“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama 2007.

“The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right. That’s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I’ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.”
Biden 2007

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action."
Obama 2007

Obama may be the follow up to the "boy that cried wolf" -- or we have finally found Saddam's chemical weapons. The rumor, as I recall, was quite a few of Saddam's remaining SCUD missile launchers were transferred to the Syrians too ...

Maybe, the Russians are worried we will discover these unconfirmed weapon's source? How many of these weapons that "do not exist" are in shipping crates from Iran?

Are US made weapons reaching rebel factions via the Sunnis? Saudi Arabia and Egypt come to mind.

John McCain and Lindsay Graham can pound on the table for their political drama all they want -- they are both known assholes.

Lot of room for speculation here ...

So why does the Kremlin back Assad so staunchly?

There are three primary reasons, as illustrated by this report from Krishnadev Calamur of NPR.

1) Strategic: Syria's port of Tartus hosts the only remaining international military base outside of the former Soviet Union.

2) Financial: As of June 2012, Russia?s economic interests in Syria total approximately $20 billion, about $5 billion of which are weapons sales.

3) Philosophical: Andranik Migranyan, director of the New York-based Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, a nongovernmental organization funded by private Russian donors that is considered close to the leadership in Moscow, told NPR's Robert Siegel: "Russia's position is very easy to understand."

"First, Russia is against any regime change from outside of Syria or any other country because according to Russia, any attempt to change the regimes, they are ended up in a chaos and results are quite opposite what were the intentions," Migranyan said. "This was proved in Iraq after the invasions of Americans over there. This was proved in Libya. This was proved in Egypt. And Russia is against principally this regime changes."