US would go it alone in Syria, but strike likely delayed

The Obama administration said Wednesday that it would go it alone in taking action against Syria as President Obama said the U.S. has “concluded” that the Syrian government carried out a chemical attack last week and Russia stymied efforts to pass a U.N. resolution authorizing military action.

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” Obama said in his lengthiest comments yet about the chemical attack during an interview with PBS’ “Newshour.” “And if that’s so, then there needs to be international consequences.”

Even though Britain was one of the most aggressive U.S. allies in calling for a military response to the attack, it complicated the timing of a response Wednesday by submitting a draft resolution to the U.N. Security Council that would have authorized the use of military force against Syria.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

As expected, Russia objected to military intervention and prevented the five-member security council from approving the resolution. Russia and China have blocked previous attempts to sanction the Assad government and even prevented the U.N. from releasing a statement condemning the use of chemical weapons without placing blame on Assad’s forces.

Britain signaled late Wednesday that it would wait for a U.N. investigation into the use of chemical weapons near Damascus before holding a parliamentary vote on the use of force in Syria, a prospect that pushes a military strike further down the road.

A State Department spokeswoman said the U.S. would not be delayed by U.N. inaction.

“We cannot be held up in responding by Russia’s continued intransigence at the United Nations … the situation is so serious that it demands a response,” Marie Harf told reporters.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/us-would-go-it-alone-in-syria-but-strike-likely-delayed/article/2534842

The US has so-o-o-o much to gain by military action against Syria.
 

Two articles today:
 
"Barack Obama's plans for air strikes against Syria were thrown into disarray on Thursday night after the British parliament unexpectedly rejected a motion designed to pave the way to authorizing the UK's participation in military action..."
The Guardian
 
 
What's So Great About Coalitions?
 
 

"This week the United Kingdom, with the support of the U.S. and France, scrambled -- in vain -- to get the approval of the United Nations Security Council for a military strike on Syria. I can certainly understand why some see this as a legal or political necessity. International law says that nations should seek approval of the Security Council before attacking other nations. That means if the United States attacks Syria without U.N. approval, President Obama will open himself to the charge from the left of being even more of an international war criminal than George W. Bush..."

BHO needs the advice of a war veteran, John F. Kerry.
 

"Russia has just sent their most advanced anti-ship missiles to Syria in a clear warning that any attack against Syria will not go unanswered.

"The New York Times quotes unnamed US officials as saying the missiles could be used to counter any potential future foreign military intervention in Syria. The P-800 Onyx, also known in export markets as Yakhont, English ruby or sapphire, is a Russian/Soviet supersonic anti-ship missile..."
—Redflag News

I got an idea!
 
 
 
Have Obama send Congress a request for war authorization.
 
 
 
...what?