Quote from Ricter:
Iirc, Clinton said not intervening in Rwanda was his biggest foreign policy regret.
He was criticized for a slow response to the Bosnian war. Nevertheless, exercising caution by first forming an international consensus and getting the U.N. behind the effort was exactly the right thing to do. His handling of that situation was masterful.
The question of how to intervene should be just as important as whether to intervene at all in Syria's civil war. Not enough consideration has been given to either question.
It was an absurd bit of cockiness for the U.S. to assign culpability for the Syrian Gas attack before the U.N. inspectors were even out of the country, let alone before their report was received. The same kind of cockiness got young George Bush and the country into much trouble over Iraq, when Bush and Cheney completely dismissed the Hans Blitz inspection team, who turned out to be right. Had Bush and Cheney taken the advice of the U.N. inspectors they would have saved between 3 and 4 Trillion dollars, and thousands of lives, and prevented untold destruction of property, including priceless and irreplaceable historical artifacts. The actions of Bush and Cheney in misleading the Congress against both the CIA and U.N. intelligence was truly criminal. Let us not forget the lessons of the past.
I was dismayed to find Sec. of State Kerry discussing this matter before the U.N, Report had been received. This was a diplomatic faux pas on his part. He should have kept quiet until the report is in, even if he believes the U.S. already has the proof it needs.
Without Congressional approval, the President has no authority to use military force against another nation, except in the rare circumstance of an emergency response to an attack. The constitutionally prescribed remedy for a disobedient President is impeachment. The proper outcome in this instance would be conviction, because the President has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. Congress must jealously guard its authority.