The Administration has failed utterly to show any reason why the U.S. Should be involved in the conflict. The 1,429 death toll is a clearly a gross exaggeration at best and less than half that figure and a small percentage of the total dead. The claim that "moderates" exist among these "rebels" is the stuff of fiction. John Kerry's grandstanding is about as backwards as his testimony before Congress about the Vietnam War likening American troops to Genghis Khan and his Mongolian hordes. Listening to the likes of Peter King or John McCain shows how irrational and out of touch these people are with reality. McCain's town hall meeting in Arizona was a dismal failure and clearly his constituents don't want military strikes and told him he is in the Senate to represent them but apparently he thinks he is there to represent this fictional moderates in a conflict outside our borders with absolutely no threat or attack on America. The media often will have commentators and they all seem to be in agreement that we should attack. Are we just abandoning and surrendering our troops in Afghanistan...73% of American deaths occurred on Obama's watch. Are we forgetting the folly of Libya?
Well, the media might be a little out of it, but then again, they always are. However, the politicians will be up to speed and taking into consideration all the relevant factors; this is clear by all the time and effort that's gone into this. The use of the word "attacking" would be justified, though a little extreme. When you (physically) punish a child, do you (physically) "attack" the child? I suppose so, but no one ever says attack.
As I say: "Politics is like football; all the fans think they know better and can do better than the players".