Decided to strike, then he wanted to ask congress for its authorization, now this. Schieffer i think its fair to say the people at the white house are feeling better tonight than where they were two days ago when they faced an almost certain humiliation of having congress turn down the president s request to use force. They have managed to finesse that and have even managed to get Bashar Alassad to say that he does have chemical weapons. He said before he didnt even have them. Pelley and we will see the president walking into the east room of the white house in just a few seconds. Here he comes now. The president of the United States. My fellow americans, tonight i want to talk to you about syria, why it matters and where we go from here. Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar Alassad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, americas worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But i have resisted calls for military action because we can not resolve someone elses civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan. The situation profoundly changed, though, on august 21 when assads government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off limits, a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. This was not always the case. In world war i american g. I. S were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of europe. In world war ii the nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United StatesSenate Overwhelmingly approved an International Agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. Now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 of humanity. On august 21, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack. And humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas. More over, we know the assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to august 21, we know that assads chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regimecontrolled area into eleven neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in assads military machine reviewed the results of the attack and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. Weve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin. When dictators commit atrocities they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of america and the International Community is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of International Law, its also a danger to our security. Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons as the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of Chemical Warfare on the battlefield and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond syrias borders these weapons could threaten allies like turkey, jordan, and israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden assads 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 whats 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 regimes use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regimes ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. Thats my judgment as commanderinchief. But im also the president of the worlds oldest constitutional democracy, so even though i possess the authority to order military strikes, i believed it was right in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security to take this debate to congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the president acts with the support of congress and i believe that america acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. This is especially true after a decade that put more and more warmaking power in the hands of the president and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops while sidelining the peoples representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force. Now, i know that after the terrible toll of iraq and afghanistan the idea of any military action no matter how limited is not going to be popular. After all, ive spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of iraq, our troops are coming home from afghanistan, and i know americans want all of us in washington especially me to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home, putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middleclass. Its no wonder, then, that youre asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that ive heard from members of congress and that ive read in letters that youve sent to me. First, many of you have asked wont this put us on a slippery slope to another war . One man wrote to me that we are still recovering from our involvement in iraq. A veteran put it more bluntly. This nation is sick and tired of war. My answer is simple i will not put american boots on the ground in syria. I will not pursue an openended action like iraq or afghanistan. I will not pursue a Prolonged AirCampaign Like libya or kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading assads capabilities. Others have asked whether its worth acting if we dont take out assad. As some members of congress have said theres no point in doing a pinprick strike in syria. Let me make something clear the United States military doesnt do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to assad that no other nation can deliver. I dont think we should remove another dictator with force. We learned from iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make assad or any other dictator think twice before using chemical weapons. Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We dont dismiss any threats, but the assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face everyday. Neither assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise and our ally, israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force as well as the unshakable support of the United States of america. Many of you have asked a broader question why should we get involved at all in a place thats so complicated and where, as one person wrote to me, those who come after assad may be enemies of human rights. Its true that some of assads opponents are extremists. But al qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian People and the Syrian Opposition we work with just want to live in peace with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. Finally, many of you have asked why not leave this to other countries or Seek Solutions short of force . As several people wrote to me, we should not be the worlds policemen. I agree. And i have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions. Warnings and negotiations. But chemical weapons were still used by the assad regime. However, over the last few days weve seen some encouraging signs, in part because of the credible threat of u. S. Military action as well as constructive talks that i had with president putin the russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the International Community in pushing assad to give up his chemical weapons. The assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons and even said theyd joined the Chemical Weapons Convention which prohibits their use. Its too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because russia is one of assads strongest allies. I have therefore asked members of congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. Im sending secretary of state john kerry to meet his russian counterpart on thursday and i will continue my own discussions with president putin. Ive spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies france and the united kingdom. We will Work Together in consultation with russia and china to put forward a resolution at the u. N. Security council requiring assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control. Well also give u. N. Inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on august 21 and we will continue to rally support from allies from europe to the americas, from asia to the middle east who agree on the need for action. Meanwhile, ive ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on assad and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight i give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices. My fellow americans, for nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging International Agreements, it has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them. And so, to my friends on the right i ask you to reconcile your commitment to americas military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left i ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. Indeed, id ask every member of congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack and then ask what kind of world will we live in if the United States of america sees a dictator brazenly violate International Law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way . Franklin roosevelt once said our National Determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged. Our ideals and principles, swes our National Security, are at stake in syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensuring that the worst weapons will never be used. Americas not the worlds policemen. Terrible things happen across the globe and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run i believe we should act. Thats what makes america different. Thats what makes us exceptional. With humility but with resolve let us never lose sight of that essential truth. Thank you. God bless you, and god bless the United States of america. Pelley the president of the United States live in the east room of the white house tonight making his case for punitive action against syria for what the Administration Says was a nerve gas attack on august 21 that killed more than 1,400 syrian civilians. Like the president ial seal itself, the president had olive branches in one hand and arrows in the other saying that he would order the military to take action unless a rapidly developing Diplomatic Initiative that has been started by the russians bears fruit. And the president said that hes willing to give several days to see how that progresses with the russians and the u. N. Security council. Cbs this mornings charlie rose had an opportunity, a rare opportunity this weekend, to sit down with the syrian dictator Bashar Alassad. Rose asked assad whether he would be willing to give up his chemical weapons. Would you give up chemical weapons if it would prevent the president from authorizing a strike . If that is a deal you would accept. Again, you always imply that we have chemical weapons. I have to, because thats the assumption of the president , that is his assumption and he is the one who will order the strike. Its his problem if he has an assum slgs but for us in syria we have principles. We deal anything to prevent the region from another crazy war. Its not only syria because it will start in syria youll do anything to prevent the region from having another crazy war . Yes. Pelley interview was sunday. Assad at that moment as you saw would not confirm or deny the existence of chemical weapons but in the last 24 hours syria has confirmed that it has chemical weapons and it has pledged to put them under international control. We got more detail on that today from damascus with the syrian foreign minister who made a speech on television. Our Elizabeth Palmer is in damascus tonight and she was there to listen to the speech. Liz, what were some of the details . Well, he was pretty categorical. He said that syria wanted to or would stop making chemical weapons, stop possessing them, and would also hand over the existing stocks into international hands. And he mentioned russia, other countries and the united nations. Now, i asked an opposition politician do you believe it . And he said look, the syrian governments been lying to us for years, but we do believe the russians are serious. And certainly russias reputation as an International Diplomatic heavyweight is at stake here. But just consider the logistics challenge of trying to move International Experts of some kind into a country which coua full blown civil war and many parts of the country are not accessible to the government. So just to guard them is one thing and then, if, as the russians say, the goal is to destroy them, that could take years. Pelley Elizabeth Palmer reporting from the syrian capital damascus tonight. Liz, thank you very much. We also have standing by Major Garrett, our chief White House Correspondent at the white house where the president just wrapped up his speech. Major, the president s speech has been evolving day after day, hour after hour as these rapidly developing events have occurred. Thats right, scott, this was never going to be a speech calling for war, but it was going to be a speech originally intended as a call to arms to confront syria. Now its a speech about the importance of this issue but also the time needed to pursue diplomacy. The white house is skeptical this Diplomatic Initiative from the russians will work but it knows it was in very serious political jeopardy in the house and senate and could not win a vote this week. So these two things now dove tail. Time to pursue a diplomatic option and time to sell the country more convincingly, the white house hopes, on the necessity of action sometime if diplomacy fails. That was the big effort behind tonights speech. Pelley Major Garrett at the white house. Major, thank you very much. Joining us now is bob schieffer, our chief washington correspondent and the anchor of face the nation. Bob, what did you notice in the president s speech . Schieffer well, this is not the speech that at the b