Obama said failing to respond to the August 21 attack that Washington blames on President Bashar al-Assad's government and that killed hundreds of children and more than 1,400 people in total, would threaten U.S. national security by increasing the chance of future chemical attacks from the Syrian government, terrorist groups, or other nations. Before leaving for Washington, Obama said at a news conference that he will make his case in an address from the White House on Tuesday, an acknowledgment that his plans remain divisive both abroad and at home. Obama's plan for what he stresses will be "limited and not open-ended" strikes also remains unpopular in the United States. "Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope - designed to deter the Syrian government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so," Obama said.  WASHINGTON President Barack Obama told his war-weary country on Saturday that America needs to use limited military force in Syria to deter future chemical weapons attacks, but said he did not want to enter into another costly and protracted war.
– President Obama didn't exactly return from the G20 summit with a ringing international endorsement to take action against Syria, but he continued making his case before his own nation this morning via his weekly radio address. Obama hit familiar themes, ones he will surely revisit in his speech to the nation Tuesday night, reports Reuters. "This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan." "Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope—designed to deter the Syrian government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so." "I know that the American people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That's why we're not putting our troops in the middle of somebody else's war." As for the G20 summit: Obama got the backing of 10 countries for a statement that says Bashar al-Assad should be held accountable for using chemical weapons, but the statement pointedly fell short of calling for military action, notes the Los Angeles Times, which concludes that the president "fell well short of an international coalition that might help persuade reluctant lawmakers."