Barack Obama address on Syria weapons plan – as it happened

The full text of the president's speech is here.

Some early reactions:

The speech is over.

He addresses concerns on both the right and the left. "The burden of leaderships are often heavy. But the world's a better place because we have bore them."

Now he's discussing the proposal to put Syria's CW arsenal under international control.

"I have therefore asked the leaders of congress to postpone a vote" on the use of force "while we pursue this path." 

"Let me make something clear: the United States military does not do pin-pricks."

Regarding retaliation, he says, Assad "does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military."

No boots on the ground! He has mentioned this before. He has mentioned much of this before.

He says this would not be a long-term ground war like Iraq or Afghanistan, but also not even a "sustained" bombing campaign like Kosovo or Libya.

"I know military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular." He is now "responding to concerns" he's heard from congress and in "letters sent to me."

"It is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons." He mentions that failing to respond would embolden Iran on its nuclear program, etc.

"What happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law. It's also a danger to our security."

"When dictators commit atrocities, they depend on the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory."

Chemical weapons make "no distinction between soldier and infant."

He brings up the use of chemical weapons during World War I, as well as the Holocaust. 

"Over the past two years what began as a series of peaceful protests of the regime of Bashar al-Assad has turn into a brutal civil war... but I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force.

"The situation profoundly changed on August 21," with the CW attacks.

President Obama is beginning now.

Minutes before the speech, the White House issues a statement about its security preparations for the 9/11 anniversary:

Earlier today the President met with key national security principals on our preparedness and security posture on the eve of the twelfth anniversary of September 11th. Over the past several months, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco has convened numerous meetings to review security measures in place for this anniversary, as well as other global threats, including the recent threat emanating from the Arabian Peninsula.

The President’s National Security team is taking measures to prevent 9/11 related attacks and to ensure the protection of U.S. persons and facilities abroad. The President reiterated that protecting the American people, both at home and abroad, is the Administration’s top national security priority.

September 11th has been a day of remembrance for 12 years for Americans and others around the world. The events of last year, losing four brave Americans – Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – brought home the reality of the challenges we face in the world. As we near this day of remembrance, we continue to mourn the death of our cherished colleagues and honor their dedication to public service. We remain committed to bringing the perpetrators of the Benghazi attacks to justice and to ensuring the safety of our brave personnel serving overseas. 

Meanwhile, a fine question from the cable news buildup:

Theories?

Well, at least they have popcorn.

A number of frustrated antiwar activists are gathered outside the White House tonight.

Hillary Clinton said some (utterly bland) things about Syria tonight in Philadelphia:

Clinton, repeating language she used Monday during an appearance at the White House, said in Philadelphia that the Syrian chemical weapons attack “violates a universal norm at the heart of our global order and it demands a strong response from the international community led by the United States.”

Clinton added, “This debate is good for our democracy. As our founders knew, fervent arguments are the lifeblood of self-government. How could a republic last if citizens had no opinions about the issues of the day or were too intimidated to express them?”

Supports democracy, debate: got it.

An "administration official" gives quick outline of the speech to Reuters:

Obama will pledge to explore Russian initiative on Syria in tonight's speech, according to an administration official, who says the president will explain to Americans why it is in U.S. national security interests for Syria to face consequences for chemical weapons use. In addition, the official also told Reuters that Obama will stress that any U.S. military action in Syria would be limited in scope and duration.

The official also says that Obama will express U.S. skepticism about the Russia proposal during the speech.

This sounds much like the talking points from his television interviews last night. 

The possibility of American cruise missiles not pummeling a distant land comes as a great disappointment to hawks. The Weekly Standard folds its arms, kicks the ground, and resolves to taunt the president, for now:

Maybe Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin really did discuss the idea of putting Syrian chemical weapons under international control last week on the sidelines of the G20 conference. Putin sure doesn’t care that Obama’s taking credit for the proposal, or that the administration is posturing like a Mob enforcer. “The only reason why we are seeing this proposal,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, “is because of the U.S. threat of military action.”

Right, Putin is laughing to himself. Whatever. If Obama wants to sell it like a Christmas miracle on Pennsylvania Avenue that’s fine with Putin, because Putin won.

The idea that the United States might have worked out a way to resolve both the Syrian chemical weapons fiasco and the Iranian nuclear program without needing to military attacks also comes as a source of great consternation.

The Russian proposal not only saves Obama from having to do something about Syria, it also, and much more important, shows the way forward with Iran. From the White House’s point of view, its credible threat of force made Syria buckle and will similarly bring Iran to the negotiating table. Putin has shown his bona fides as a credible interlocutor with Damascus and will do the same with Iran. Obama can relax now and imagine that he has finally earned his Nobel Peace Prize and that that sound he hears is the tide of war receding.

In fact, it is the sound of American allies around the world—the Poles and Czechs, the Japanese and the South Koreans, the Saudis, Jordanians and Israelis, among others—gnashing their teeth. They now see that they are on their own, and that the word of the United States means nothing.

The race to claim credit for a (still mostly hypothetical) diplomatic solution to this Syria crisis is red hot.

Senator Rand Paul, for instance, is willing to give some credit to the Obama administration's threat of force. He would also like to cut out a big slice of credit for himself:

“Part of the reason we’re here may be the threat of force,” Paul said Tuesday on CNN’s "Situation Room." “But part of the reason we’re here is also because people like me prevented force from being used about three weeks ago when they [the administration] wanted to bomb.”

Wisconsin senator Tammy Baldwin is now officially against military action in Syria, saying on the senate floor: 

I strongly believe that our response to this situation must not be a unilateral military action. This is not America's responsibility alone. And it is not in our interest to set the precedent that it is our responsibility alone. Syria violated international laws and should be held accountable by the international community.

The Huffington Post notes that anti-war protesters had "silenced" Baldwin while she was trying to deliver a speech this past weekend because "they were upset that she would not definitely say that she opposed striking Syria."

Congressman Brad Sherman met with the Russian ambassador to the United States today and appears to have been convinced that Moscow is serious about executing a diplomatic solution, the Huffington Post reports:

"The Russian government is very serious," said the California Democrat. "The Russian government knows how important this is. The Russian government has every reason to want to make sure that the chemical weapons of Syria are not used against the Syrian people but also are not spirited away. We saw what happened to [Libyan dictator Muammar] Gaddafi's stash of weapons, which fortunately for the most part did not include chemical weapons. But we saw what happened to his weapons. [Syrian President Bashar] Assad could fall. And just as Gaddafi's weapons made its way to Mali, anything Assad has could make its way to Chechnya. The Russian government is well aware of that." ...

"The Russians are working on a detailed proposal," said Sherman. "They are working on getting Assad to agree to it. And those of us who are skeptical will say, 'Well, Assad will hide a few things.' But even if we only get 90 percent of it, that is so much better an outcome than anything else that we are talking about. I mean, the president's proposal is that we bomb. We can't bomb the chemical weapons. That would create an environmental and humanitarian disaster." 

Another example of this tension between the administration wanting congress to maintain the presence of a credible military threat and congress wanting to not do anything whatsoever:

Don't worry, the president won't take up much of your precious television time tonight, McClatchy reports.

After another day of intense diplomatic activity over Syria, Barack Obama is to give a direct televised address to the American people. He is expected to address the proposal by Russia for the Assad regime to put its chemical weapons under international control, and the continued case for military action. The address begins at 9pm ET and we will have live coverage.

Here is a summary of events so far today:

• It was a second day of accelerated diplomatic activity. However a proposed new UN resolution ran into immediate complications. The resolution would require Syrian president Bashar Assad to turn his chemical weapons arsenal over to international control. An impromptu security council meeting called by Russia to discuss it was abruptly canceled. 

• At the heart of the disagreement over the resolution is the question of whether it would be binding, authorizing the use of force in case of noncompliance. US secretary of state John Kerry insisted that it must be. Russian president Vladimir Putin insisted the opposite.

• US officials credited the plausible threat of US force with creating new diplomatic breathing room. President Obama was expected to keep up an urgent call for an authorization to use force in Syria. Administration critics said the policy has run willy-nilly.

• Syria continued to eagerly demonstrate a willingness to negotiate. Foreign minister Walid al-Moallem said Damascus would declare its chemical weapons assets, agree to their destruction, sign the international chemical weapons convention and promise not to produce more weapons.

• US officials warned against "stalling tactics" to divert US strikes on Syria. US secretary of state John Kerry said the president would decide how long to allow negotiations at the UN to play out.

• The Senate has postponed a vote on an authorization to use force. The House has not scheduled a vote. A bipartisan group of senators set to work on a revised authorization to suit the changing diplomatic picture. Obama had lunch with members of the group and others today on Capitol Hill. 

• Kerry called on the Assad regime to seek a broader peace deal. "I would hope that he and Bashar al-Assad would take this opportunity and try to reach peace... to go further," Kerry said.