The "In the Interest of OUR National Security" argument from Obama's speech last night.
THIS is the most important element of President Obama's speech last night.
Here is the pertinent excerpt from Obama's speech.
(I added the numbered bullet points to try to minimize the confusion
in the president's argument. He presented this argument in paragraph form. I added ONLY the numbers for the sake of clarification. Every word is a direct quote from his speech, and nothing was deleted.)
"...it’s also a danger to our security.
Let me explain why.
1) If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.
2) As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.
3)Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.
4)And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.
5)If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.
6)And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction,
7)and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is what’s at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike."
Aside from the 6 degrees of speculation,
and the fact that this is only ONE very creative scenario among many different diverging predictions about the future in the Middle East whether we BOMB Syria or not,
I really don't SEE the "Imminent Threat" necessary to justify taking Military Action.
Do you buy this as an immediate threat to the USA?
Do you feel that this is a valid justification for Military Action in Syria at this time.
Would you believe George Bush if he had used this Threat to OUR National Security theory to Authorized a Military Strike on Syria?
[font size=3]“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”[/font] ---Senator Obama, 12-20-2007
= new reply since forum marked as read
After the last 3 weeks, you'd think some on DU would take a break from predicting the outcome of the events surrounding Syria.
I'm sorry discussion is so frustrating for you. 
Still OPPOSING elective Military Strikes on a country that HAS NOT
and CAN NOT threaten us.
It really is that simple,
unlike the number of contortions required for the SUPPORTERS of more Death & Destruction in the Middle East, only THIS time with OUR names on those Dead Babies.
My position has not changed in the slightest.
That is the benefit of being Values & Policy Oriented.
We not subject to the reactionary contortions of the Camp Followers dictated by the ever changing whims of Bell Cow.
Can we assume that you would have supported George Bush if he made that same convoluted and highly speculative argument for a NEW WAR?
it is eerily disquieting
