http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/06/obama-syria-g-20-congress/2775159/
So Pres. Obama is going to give an address from the White House on Tuesday to make his case for why Congress should vote for military action in Syria.
My question to those who are not feeling this whole Syria thing is: what could Obama say to change your mind?
And to those in favor of strikes against Syria: what do you want to hear the president say to bolster his case?
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I just need concrete evidence that the chemical weapons were used by Assad. All other emotional pleas are worthless to me; I need facts. I still wouldn't be in favor of boots on the ground, but I would be in favor of some type of strike at that point. Even then, though, I would still rather have this be an issue handled by the international community. I think this is one of those situations where, if there is ever concrete proof provided, unilateral action would or could be warranted, but I would much rather that be a last resort.
What's telling to me, though, is that if you read the U.S.'s initial report on this chemical weapons attack, they're very specific in their language when saying they have proof that the weapons were used (well, duh). However, that's all they're specific about. The rest of the document just tries to provide vague arguments for why it was
more than likely Assad that released the gas. Well, that's all well and fine. Logical arguments are great when they're backed up by evidence, but in this case, even the U.S.'s official report was nowhere near specific in saying Assad was definitely responsible. All they have on that point (you know, the
main point) is conjecture and assumptions. Pay attention to the rhetoric being used officially. Only now are politicians even daring to state out loud that they "feel sure" or "have no doubts" that the weapons were used by Syria (which the language has to become more sure, because we haven't been buying it). Most of the rhetoric up to this point, though, has been more geared toward convincing the public of a logical, but possibly fallacious, argument... Chemical weapons were used; therefore, it was Syria who used them. We all know things are hardly ever that simple and straight-forward, and anyone with any average degree of logic can spot the fallacy in that blanket statement. They (politicians) know most Americans don't have even an average degree of logic though, so this rhetorical trick usually works. Hell, the only reason it didn't work to convince the public this time is because the memory of Iraq is simply too fresh. Otherwise, we'd be dropping bombs already.