What is really amazing is that it now seems obvious that Obama had no plan whatsoever to win the vote in Congress.  LBJ must be spinning in his grave. Bill Clinton must be thinking, "How did this train wreck beat Hillary anyway?"

Perhaps it was that His Awesomeness could not envision any but a handful not swayed by his powerful intellect.

I don't know how this proposal doesn't put us in the same position if he uses them again.  Instead of a crossing red line, it will be breaking a weapons ban from a guy whose already used them on his own people, allegedly.

I want nothing to do with Syria, but it seems as if this proposal assumes Assad won't use them again and that if he does, none of the current denials and allegations, from both sides, will come into play.  If anything, this would be a good incentive for the rebels to use them, if they haven't already, knowing the US isn't going to hesitate.

It will delay the bombing, and that's not bad, and there is a sliver of chance it might actually prevent it.

And here we go. Just as the regime change resolution was passed it seems the Obama Administration wants a wider war. Rather than just attacking chemical weapons sites, President Obama has directed the Pentagon to develop an expanded list of potential targets in Syria. The expanded list is to include military units that could be part of an attack using chemical weapons - yes, it is a recipe for regime change.

   Mr. Obama, officials said, is now determined to put more emphasis on the "degrade" part of what the administration has said is the goal of a military strike against Syria -- to "deter and degrade" Mr. Assad's ability to use chemical weapons. That means expanding beyond the 50 or so major sites that were part of the original target list developed with French forces before Mr. Obama delayed action on Saturday to seek Congressional approval of his plan.

I see we are back to Bush-era war semantics. So now "degrade" can justify any use of force. Destroying Assad's entire military - making room for Al Qaeda rebels to take over - would also "degrade" his ability to use chemical weapons. True story.

Assad is likely to repeat that he doesn't have chemical weapons. He is just as likely to refuse to sign any document when under threat by the US. Heads of State have egos, as we all know. They don't like to appear weak. The US knows this.

Or he could say would sign if Israel and Myanmar were to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention - or if absolutely everybody signs - including holdouts Angola, Egypt, North Korea and South Sudan.

Or unless the US and Russia and other members of the nuclear "club" agree to sign a ban on nuclear weapons...

I keep feeling that, if weapons are really the issue, all weapons of mass destruction should be banned. Not just chemical. Nuclear - napalm - biological - anything that can kill more than one person at a time.

But I also keep feeling that the issue is not in fact WMD. It is about our having yet another foothold in the Middle East - and control over their resources - either by conquest, or by regime change.

"To listen to you say there is no good option in Syria, I refuse to believe that," the woman told McCain. "The good option right now is to take Saudi Arabia and Iran and force them to stop supporting the two sides in Syria. And you could do it. You can do it by diplomacy, not bombs, Senator McCain. We cannot afford to shed more Syrian blood."

In response, McCain cited his own trips to the region as proof of his familiarity with the conflict.

LINK

Then it's settled, McCain has been there, never mind she has family living there including a cousin killed by the rebels.

"I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately," respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they "strongly support" any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. "With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment--the perfect moment, really--for the United States to send our legislators to the region."

"In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago," she added.

After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration's attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our "responsibility to protect" the world's innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security.
[...snip...]
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about "red lines." These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?
September 6, 2013

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as "plausible denial."
[...snip]
Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public - and perhaps even you.

[...snip...]

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

link

The UN inspector's report is expected to be released around Sept 15 (in just a week).

"The senior foreign policy official for the European Union, Catherine Ashton, said that it was clear that a large-scale chemical weapons attack had occurred on Aug. 21 and that it was "a blatant violation of international law, a war crime and a crime against humanity."

Ms. Ashton said the evidence also "seems to indicate" that the Syrian government was responsible because it was the only side in the civil war that has chemical weapons and the means of delivering them in such a substantial quantity.

He might even come across as a reasonable thinking man for a few seconds.

He's sinking himself, and he path he's on now is definitely no cakewalk into the history books.

"Don't worry -- this war won't be another Syria."
-- Whoever's president in 2023

Assad and his regime are in survival mode and they will do anything and everything to stay in power because they know if they don't stay in power they will most likely be killed like Saddam and Gaddafi were.

Point being that red lines and international threats are meaningless.   There is no negotiating with Assad because he's 2 years into a civil war he intends to win .   Putin and China have his back and losing means certain death.    The more desperate he gets the more desperate measures he will take.

Wouldn't that be interesting?

Or if he were to say he'd sign if the US and Russia and other members of the nuclear "club" agree to sign a ban on nuclear weapons...

Even more interesting.

This is, as kdog says, just another red line.
Another threat.
Heads of State don't like to be threatened.  

I would think it unlikely Syria would comply.

And then we would bomb after they deny they have weapons?