In the coming days, the U.S. may take action against President Assad's regime in Syria, but why now?
After a year of arguments for and against engaging Assad's regime in Syria while tens of thousands were dying, and two alleged chemical weapons attacks have taken place against the president's direct warning, why only now is the Obama administration considering a strike against Assad?
The Obama administration seems to be putting on its war face, and shouting out, "enough is enough!" That isn't actually the truth, but that's what they're selling to the mainstream media.
Should an attack come, the administration will be quick to point out that absolutely no boots will be on the ground, and that any U.S. military strikes will come from Navy warships and Air Force bombers. They'll state that the war on the ground will have to be won by the rebels, but won't bother mentioning to whom those rebels pledge allegiance.
But the question remains. Why only now are we considering a strike? The answer is simple: The French, and a secret that Democrats do not want getting out.
French President Francois Hollande has stated that the French are also primed for an assault in Syria. The problem that would create for President Obama wouldn't be the attack itself, but how that attack might be conducted.
Military and intelligence analysts have long made the claim that Syria's chemical weapons stockpile has Saddam Hussein's name written all over it. Many believe that Iraq either sold or stashed these weapons in Syria prior to the start of the Iraq war in 2002.
If a French-led military operation set out to secure and seize Assad's chemical weapons rather than simply obliterate them, then analysts' suspicions that those weapons were indeed manufactured and potentially sold by Saddam Hussein's government to Assad might well be confirmed.
It would be a pretty interesting news day if reports flooded in that France had found massive stockpiles of chemical weapons with Iraqi imprints. It would also be an especially tough day for a political party that spent years bashing the Bush administration on chemical weapons in Iraq, and a president who got elected in part by using that very same argument.
What better way, now that there is a potential for the truth to be exposed, for President Obama to guard that secret than to supercede the French and destroy those weapons, under the guise of being the world's leading superpower, saving the lives of poor, innocent Syrians, and protecting Americans from potential proliferation of chemical weapons?
What a bitter irony it would be if President Obama destroyed the evidence that would in some ways exonerate George W.Bush, using the same argument that the former president used to wage war against Iraq.