What do y'all think? Can we keep it to the actual outcome and effects and away from partisan score keeping? Here is the president's Rose Garden statement from Saturday: "Our intelligence shows the Assad regime and its forces preparing to use chemical weapons, launching rockets in the highly populated suburbs of Damascus, and acknowledging that a chemical weapons attack took place. And all of this corroborates what the world can plainly see -- hospitals overflowing with victims; terrible images of the dead. All told, well over 1,000 people were murdered. Several hundred of them were children -- young girls and boys gassed to death by their own government. This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm. In a world with many dangers, this menace must be confronted...." Full text: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/w...t-obamas-remarks-on-syria.html?ref=middleeast I agree that we are morally compelled to act if we are able without either doing severe damage to Syria the country or the US.