Mr. Obama -- where are you??

Today is Friday, the usual day for new developments in Syria. The demented leader in Damascus, Bashir Assad did not disappoint in that regard. here is the opening of the Reuters report on today's events in Syria:

"Syrian helicopter gunships fired machineguns to disperse a large pro-democracy protest in the town of Maarat al-Numaan on Friday, witnesses said, in the first reported use of air power to quell protests in Syria's uprising....At least five helicopters flew over Maarat al-Numaan and began firing their machineguns to disperse the tens of thousands who marched in the protest," one of the witnesses said by telephone."

Remember that Libya was different from Syria because Gaddafi used air power to kill civilians involved in protests while Assad just used tanks and rifles? Not anymore! At this point, events in Syria are essentially a duplicate of those in Libya that were so heinous that Obama felt the USA had to get involved.

Mr. Obama: we need an explanation of what you are doing. You ignored the War Powers Act to keep US forces fighting in Libya without the legally required Congressional approval. We get no explanation for that. You tell us that the reason for the Libyan intervention was that the government there was killing its own citizens for protesting. The same thing happens in Syria. We still get no explanation why the USA acts in one country but not in the other.

The sad thing is that Syria is much more important than Libya. Syria is the Iranian ally in the Arab world. A change in the Syrian government would probably cut off the terrorists in Hezbollah from their Iranian overlords. A change in Syria would give Lebanon a chance to return to democracy. A change in Syria might make the Palestinians more amenable to having real negotiations with the Israelis. A change in Syria would mean that the main avenue for terrorists into Iraq would be closed. In short, a change in Syria would mean major possible plusses for peace in the Middle East. Of course, change in Syria could bring turmoil, but what is worse: a state like the current Syria that sponsors terrorism against the USA or a state that may suffer from turmoil in the near future?

No matter what one thinks ought be done in Syria, even if you believe the answer is that nothing need be done, Obama owes the American people some explanation of his policy. (I am being charitable; Obama has not policy in Syria.)