President Obama Not Rushing to Act on Signs Syria Used Chemical Arms

[Purveyor]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Friday that he would respond “prudently” and “deliberately” to evidence that Syria had used chemical weapons, tamping down any expectations that he would take swift action after an American intelligence assessment that the Syrian government had used the chemical agent sarin on a small scale in the nation’s civil war.

Mr. Obama’s remarks, before a meeting here with King Abdullah II of Jordan, laid bare the quandary he now faces. The day after the White House, in a letter to Congressional leaders, said that the nation’s intelligence agencies had assessed “with varying degrees of confidence” that the Syrian government had used sarin, the president said he was seeking further proof of culpability for chemical weapons attacks. It is a laborious process that analysts say may never produce a definitive judgment. But Mr. Obama is also trying to preserve his credibility after warning in the past that the use of chemical weapons would be a “game changer” and prompt a forceful American response.

“Knowing that potentially chemical weapons have been used inside of Syria doesn’t tell us when they were used, how they were used,” Mr. Obama told reporters in the Oval Office. “We have to act prudently. We have to make these assessments deliberately.”



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/world/middleeast/white-house-in-no-rush-on-syria-action.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[awoke_in_2003]

1. And if they did use them, so what?...

We cannot afford to do anything about it.

[demcoat]

8. Exactly

Countries acquire WMD as a deterrent to invasion and when the attacking forces is so stubborn that they refuse to be deterred by conventional weapons, you then use the WMD. Who in their right mind thinks the US will not use her nuclear weapons if she was going to be defeated with conventional weapons?

Situations like the one Syria is facing is the reason anyone should have WMD. I think we should completely stay out of this civil war

[SunSeeker]

2. Good. And don't act unilaterally either. nt

[Lady Freedom Returns]

3. We do not need Iraq 2!

[ucrdem]

4. This is where BO shines.

He's kept us the heck out of Iraq for four years and anyone who thinks that doesn't take guts and conviction needs to pay closer attention. Rec.

p.s. I meant Iran, but speaking of Iraq, he kept his promise and pulled US troops out of there by 2012.

[freshwest]

5. +1

[John2]

11. Well, the Truthsayers

need to keep him inline, like with CPI. The U.S. shouldn't be advocating Wars period! Everything the rightwingers in Congress are for, I'm for the opposite. I think they are the problem just like on domestic issues. We need a regime change in Congress. The rightwing needs to go.

[LibAsHell]

7. Christ, can you imagine what we'd be doing were Romney in charge?

Already sending troops to Syria, I'm sure.

[tofuandbeer]

9. Ah! No please don't give me nightmares of a R$ presidency.

[adieu]

10. In keeping with the Bush doctrine

since he'd have all those clowns from the Bush administration, Romney would have invaded Lebanon.

[bravenak]

12. Good.

Let us mind our own business for a change.

[Steviehh]

13. Good

Make a determination then stay out of it.

It's not our problem.

[DCBob]

14. Yeah, I agree with this.

The situation is Syria is dire but it simply does make sense for us to get too involved at this point. However, I suspect there are things we are doing under the radar.

[kelliekat44]

15. The lack of interest and rec for this post tell me a whole lot. nt

[Purveyor]

16. By reading the threads posted after this mornings talk shows and the war blather, I think it

has finally caught some attention. At least I hope.

[Adam-Bomb]

17. wait a minute, now

Personally, I could care less if one half of Syria killed off the other half,
but our President and his Administration DID say that CW use in Syria
would be a "line in the sand." I don't know if you all had forgotten that,
but I haven't. If he didn't really mean it, why'd he make that statement
in the first place?

I understand wanting to verify; God knows there are forces that would LOVE
to have us sucked into that goat-screw on any pretext. We need definative
proof, yes. If the US gets proof, and/or there there is another verified use
of CW, President Obama is going to have to act on his promise or he/we are
going to look awfully stupid/weak/lying to the rest of the world. We need that
like we need another hole in the head, am I right?

I really hope nothing comes of this; Syria needs to knock off even thinking
about using CW on it's own folks and the U.S. DOESN'T need another conflict,
especially in Syria.