One of the smartest moves our President has ever made!

[frazzled]

7. I have a different analysis

The move was smart because no matter what happens from this point, Obama maintains the moral high ground. He has made two things clear at once: (1) that he can not let an atrocity stand, especially one that the United States (and 98% of the countries in the world) have deemed unacceptable; and (2) that he can not bypass the authority of his presidency and the democratic process.

So whether Congress votes to proceed or not proceed, Obama has made his own position clear and will win any moral argument. Despite the scurrilous talk here on DU, this man bases his decisions on principles. Nonproliferation treaties (and related treaties relating to chemical weapons) have been his cause since before entering Congress. They remain his principal motivation in this situation.

Congress may well vote not to proceed. And then we all must ask ourselves where we draw the line on what is permissible; what it would take for us to act. It's a good question that many here seem willing to toss aside in favor of isolationism, conspiracy theories, and just general stupid.

Here's how I feel. I do not want to see a military action, mostly because I'm not seeing what it can accomplish (but then I'm no military strategist; but neither I nor anyone else here has all the strategic facts at their disposal) and because I fear what might ensue. But I also can not abide the use of chemical weapons, and I will never be an apologist for a tyrant like Assad (even as I fear some of the forces that have come to align themselves with the Syrian rebels). It's a no win situation. But so is turning our backs on the use of chemical weapons, under our noses.

But please people, just because you don't want US military action, don't confuse that with support for an intolerable regime.