrounding a nascent Russian-led effort to force Syria to hand over its chemical weapons — meant that there really wasn’t much definitive the President could say about the future of U.S. action in the region,” Cillizza wrote.
READ MORE: Q & A: What did Syria’s Assad achieve in his U.S. interview?
But, NBC News White House Correspondent Chris Todd suggested Obama’s speech wasn’t entirely a result of developments in the hours before going on air and wasn’t a reaction at all.
“It was pretty clear to me, after listening to the speech, that two-thirds of that speech was written a couple of days ago… It’s the same speech he was planning on giving two days ago, as he gave today. The part that was being rewritten and worked on over the last few hours today was that last third of the speech.”
“Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force.”
The “pinpricks.” The pinpricks will be a buzzword that probably won’t be soon forgotten, much like the “red line”.
An analysis of the speech in USA Today pointed out the “red line” term was an unscripted remark one year ago that led Obama and the U.S. to where they are today in acting on the Syrian crisis.
“That unexpected turn of events meant the president delivered an address to the nation Tuesday night that wasn’t the clarion call to military action he had planned when it was scheduled,” Susan Page wrote in USA Today. “Instead, he not only argued that American interests and values justified missile strikes on Syria but also embraced as worth exploring a last-minute pitch from Russia for a diplomatic solution to avoid doing just that.”
She also opined that it was Secretary of State John Kerry’s off-handed, or rhetorical, comment on Sunday that brought about the Russian bid for diplomacy.
Kerry said Assad gave one week to Assad to turn over his stockpile of chemical weapons. Rhetorical or not, unplanned or not: It may have been enough of a saber rattle to put U.S. action on hold.
- B.C. First Nations explore if nuclear power could meet province’s electricity needs
- Ontario PC MPPs who spent big on hotels face questions as minister resigns
- 2 Saskatchewan research farms to stay open as province enters MOU with Ottawa
- How Canada helped in past U.S. wildfires as Ford says some are ‘chirping’
“The Russian foreign minister seized on the first part of his answer and ignored the second to create a diplomatic opening,” Page wrote.
The pinpricks comment was in regards to the use of a “limited strike,” which Obama said “will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver.”
READ ALSO: How do you destroy chemical weapons?
“I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can makes Assad — or any other dictator — think twice before using chemical weapons.”
Republican Sen. Rand Paul, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, criticized Obama’s lack of plans to remove Assad from power, telling CNN‘s Wolf Blitzer “Gosh, the guy who did this deserves death… But, I mean the president’s plan is to leave Assad alone.”
Although he did not call for an assassination, Paul said he feels nothing will happen to Assad under Obama’s current plan.
“I think Assad can’t remain there,” he said. “But, he’s really not willing to make Assad pay.”
WATCH: Republican senator Rand Paul responds to President Obama’s address to America
“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.”
Journalist Philip Gourevitch took issue with Obama playing on peoples’ sympathies, by isolating the deaths of more than 400 children in his speech.
“Is the international norm against gassing children – or against chem Weapons? Fixation on children clearly suggests its OK to kill elders,” author and New Yorker columnist Gourevitch said on Twitter.
He went on to say that people have been watching fathers clutch their dead children for the duration of the civil war.
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.