A few simple questions about Obama Administration foreign policy "process"

Just a few simple questions come to mind as we watch our President flounder in his effort to figure out how to respond to Assad’s recent use of chemical weapons to massacre his fellow Syrian countrymen (and women and children): • Why is the Obama Administration only now scrambling to rally international support for a military response? • Why is the Administration only now scrambling to rally Congressional support for a military response? • Why is the Administration only now scrambling to develop a legal rationale for a military response? • Before declaring that Assad must go, and later on, that the use or movement of chemical or biological weapons would be a “game changer,” did President Obama follow his much-admired consultative and deliberative method of decision making, and thus, have in mind what sorts of actions the US might take if this red line were crossed? The present circumstances – Assad’s use of chemical weapons – were not inevitable, but surely, reasonably anticipated. Ideological issues aside, the incompetence of the President in foreign policy, as exemplified by the current predicament, should jump to the top of anyone’s list of reasons why he his presidency has diminished our nation. PS – Difficult to know, but is it possible that the British Parliament might have voted differently if Obama had invested more in his relationship with the UK? Indeed, is it possible that a few MP’s had in mind the return of the Winston Churchill bust when they cast their vote not to support President Obama in Syria? PPS (more important) – As others have pointed out, what is Iran to conclude about the possibility of US military action to remove its nuclear weapons capability? Isn’t it abundantly clear now that, even if at some point Obama reluctantly concluded that the time had come to take such action, he would find himself even more hamstrung than he is today?