to those giving Obama full credit for disarming Syria without violence, I would remind you...

[magical thyme]

162. I don't question that Obama put force on the table.

Initially, Obama wouldn't attack without proof, UN approval, and a coalition.

Then the UN was driven out by the threat of imminent attack, so they couldn't inspect the sites in question to provide proof. (btw, The US claimed 1400 dead, but Doctors without Borders and France said 450.)

Then the UN approval fell by the wayside because it became clear Russian and/or China would veto.

Then the coalition fell apart when the UK voted it down. Only then did Obama say he wouldn't attack without congressional approval.

And then Obama set about his sales push, with the plan to release the report justifying the attack along with half a dozen press interviews scheduled prior to any vote.

In the interim the American people woke up and wrote their representatives in numbers of 100:1 against any attack.

And only then did Kerry make his "off the cuff" remark about syrian handing the chemical weapons to the UN, which Putin grabbed onto and made hay.