While the UK calls for a slowdown in the push to punish Bashar al-Assad for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Barack Obama says that “we have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these [attacks] out.”  The President told Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff that this conclusion requires consequences, and that a failure to punish this violation of “international norms” puts the security of the United States at risk:

It might not come as quickly as Obama wants, however. The Atlantic reports that the UK, America’s closest ally, wants to slow things down until David Cameron can give the UN a chance to say no:

The Obama administration’s plans to carry out a limited air strike against Syria may be delayed until Tuesday thanks to political opposition in the U.K. Parliament. How would British opposition to an American military action throw off the whole schedule? The U.S. and the U.K., according to a Guardian report, seem to be jointly pursuing support for a military strike. And while it looks like the president believes he has all the support he needs to move those plans forward, things have become more complicated in the U.K. Because of that, the U.S. is apparently giving Cameron a “lifeline” so he can quell an anticipated “revolt” in Parliament, as opposition to military action in Syria grows there.

That should give Obama a chance to ask Congress for approval, but don’t expect him to make the pitch.  So far, Obama can’t even be bothered to provide proper consultation to the intel committees on Capitol Hill:

U.S. congressional intelligence committee leaders believe the Obama administration has not properly consulted them as the president engages in final deliberations for possible military action in Syria, according to congressional officials.

One of the officials said the administration’s discussions with critical lawmakers, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein and her House counterpart, Mike Rogers, had been limited to “very brief status updates.”

Another official said such talks had largely taken place over unclassified non-secure phone lines, making it difficult to discuss sensitive intelligence findings or details of the administration’s plans for a possible U.S. military response.

Golly, remember when liberals were so concerned about a rush to war and the conservative-imposed “imperial presidency”?  Ed Schultz seems to have time-traveled back to that long-ago era:

Someone need to wake up Ed Van Winkel and remind him who’s been President for the last four-plus years.