Is There a Win-Win with an Obama Lose-Lose Syrian Missile Attack?

There is a fierce urgency in the air and it is not due to the tragic and deadly Syrian gassing of countless thousands of men, women and children near Damascus. The quandary that President Obama and his administration are faced with is whether Obama must now eat the very words he uttered last August when he warned Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime about not crossing the red line. The president drew a line in the sand and threatened action if chemical weapons were used.

Well, that presidential threat issued by Obama was obviously written with erasable ink, because in the spring of this year, Obama made a face saving announcement that the red line had kind of been crossed, but maybe not. The facts are clear: innocent Syrians were dead and it appeared deadly chemical gas was the means of their murders. Who released the gas and proof of who released the gas is not clear or proven yet. Was it possibly the action of rebels backed and influenced by Al-Qaida operatives?

The case for American military action based upon a “Red Line Doctrine”, that Obama himself seems to water down when needed, is all that Americans have to guide them into another possible Middle Eastern war.

The cogent question of the hour has to be not if the deadly gas was used on the Syrian people, but who released it and how this action triggers a national security missile strike by Obama.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 states clearly that only Congress is granted the legal authority, “To declare War.” Presidents have managed to dance around the edges of the U.S. Constitution like President Lyndon B Johnson did in fabricating the proof which caused congress to support the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” in 1964. Based upon misleading information about North Vietnamese actions, President Johnson convinced congress to pass the Southeast Asia Resolution Act nearly 50 years ago on August 7, 1964.

The result was the loss of 54,000-plus American lives who paid the ultimate price which was a tragic loss of the nation’s most valued treasure.

So, again comes the question, how is this tragedy legally an American national security issue or problem? Or is it not a United Nation’s problem and should it be better discussed in that international venue? This week the United Nations sent inspectors into the region in Syrian where the deadly gas was released. Should Obama put the brakes on listening to the warmongering notions of the likes of people like U.S. Senator McCain?

Remember Obama’s attack on President G.W. Bush about being led to war by possibly sketchy proof? So, again, the same refrain Who released the gas and should America and NATO wait for the UN inspectors’ findings to see if they can determine whether the Syrian government or, the rebels, released the deadly toxins?