The civil war in Syria is none of our business. Countries have had civil wars throughout history, and there's no universal commandment now that states the US must intervene in civil wars if the death count rises. Syrians have to deal with their own problems, and the people of Syria have to decide if they want freedom or to continue living under the suppression of dictators.
Neo-cons and Progressive hawks believe the US can back the right faction of "democratic" rebels, but this is delusional. "Democracy" is not going to prevail in Syria -- it's not prevailing even in Turkey.
Obama now claims a red line has been crossed, that Assad has used chemical weapons to kill 150 people. What about the reports earlier that the rebels used chemical weapons -- what color was that line? Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons and draw NATO into the fight -- Assad is winning the fight at this point, so why risk chemical weapons? And if both sides have used chemical weapons, then why would Obama choose one side over the other?
This appears to be more of a diversion to take the American people's attention off scandals than a well planned, strategic, or even humanitarian, intervention. I'm sure Susan Rice and Samantha Power have a lot to do with this, also. Progressives know that their road to complete control is though foreign interventions and national security propaganda.