I didn’t watch President Obama’s address on Syria last night. I did this morning through the magic of Youtube. I seriously doubt that it changed anyone’s mind. I haven’t been able to locate an overnight tracking poll yet but I suspect that relatively few people saw the address, those who did learned nothing new, and they’ve already made up their minds.
A distinct question is whether President Obama helped his own approval rating with the address. Right now it’s hovering around the lowest level of his presidency. If he decides to attack Syria, it will be with the full recognition of that and in the knowledge that 2/3s of the American people disagree with him.
My opinion is what it has been for some time: that the U. S. should makes its case to the Security Council before taking any action, that the Congress should authorize the use of force before the president takes action, and that what control we have over events is limited to whether we attack Syria or not rather than over what happens afterwards.
I have hopes for Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s proposal for ending Syria’s chemical weapons use and, presumably, its program but on that we’ll need to wait and see the details as they emerge.
I did not watch the speech, but I do not think this was the purpose of his speech. I think he is terribly conflicted, and he is trying to convince the US and himself of the necessity of potential military action.
His low numbers are due to how he has handled this, but Americans quickly forget about a one time bungling.
Other than WW2, the American people have been opposed to most military actions. For some actions, the president has been able to make a case, and some those against were willing to give it tepid support. Americans are goal oriented, and success will justify the original premise.
Tasty,
I wanted to watch the speech. But I was tired, and as soon as Obama started speaking I fell asleep. All I can deduce from this is that it was not very riveting.
This morning, though, I tuned into a radio show, one actively supporting Obama, and their only positive remark was that “his suit was nice.” Most people, on the left and right, though, seem to think he made an error in even giving this speech, especially in lieu of their last minute change of direction. But, then that is how this president functions — erratically and seemingly with a lack of a confident compass.
I would think the armed services would be getting more demoralized by the day in trying to figure out what this administration is trying to do. There is such an emptiness in this president’s convictions. The only solid ground seems to be ideologically based. And, that is why Obama appears to politically swerve around the corners of policy-making like an empty (but nice) suit who has had too much to drink.
I don’t think that the actual statistics support that analysis. The president’s approval rating has been declining pretty steadily since the end of April which at least to my eye is before Syria was on most Americans’ radar. The president’s foreign policy probably hasn’t helped his approval rating much but I suspect that most of the decline is based on economic issues.
I didn’t watch it. In fact, I thought I had read he was cancelling it. For some strange reason, I watched the World Cup soccer qualifier. Damn, what a boring sport, I could have been watching a decisive call to kick some butt.
(At some point, the Americans have the ball on a throw-in and are obviously trying to run out the clock. He’s just standing their with the ball over his head, waiting. And I’m wondering is there a time limit here, because he’s not acting like it. And then the referee runs up and shows him a yellow card and he throws it in. A yellow card? He’s been cautioned? Why isn’t there a strict time limit and turnover of the ball? Are their rules to this game or is it a bunch of disputed norms?)
I’ve listened to it now. I’ve moved from undecided to against. I thought he might provide some more information, particularly about the types of unconventional weapons Syria might have and what international terrorist organizations might do with them.
It struck me as an argument based upon legal abstraction and hyperbole. I think he’s wrong legally. The ban on use of chemicals applies to wars between states, not the gas chambers used by NAZIs. I mean c’mon, didn’t that sound weird when you read it, man? It would not matter to me, but these claims need an international ruling. Many of the threats he imagines are debatable, and more likely to be felt by other countries with U.S. deterrence capabilities.
I support seeking to get Syria to disarm to the extent practical, and Kerry is sounding suitably aggressive in terms of demanding specific and quick action. I hope for the best on that, but I won’t support using military force to that end.
That’s why I mentioned that there are laws on the books in a number of states including California and Arizona that prescribe the gas chamber as a legal form of execution. Just because they’re lawyers doesn’t mean they’re good lawyers.
@jan
I tuned him out some time ago. I agree with the opinion of several of the commenters, but President Obama is the US president. It must be the Marine in me, but when the orders come down, all discussion about them ceases. You figure out how to implement them no matter how much you dislike them.
@Dave, I saw that. I really didn’t think that Reid labeling opponents of the AUMF as Hellbound NAZI-coddlers deserved much of a response. He’s just the Majority Leader. But now the President likens his stance to standing up to the Holocaust, but for now we are negotiating with “Hitler” to use anything but gas in killing his subjects. I don’t think it was the lawyers, its the speechwriters and last-minute rewrites.