Facing a war weary public at home and an irresolute international community, President Obama has decided to take his case for action against Bashar al-Assad to Congress. In an ironic turn of events, the do-nothing Congress had a momentous decision at its doorstep that will impact countless lives in Syria and the region.

For more than two years President Assad of Syria has led the slaughter of his own population without remorse. Approximately 100,000 people have been killed by the regime and over one million children alone have been forced to flee the state. These numbers by themselves are staggering and deserve due attention. When a leader of any state commits these kinds of atrocities against his own people it becomes a moral imperative to intervene. Further, this imperative should strike us at our core not as merely citizens of America, but as members of the human race.

The stupidity of Obama's sanctioned attack on Syria Bob Sheak

Obama appears to be sinking deeper into his war- making plan on Syria. He has probably gone too far to reverse the momentum toward a military strike for which he and his administration are most responsible. But many in Congress seem eager to jump on the bandwagon. Obama worries about his credibility and the credibility of the nation's military might and power to intimidate.

But a diplomatic option is right there, right now, within talking distance, at the G-20 meeting taking place in St. Petersburg, Russia. The US and Russia are the key actors in the terrible Syrian "civil war." They each have important allies - proxies - in the Middle East Region. What could they do? They could influence their respective allies to stop the flow of weapons into Syria. For example, Russia could stops arming Assad. The US could use its considerable influence to stop Saudi Arabia and Qatar from sending arms to its favored "rebel" groups.

Evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" is "no slam dunk," U.S. officials are saying this time around, reversing the claim made about Iraq by then-CIA director George Tenet.

Opposition to a U.S.-led attack on Syria is growing rapidly in Europe and the United States, drawing its strength from public awareness that the case made for attacking Iraq had holes in it.

A majority in the United States, still very much aware of Iraq war deceptions, opposes arming the "rebel" force in Syria, so heavily dominated by foreign fighters and al Qaeda. And a majority opposes U.S. military action in Syria.

But that public opinion is only just beginning to get expressed as activism. With Republicans more willing to actively oppose a war this time, and some section of Democrats still opposed, there's actually potential to build a larger antiwar movement than that of 2003-2006.

Thus far, however, what's discouraging an attack on Syria is the public uproar that was created back then over the disastrous attack on Iraq.

It's 4 a.m. and I can’t sleep, just like 10 years ago when President Bush was telling the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the United States must invade and occupy Iraq to rid humanity of these weapons. I didn’t believe President Bush ten years ago and I resigned as a U.S. diplomat.

Now a decade later, President Obama is telling the world that the use of chemical weapons in Syria by the Assad government must be answered by other weapons, even though the results of the UN inspection team have not been compiled—just as the Bush administration refused to wait for the UN report by the inspectors who had been looking for WMD in Iraq.

Secretary of State John Kerry pronounced that the UN inspectors “can’t tell us anything that we don’t already know.” President Obama says that any U.S. attack on the Assad government will be as punishment, not regime change. The strike will be “limited”—but tell that to the civilians who inevitably die when military attacks take place.

President Bush and his advisors either didn’t know or didn’t care about the probable consequences of their decision to invade and occupy Iraq: