Barack Obama Makes Case for Syria Strike: Celebrities React

AFP PHOTO/Brendan SMIALOWSKI

President Barack Obama addressed the nation on Tuesday, Sept. 10, to discuss the United States' potential military involvement in Syria. The commander-in-chief said that for now, the U.S. will not launch a strike against Syria while it works with Russia, China and other allies to force Bashar Assad's regime to hand over its chemical weapons.

Obama, 52, promised that he will not send American troops into Syria. He did, however, argue that a military strike would send a strong message to Assad. "The United States military doesn't do pinpricks," he explained. "Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver."

Shortly after his speech, a handful of celebrities—ranging from an X Factor mentor to a pro football player—weighed in on Obama's tentative plans.

PHOTOS: Celebrities and dictators

Demi Lovato: "I will always respect and honor whoever is our president. I can't imagine the immense amount of pressure he's under. Just worried."

Piers Morgan: "Fascinated to see how Pres Obama tries to persuade Americans what should be done in #Syria when he doesn't seem to have a clue himself. #CNN"

John Cusack: "Gotcha - mr president - and u sound jjust like bush - "@JPBarlow: The United States Military doesn't do pinpricks. - Barack Obama"

Kerry Washington: "Did you watch the President's address?! (I did, from my trailer, in between scenes...) What did u think? What are your thoughts on #Syria ?!"

Reggie Bush: "Watching the Presidential Address To The Nation. Who else is watching? Should we attack Syria or not?"

PHOTOS: Hollywood gets political

Shenae Grimes: "Is anyone else super unnerved by Obama's Syria speech? I'm all for peace over politics but this situation is very unique. What's your take?"

Bryan Greenberg: "Good speech for Obama on Syria. Steadfast but patient."

Jimmy Fallon: "Obama had 2 separate lunches with Republicans & Democrats today. Then Chris Christie said, ‘Maybe I DO want to be president.' #fallonmono"

Josh Groban: "Well, turns out the world is F'd beyond reasonable repair. Obama would have been a great Tevye. ‘On the other hand...'"

PHOTOS: 15 stars who could be president

View the original article here

Video: President Obama issues call to wait on Syria

Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton share stage: 2016 preview? 0:46 September 11, 2013

Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton share stage: 2016 preview?In Philadelphia, a possible glimpse of the 2016 presidential candidates together. Jeb Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton shared the same stage when he honored her with the Liberty Medal for her career in pubic service. Charlie Rose reports.

View the original article here

Oil rises toward $108 a barrel after Obama speech

BANGKOK The price of oil rose Wednesday, a day after President Barack Obama said he asked U.S. lawmakers to postpone a vote authorizing the use of military force against Syria.

Play Video

Obama, in a televised speech to the nation late Tuesday, said he wanted to give Syria a chance to turn over its chemical weapons before he asks Congress for consent to intervene in the country's civil war.

Oil prices have been at elevated levels for two weeks following Obama's call for action against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad in retaliation for what the White House says was a deadly chemical weapons attack against civilians last month.

Syria's surprise announcement Tuesday that it would accept a Russian plan to turn over its chemical weapons stockpile raised the possibility of a resolution to the standoff between Obama and Assad and lowered tensions in oil markets.

Prices edged off a recent two-year high as the likelihood of a Syrian strike diminished, but analysts said prices would remain elevated for the time being.

"Although recent political events have decreased the probability of an international military intervention in Syria, we still see the risks to oil prices as skewed to the upside over the next several months," said analysts at Goldman Sachs in an email commentary.

Syria is not a major oil producer, but oil traders say the possibility of a wider conflict could interrupt production and shipping routes in the Middle East and cause prices to rise.

Benchmark oil for October delivery rose 50 cents to $107.89 per barrel at late afternoon Bangkok time in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract fell $2.13, or 1.9 percent, to close at $107.39 a barrel on the Nymex on Tuesday.

Brent, the benchmark for international crudes, rose $1.21 to $112.46 per barrel on the ICE Futures exchange in London.

In other energy futures trading on Nymex:

-- Wholesale gasoline rose 1.8 cents to $2.7535 per gallon.

-- Natural gas rose nearly 0.1 cent to $3.59 per 1,000 cubic feet.

-- Heating oil rose 2.6 cents to $3.0927 per gallon.

View the original article here

On Syria, Obama and Congress get down to business

It's all hands on deck on Capitol Hill, as lawmakers finish filing in from summer recess to make a call about whether to OK a military strike in civil war-torn Syria, just over a week after President Obama requested congressional authorization for force amid mounting evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.

Some members of Congress have been at it for a week; the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday, having scrambled back to Washington upon the president's proclamation, narrowly approved a resolution authorizing the use of force in Syria. That legislation hangs in the balance of the Senate, where it could see a vote on final passage as early as Wednesday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has predicted the upper chamber will ultimately approve the resolution, despite the abundant opposition among members of both parties. But in the House, the outcome of a vote is far more uncertain, despite endorsements from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who have signaled opposition than support for the proposed military action.

A CBS News estimate reveals that while 191 members of the House remain undecided on whether to authorize military action, only 34 (24 Democrats, 10 Republicans) support or are leaning toward supporting authorization.  Sixty-seven, including 53 Republicans, have said they're against authorization, and an additional 117, including 92 Republicans, are leaning toward voting no.

With numbers like that, it's "an uphill slog" for the president - who met with several Senate Republicans Sunday night and, on Monday, will sit down for interviews with six network news anchors - to get Congress to back authorization, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., said Sunday on "Face the Nation."

"They really needed to start two years ago on this process and really haven't done it, so they don't have strong relationships in Congress today," Rogers said of the administration. "And, candidly, [they] have done an awful job explaining to the American people what is in our national security interests in any level of engagement in a place like Syria."

Rogers said he backs a "very limited" strike in Syria amid mounting evidence that President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. But Mr. Obama's campaign for such a move - including his surprise announcement during August recess to seek congressional approval, a move typically reserved for boots-on-the-ground scenarios - has been "mystifying," he argued.

Play Video

"I completely understand why people are skeptical of this," Rogers said. "You have a reluctant commander-in-chief, first of all, who's trying to come to the American people and say, 'I'm going to do something but I'm not going to do a lot; I'm not sure exactly what we're trying to do.' I mean, that's what the American people are hearing. And hearing that, I'm skeptical as well."

Though feedback from his constituents has been overwhelmingly against striking Syria, Rogers said, his vote on the resolution "cannot be about Barack Obama; it has to be about what is in the best interests of the United States of America.

"...If we just make it about us," he said, "being Congress or the American people, against our frustrations against this president, we miss the big picture about what is in the best interests of U.S. national security interests. Small and effective now save big and ugly later. So we're either going to pay this price now or we're going to pay a bigger price later."

There's "no doubt about it," though, that the bulk of Americans oppose U.S. involvement in Syria, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said later on the program; Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., in the same segment, agreed.

Play Video

Amash said in town halls across his state he has gauged "not just disapproval of the war - overwhelming disapproval - from Republicans, from Democrats. And when you're dealing with an issue like war, you must take into consideration what the public thinks. You're asking people to possibly send their loved ones into harm's way.

"...Based on the objectives that the administration has laid out, based on the strategy they've laid out," Amash continued, "I can't come up with a reason right now why the United States should support this action."

With an eye on the House's more limited resolution than what passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Cummings said "it's possible" he could still get behind the president's request. Mr. Obama will make his final plea with remarks to the nation Tuesday at 9 p.m.

"He's got to show, first of all, that this is in our core national security interests, and why it is," Cummings said. "He's got to show that if we don't completely degrade Assad's capability, how do we make sure we still deter him from using these chemical weapons? And then he's got to show us that this will not end up in a scenario where we are finding ourselves in deeper involvement in a civil war over there in Syria. These are difficult issues he's got."

View the original article here

Video: President Obama looks to lawmakers to vote on military action against Syria

Call for military action against Syria 4:48 September 3, 2013

Call for military action against SyriaSteve Chaggaris, Executive Washington Editor for CBSNews.com, joins UTTM to discuss the Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing on Syria and Speaker of the House John Boehner calling for support of the President's call for action.

View the original article here

Obama in Stockholm before heading to G20 summit in Russia

Updated 5:10 a.m. ET

STOCKHOLM President Obama is seeking to use a 24-hour visit to this Swedish capital to show a softer side of American diplomacy even as the world's gaze remains fixed anxiously on Syria.

He intends to focus in the Nordic nation on climate change, trade and technology, a trio of issues on which there is broad consensus with European allies. The topics are a marked departure from the thorny, pressing matters he's facing back home on national security and the economy. He also plans to pay homage to a Holocaust-era hero whose name is commemorated on street signs from Paris to Tel Aviv.

The president arrived Wednesday morning in Stockholm after an overnight flight from Washington that CBS News correspondent Major Garrett said featured some early turbulence. In Washington, lawmakers are weighing whether to approve Mr. Mr. Obama's request for a military strike against Syria. A day later, the president was scheduled to travel to St. Petersburg, Russia, to meet with foreign leaders at the Group of 20 economic summit.

Greeting Mr. Mr. Obama on a mild, sunny morning at the Stockholm-Arlanda International Airport were Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and leaders of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt's center-right coalition government.

Along Mr. Obama's motorcade route form the airport to a hotel, crowds of people lined the streets, some waving small American flags.

Mr. Obama's trip to Sweden will mark the first bilateral visit by a sitting U.S. president to the northern European nation. While in Stockholm, Mr. Obama will meet with Reinfeldt and King Carl XVI Gustav and dine with Nordic leaders from Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark. He'll also stop at Sweden's premier technical university to call attention to Sweden's goal to phase out fossil fuels by 2050.

The White House hastily arranged the Stockholm visit after Mr. Obama, incensed when Russia granted asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, scrapped a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. The cancellation created a two-day scheduling void when Mr. Obama was expecting to be overseas but had nowhere to go. The White House added Sweden to his itinerary.

Administration officials previewing Mr. Obama's trip offered little in the way of a specific rationale for the visit, other than to say that the country had extended him a written invitation some time ago. They added that Nordic nations are important partners in development, global security and promotion of democracy.

Many of Mr. Obama's global priorities -- like energy, global trade and science training -- parallel his second-term domestic goals as he seeks to ready the U.S. workforce for a higher-tech economy, increase demand abroad for American products and tackle climate change. But those priorities have at times been overshadowed by global outrage over massive U.S. surveillance programs revealed by Snowden, and by Mr. Obama's efforts to persuade nations to take a tougher tack against Syria.

A sobering moment was expected Wednesday afternoon when he honors the late Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, credited for saving at least 20,000 Jews during World War II before being arrested by Soviet forces in 1945 and then mysteriously disappearing. Wallenberg's family planned to present a letter to Mr. Obama asking for help in pressing Russia to shed light on Wallenberg's fate.

Amid tight security, protesters were already gathering in the streets of Stockholm, including a small group from Amnesty International that held a demonstration outside the royal palace to demand that Mr. Obama close Guantanamo Bay prison.

Thousands of armed police are deployed on city streets, many roads and parks are closed in the downtown area, concrete barriers and steel fences have sprung up in many locations near where Mr. Obama will stay.

View the original article here

Obama in Stockholm before heading to G20 summit in Russia

Updated 5:10 a.m. ET

STOCKHOLM President Obama is seeking to use a 24-hour visit to this Swedish capital to show a softer side of American diplomacy even as the world's gaze remains fixed anxiously on Syria.

He intends to focus in the Nordic nation on climate change, trade and technology, a trio of issues on which there is broad consensus with European allies. The topics are a marked departure from the thorny, pressing matters he's facing back home on national security and the economy. He also plans to pay homage to a Holocaust-era hero whose name is commemorated on street signs from Paris to Tel Aviv.

The president arrived Wednesday morning in Stockholm after an overnight flight from Washington that CBS News correspondent Major Garrett said featured some early turbulence. In Washington, lawmakers are weighing whether to approve Mr. Mr. Obama's request for a military strike against Syria. A day later, the president was scheduled to travel to St. Petersburg, Russia, to meet with foreign leaders at the Group of 20 economic summit.

Greeting Mr. Mr. Obama on a mild, sunny morning at the Stockholm-Arlanda International Airport were Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and leaders of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt's center-right coalition government.

Along Mr. Obama's motorcade route form the airport to a hotel, crowds of people lined the streets, some waving small American flags.

Mr. Obama's trip to Sweden will mark the first bilateral visit by a sitting U.S. president to the northern European nation. While in Stockholm, Mr. Obama will meet with Reinfeldt and King Carl XVI Gustav and dine with Nordic leaders from Norway, Iceland, Finland and Denmark. He'll also stop at Sweden's premier technical university to call attention to Sweden's goal to phase out fossil fuels by 2050.

The White House hastily arranged the Stockholm visit after Mr. Obama, incensed when Russia granted asylum to National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, scrapped a planned meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. The cancellation created a two-day scheduling void when Mr. Obama was expecting to be overseas but had nowhere to go. The White House added Sweden to his itinerary.

Administration officials previewing Mr. Obama's trip offered little in the way of a specific rationale for the visit, other than to say that the country had extended him a written invitation some time ago. They added that Nordic nations are important partners in development, global security and promotion of democracy.

Many of Mr. Obama's global priorities -- like energy, global trade and science training -- parallel his second-term domestic goals as he seeks to ready the U.S. workforce for a higher-tech economy, increase demand abroad for American products and tackle climate change. But those priorities have at times been overshadowed by global outrage over massive U.S. surveillance programs revealed by Snowden, and by Mr. Obama's efforts to persuade nations to take a tougher tack against Syria.

A sobering moment was expected Wednesday afternoon when he honors the late Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg, credited for saving at least 20,000 Jews during World War II before being arrested by Soviet forces in 1945 and then mysteriously disappearing. Wallenberg's family planned to present a letter to Mr. Obama asking for help in pressing Russia to shed light on Wallenberg's fate.

Amid tight security, protesters were already gathering in the streets of Stockholm, including a small group from Amnesty International that held a demonstration outside the royal palace to demand that Mr. Obama close Guantanamo Bay prison.

Thousands of armed police are deployed on city streets, many roads and parks are closed in the downtown area, concrete barriers and steel fences have sprung up in many locations near where Mr. Obama will stay.

View the original article here

Video: President Obama looks to lawmakers to vote on military action against Syria

Call for military action against Syria 4:48 September 3, 2013

Call for military action against SyriaSteve Chaggaris, Executive Washington Editor for CBSNews.com, joins UTTM to discuss the Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing on Syria and Speaker of the House John Boehner calling for support of the President's call for action.

View the original article here

Video: President Obama speaks at the March on Wasington's 50th anniv.

Who will intervene in Syria? 5:38 August 28, 2013

Pamela Falk, CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst, joins UTTM to discuss if the US will intervene in Syria. Britain says it will seek United Nations Security Council backing for a measure condemning Syria for an alleged chemical attack.

View the original article here

Assessing "red lines" as Obama mulls Syria attack

A year after drawing a "red line" at the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons, President Obama has spent the week teetering on the cusp of military intervention.

Play Video

It has taken last week's very public and graphic killing of 1,429 Syrians, according to a U.S. intelligence estimate released Friday, for the Obama administration to create a strategy to match the president's August 20, 2012 rhetoric.

What Mr. Obama said last year was: "We have been very clear to the [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. ... That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

While the president didn't specifically lay out last year what the consequences were for Assad if he crossed Mr. Obama's "red line," it's clear the world will find out soon as the administration spent Friday publicly making the case for a potential military strike on Syria.

The genesis of the term "red line" was immortalized in the chorus of Rudyard Kipling's 1892 poem "Tommy." Referencing the 1854 Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War, Kipling wrote, "But it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll," describing the thin line of crimson coated Sutherland Highlanders soldiers, outnumbered and awaiting the enemy's charge.

Variations of the phrase have been used frequently in the past - "line drawn in the sand," deadlines, ultimatum - the effectiveness of such warnings resting on a country's resolve to follow through. The first real use of "red lines," in terms of territory, was the product of struggle between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CBS News.

Other, unspoken "red lines" include the creation of nuclear forces, on both sides during the Cold War.

And most famously, per John Kerry's strongly worded condemnation of the Assad regime on Friday, the international community decided 100 years ago, "in response to the utter horror and inhumanity of World War I, that the civilized world agreed that chemical weapons should never be used again," a statement that leaves little room for interpretation.

"Red lines" have proven to be an effective deterrent but they also denote that everything short of the line is permissible, making it difficult to enforce in the face of determined and skillful opponent, the Washington Institute's Jeff White told CBS News.

Play Video

White compared the current U.S.-Syria tete-a-tete to "salami slicing"; the Assad regime inched closer and closer to the "red line" after a year of no reaction to numerous other alleged chemical attacks.

"The line moved from red to pink," White said. "When you start waffling and wobbling on what the 'red line' means and what you will do to enforce it, that will show weakness."

Cordesman notes that the term is always ambiguous. "No matter how you do it, it will always be somewhat arbitrary. It will always be something that can be argued, can be evaded, there will always be the question of: is this a strong enough event?"

While "red lines" have been effective as deterrents, they're not necessarily effective diplomacy tactics, especially when there is no strategy or end goal effectively communicated.  In recent days, what has been most clearly and repeatedly communicated publicly by Obama is his deliberate - some say too deliberate - decision-making process in terms of how to react the alleged Syrian chemical attack.

"So what I've said is that we have not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place," he said on PBS NewsHour on Wednesday.  On Friday, as well, the president repeated that he's "not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm."

The "international norm" against the use of chemical weapons has not been reflected in international response, however, in part due to the current perception of the United States.

"There are doubts about our credibility, our willingness to act, about even what our ability is to transform a strategy into action," Cordesman told CBS News. "It is a matter of neutrals, enemies and allies all over the world. So, in many ways this president faces a test that's far more serious than people who simply focus on the ripple effects in this region."

Cordesman points to Russia, bordered by Islamist countries and Islamist violence, as a country vulnerable to our decisions - decisions we have made against their advice.

Other international entanglements contributing to this sentiment: leaving Iraq without any military capability to fight Iran and leaving Afghanistan without having achieved any major strategic goals. Kerry reiterated these sentiments today: "It matters to our close friends Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon...It is about Hezbollah and North Korea, and every other terrorist group or dictator that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction."

View the original article here

Video: 8/30: Obama administration prepares nation for Syria strike; Meet a superhero with a soft touch

8/30: Obama administration prepares nation for Syria strike; Meet a superhero with a soft touch 21:18 August 30, 2013

8/30: Obama administration prepares nation for Syria strike; Meet a superhero with a soft touchSecretary of State John Kerry laid out the intelligence assessment that says the U.S. has "high confidence" the Syrian dictatorship attacked civilians with nerve gas; and, as part of our continuing series "On the Road," Steve Hartman meets Jonathan Stoklosa, who has the power to lift your spirits -- and just about anything else.

View the original article here

Assessing "red lines" as Obama mulls Syria attack

A year after drawing a "red line" at the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons, President Obama has spent the week teetering on the cusp of military intervention.

Play Video

It has taken last week's very public and graphic killing of 1,429 Syrians, according to a U.S. intelligence estimate released Friday, for the Obama administration to create a strategy to match the president's August 20, 2012 rhetoric.

What Mr. Obama said last year was: "We have been very clear to the [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. ... That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

While the president didn't specifically lay out last year what the consequences were for Assad if he crossed Mr. Obama's "red line," it's clear the world will find out soon as the administration spent Friday publicly making the case for a potential military strike on Syria.

The genesis of the term "red line" was immortalized in the chorus of Rudyard Kipling's 1892 poem "Tommy." Referencing the 1854 Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War, Kipling wrote, "But it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll," describing the thin line of crimson coated Sutherland Highlanders soldiers, outnumbered and awaiting the enemy's charge.

Variations of the phrase have been used frequently in the past - "line drawn in the sand," deadlines, ultimatum - the effectiveness of such warnings resting on a country's resolve to follow through. The first real use of "red lines," in terms of territory, was the product of struggle between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CBS News.

Other, unspoken "red lines" include the creation of nuclear forces, on both sides during the Cold War.

And most famously, per John Kerry's strongly worded condemnation of the Assad regime on Friday, the international community decided 100 years ago, "in response to the utter horror and inhumanity of World War I, that the civilized world agreed that chemical weapons should never be used again," a statement that leaves little room for interpretation.

"Red lines" have proven to be an effective deterrent but they also denote that everything short of the line is permissible, making it difficult to enforce in the face of determined and skillful opponent, the Washington Institute's Jeff White told CBS News.

Play Video

White compared the current U.S.-Syria tete-a-tete to "salami slicing"; the Assad regime inched closer and closer to the "red line" after a year of no reaction to numerous other alleged chemical attacks.

"The line moved from red to pink," White said. "When you start waffling and wobbling on what the 'red line' means and what you will do to enforce it, that will show weakness."

Cordesman notes that the term is always ambiguous. "No matter how you do it, it will always be somewhat arbitrary. It will always be something that can be argued, can be evaded, there will always be the question of: is this a strong enough event?"

While "red lines" have been effective as deterrents, they're not necessarily effective diplomacy tactics, especially when there is no strategy or end goal effectively communicated.  In recent days, what has been most clearly and repeatedly communicated publicly by Obama is his deliberate - some say too deliberate - decision-making process in terms of how to react the alleged Syrian chemical attack.

"So what I've said is that we have not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place," he said on PBS NewsHour on Wednesday.  On Friday, as well, the president repeated that he's "not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm."

The "international norm" against the use of chemical weapons has not been reflected in international response, however, in part due to the current perception of the United States.

"There are doubts about our credibility, our willingness to act, about even what our ability is to transform a strategy into action," Cordesman told CBS News. "It is a matter of neutrals, enemies and allies all over the world. So, in many ways this president faces a test that's far more serious than people who simply focus on the ripple effects in this region."

Cordesman points to Russia, bordered by Islamist countries and Islamist violence, as a country vulnerable to our decisions - decisions we have made against their advice.

Other international entanglements contributing to this sentiment: leaving Iraq without any military capability to fight Iran and leaving Afghanistan without having achieved any major strategic goals. Kerry reiterated these sentiments today: "It matters to our close friends Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon...It is about Hezbollah and North Korea, and every other terrorist group or dictator that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction."

View the original article here

Can Obama strike Syria without Congress' consent?

President Obama has yet to say what course of action he'll take to respond to the alleged use of chemical weapons by President Bashar al Assad's regime in Syria, but his administration has previewed the justification it will use if Mr. Obama decides to take military action.

Mr. Obama on Wednesday said he has "no interest in any open-ended conflict in Syria." However, he added, "we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable."

To launch an assault against the Assad regime that meets domestic legal standards, Mr. Obama's actions would have to pass constitutional muster and meet the statutory requirements set by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

Before taking over the executive branch, Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden strongly asserted that the president's ability to use military force is constrained by Congress. Yet since Mr. Obama took over the White House, the administration hasn't shied away from unilaterally deciding to take limited military action.

Mr. Obama's approach follows one that presidents have taken since the end of World War II, when administrations started exercising their war powers more independently. Some administrations have argued the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has never weighed in on the issue -- leaving the extent of the president's war powers an open question.

Play Video

Play Video

"Part of the problem is these are legal issues, and legal issues are settled in court at the end of the day," James Lindsay, a senior vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations, told CBSNews.com. "And when courts choose not to adjudicate it, people are free to lay down their interpretation of the rules."

Predictably, when it comes to war powers, the president has the political advantage -- he is, after all the commander in chief. Congress, however, has the constitutional authority to declare war, so legislators do their best to keep the president's powers in check.

As a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, Mr. Obama said, "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. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

Biden, also a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, said he would move to impeach President Bush if he unilaterally attacked Iran because of its nuclear programs.

In 1998, Biden said on the Senate floor, "To be sure, the commander in chief ensures that the president has the sole power to direct U.S. military forces in combat. But that power - except in very few limited instances - derives totally from congressional authority."

Yet in 2011, the administration took military action in Libya without any congressional approval, prompting the Republican-led House of Representatives to vote to rebuke the president.

In its legal justification for action in Libya, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued that Congress' authority to declare "war" was limited by the definition of war. "This standard generally will be satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period," the OLC wrote.

View the original article here

Obama administration set to release Syria intel report

Updated 5:20 a.m. ET Aug. 30, 2013

WASHINGTON

The administration will release on Friday a declassified version of its intelligence report on last week's purported Syria chemical weapons attack, a senior administration official told CBS News late Thursday.

The official also said the administration would go public with its legal justification for taking military action against the Syrian regime if and when President Obama orders a strike.

Mr. Obama might do so even though it would have to come without the backing of Washington's closest ally, the White House has indicated to CBS News.

Hopes that Britain would join any U.S. military action were dashed late Thursday when Prime Minister David Cameron lost a non-binding vote in the House of Commons to endorse that policy -- a stunning rebuke.

The administration expects to have rhetorical support from many nations but no longer considers British military participation vital, feeling it is preferable, but not necessary. "We don't have to wait for them," a senior administration official told CBS News. "We want to be helpful, but we'll act on our own decision-making."

14 Photos

British reticence places the Obama White House in an awkward position, aides conceded. It must now decide whether to carry out a military strike to uphold an international norm against chemical weapons use that even America's staunchest ally is unwilling to support.

Top officials said Mr. Obama's intent to carry out a limited attack -- "a shot across the bow" in the president's words -- means broad international support and congressional authorization are preferred but not necessary. The U.S. will seek as many allies as it can and consult regularly with members of Congress but will act rapidly, aides said, to drive home the point that the mass use of chemical weapons will always be punished.

"The use of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to our interests because it makes a mockery of international rules of the road that matter," a senior official said. "This isn't Iraq where we were trying to prove the existence of weapons to launch an open-ended ground invasion. This is chemical weapons use on a mass scale that we are considering a limited, targeted response to."

There is also a signal intended in the limited scope of the military attack on Syria, the senior official said.

"It's a statement of U.S. policy that frankly sends a message to the international community that we're not going whole hog here," the senior official said. "Even limited U.S. action has a big impact. We're not going to take Assad out. But anything we do is going to degrade him in a way that nothing the opposition does."

Earlier, the White House pushed back on skepticism about potential U.S. military action in Syria, saying the evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians is "very convincing" - and that the use of chemical weapons is a violation of a "critically important international norm" that must carry with it serious consequences.

Still, White House spokesman Josh Earnest emphasized that Mr. Obama is "not contemplating an open-ended military action," describing the responses under consideration as "very discrete and limited" in their scope.

Play Video

Play Video

Play Video

"We want to make sure that a response sends an unambiguous signal to [Syrian President Bashar Assad's] regime and to dictators around the world that living up to these international norms is the firm expectation of the international community, and that failure to do so has serious consequences," Earnest explained.

On Thursday evening, the administration held a conference call for members of Congress to lay out the unclassified intelligence report about chemical weapons use in Syria.

Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement: "On the call, I agreed with Speaker Boehner and other Members who stated that there needs to be more consultation with all Members of Congress and additional transparency into the decision making process and timing, and that the case needs to be made to the American people.

"It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security. We must be clear that the United States rejects the use of chemical weapons by Assad or any other regime."

"Tonight the Administration informed us that they have a 'broad range of options' for Syria but failed to layout a single option," said Oklahoma GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe in a statement. "They also did not provide a timeline, a strategy for Syria and the Middle East, or a plan for the funds to execute such an option. Several members agreed with me that whatever is decided upon, it's going to take military resources that are at decreased readiness levels due to a lack of funding."

The administration expects to have rhetorical support from many nations because it no longer considers British military participation vital. It is preferable, but not necessary. "We don't have to wait for them," a senior administration official told CBS News. "We want to be helpful, but we'll act on our own decision-making."

British reticence places the Obama White House in an awkward position, aides conceded. It must now decide whether to carry out a military strike to uphold an international norm against chemical weapons use that even America's staunchest ally, Great Britain, is unwilling to support.

Top officials said Mr. Obama's intent to carry out a limited attack - "a shot across the bow" in the president's words - means broad international support and congressional authorization are preferred but not necessary. The U.S. will seek as many allies as it can and consult regularly with members of Congress but will act rapidly, aides said, to drive home the point that the mass use of chemical weapons will always be punished.

"The use of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to our interests because it makes a mockery of international rules of the road that matter," a senior official said. "This isn't Iraq where we were trying to prove the existence of weapons to launch an open-ended ground invasion. This is chemical weapons use on a mass scale that we are considering a limited, targeted response to."

There is also a signal intended in the limited scope of the military attack on Syria, the senior official said.

"It's a statement of U.S. policy that frankly sends a message to the international community that we're not going whole hog here," the senior official said. "Even limited U.S. action has a big impact. We're not going to take Assad out. But anything we do is going to degrade him in a way that nothing the opposition does."

Meanwhile, Earnest emphasized, as Mr. Obama did during an interview on Wednesday with PBS, that the administration has reached no final conclusion on the question of military action in Syria.

"I have not made a decision" on Syria, the president explained on Wednesday, but he said his administration has "concluded" that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack.

Earnest also rejected comparisons between the debate over intervention in Syria and an earlier debate about intervention in Iraq, which was attended by claims of chemical weapons possession on the part of the Iraqi regime that were proven untrue only after the U.S. had dissolved the rule of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "We're not talking about regime change here," he said. "We're talking about enforcing a critically important international norm."

"There is not a military solution to the broader conflict that is taking place in Syria," Earnest said.

Pressed on reports that suggest some level of uncertainty about who deployed the chemical weapons, Earnest brandished on-the-record statements from the president, Secretary of State John Kerry, and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee that betrayed no doubt that the regime is culpable for the August 21 use of chemical weapons that left thousands of civilians dead.

"We already know from a previous intelligence assessment that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. We know that the Assad regime maintains stockpiles of chemical weapons in Syria," he said. "We also know that it is the regime alone that has the capability to use the chemical weapons that were used...in the attacks that we saw on August 21st. We also know that the Assad regime was engaged in a military campaign targeting the specific regions where this chemical attack occurred."

View the original article here

Video: 8/30: Obama administration prepares nation for Syria strike; Meet a superhero with a soft touch

8/30: Obama administration prepares nation for Syria strike; Meet a superhero with a soft touch 21:18 August 30, 2013

8/30: Obama administration prepares nation for Syria strike; Meet a superhero with a soft touchSecretary of State John Kerry laid out the intelligence assessment that says the U.S. has "high confidence" the Syrian dictatorship attacked civilians with nerve gas; and, as part of our continuing series "On the Road," Steve Hartman meets Jonathan Stoklosa, who has the power to lift your spirits -- and just about anything else.

View the original article here

Assessing "red lines" as Obama mulls Syria attack

A year after drawing a "red line" at the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons, President Obama has spent the week teetering on the cusp of military intervention.

Play Video

It has taken last week's very public and graphic killing of 1,429 Syrians, according to a U.S. intelligence estimate released Friday, for the Obama administration to create a strategy to match the president's August 20, 2012 rhetoric.

What Mr. Obama said last year was: "We have been very clear to the [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. ... That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

While the president didn't specifically lay out last year what the consequences were for Assad if he crossed Mr. Obama's "red line," it's clear the world will find out soon as the administration spent Friday publicly making the case for a potential military strike on Syria.

The genesis of the term "red line" was immortalized in the chorus of Rudyard Kipling's 1892 poem "Tommy." Referencing the 1854 Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War, Kipling wrote, "But it's 'Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll," describing the thin line of crimson coated Sutherland Highlanders soldiers, outnumbered and awaiting the enemy's charge.

Variations of the phrase have been used frequently in the past - "line drawn in the sand," deadlines, ultimatum - the effectiveness of such warnings resting on a country's resolve to follow through. The first real use of "red lines," in terms of territory, was the product of struggle between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CBS News.

Other, unspoken "red lines" include the creation of nuclear forces, on both sides during the Cold War.

And most famously, per John Kerry's strongly worded condemnation of the Assad regime on Friday, the international community decided 100 years ago, "in response to the utter horror and inhumanity of World War I, that the civilized world agreed that chemical weapons should never be used again," a statement that leaves little room for interpretation.

"Red lines" have proven to be an effective deterrent but they also denote that everything short of the line is permissible, making it difficult to enforce in the face of determined and skillful opponent, the Washington Institute's Jeff White told CBS News.

Play Video

White compared the current U.S.-Syria tete-a-tete to "salami slicing"; the Assad regime inched closer and closer to the "red line" after a year of no reaction to numerous other alleged chemical attacks.

"The line moved from red to pink," White said. "When you start waffling and wobbling on what the 'red line' means and what you will do to enforce it, that will show weakness."

Cordesman notes that the term is always ambiguous. "No matter how you do it, it will always be somewhat arbitrary. It will always be something that can be argued, can be evaded, there will always be the question of: is this a strong enough event?"

While "red lines" have been effective as deterrents, they're not necessarily effective diplomacy tactics, especially when there is no strategy or end goal effectively communicated.  In recent days, what has been most clearly and repeatedly communicated publicly by Obama is his deliberate - some say too deliberate - decision-making process in terms of how to react the alleged Syrian chemical attack.

"So what I've said is that we have not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place," he said on PBS NewsHour on Wednesday.  On Friday, as well, the president repeated that he's "not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm."

The "international norm" against the use of chemical weapons has not been reflected in international response, however, in part due to the current perception of the United States.

"There are doubts about our credibility, our willingness to act, about even what our ability is to transform a strategy into action," Cordesman told CBS News. "It is a matter of neutrals, enemies and allies all over the world. So, in many ways this president faces a test that's far more serious than people who simply focus on the ripple effects in this region."

Cordesman points to Russia, bordered by Islamist countries and Islamist violence, as a country vulnerable to our decisions - decisions we have made against their advice.

Other international entanglements contributing to this sentiment: leaving Iraq without any military capability to fight Iran and leaving Afghanistan without having achieved any major strategic goals. Kerry reiterated these sentiments today: "It matters to our close friends Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon...It is about Hezbollah and North Korea, and every other terrorist group or dictator that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction."

View the original article here

Video: 8/30: Obama administration prepares nation for Syria strike; Meet a superhero with a soft touch

8/30: Obama administration prepares nation for Syria strike; Meet a superhero with a soft touch 21:18 August 30, 2013

8/30: Obama administration prepares nation for Syria strike; Meet a superhero with a soft touchSecretary of State John Kerry laid out the intelligence assessment that says the U.S. has "high confidence" the Syrian dictatorship attacked civilians with nerve gas; and, as part of our continuing series "On the Road," Steve Hartman meets Jonathan Stoklosa, who has the power to lift your spirits -- and just about anything else.

View the original article here

Video: President Obama speaks at the March on Wasington's 50th anniv.

Who will intervene in Syria? 5:38 August 28, 2013

Pamela Falk, CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst, joins UTTM to discuss if the US will intervene in Syria. Britain says it will seek United Nations Security Council backing for a measure condemning Syria for an alleged chemical attack.

View the original article here

Video: Eye Opener: Obama says Assad must be punished

Eye Opener: Obama says Assad must be punished 1:58 August 29, 2013

Eye Opener: Obama says Assad must be punishedPresident Obama says he's still weighing his options for an attack on Syria and plans to brief high-ranking members of Congress. Also, America's biggest drugstore chain, Walgreens is being accused by Missouri's Attorney General of overcharging at the register. All that, and all that matters, in today's "Eye Opener." Your world in 90 seconds.

View the original article here

Video: Obama: "I have not made a decision" on Syria military strike

Obama: "I have not made a decision" on Syria military strike 5:14 August 28, 2013

Obama: "I have not made a decision" on Syria military strikePresident Obama has not yet decided on U.S. action in Syria, where he says his administration has "concluded" President Bashar al Assad used chemical weapons in an attack against civilians last week near Damascus, he said in an interview with "PBS NewsHour."

View the original article here